On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 20:03:45 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>dgb (David) wrote:
>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean" <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman" <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate newsgroup
>>>>> instead of one dedicated to arguing about creationism.
>>>>
>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>
>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a reality that
>>> conflicting scientific evidence does not exist. But how does he or she
>>> know? When confronted, the first time, with an opinion; a belief; a
>>> hypothesis or a theory, I think most people initially are inclined to
>>> "like or a dislike" the discovery. If a person dislikes the opinion or
>>> theory it's very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
>>>
>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in a
>>> favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive, supportive
>>> evidence. If in this search one happens to discover evidence contrary or
>>> contradictory to the theory, then the propensity is to ignore the
>>> evidence, explain the contrary evidence away, or go searching for some
>>> means to fit the contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to
>>> label the contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>
>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the main
>>> driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming paradigm in
>>> the minds of some people. Again with this approach it's possible to
>>> "prove" anything the heart desires to be real or true. In this sense
>>> evolution becomes an essential part of one's reality and one's identity.
>>>
>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence, there is
>>> the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet found. The final
>>> conclusion becomes central to the paradigm, which takes precedence,
>>> supremacy and priority over everything including opinion, observation,
>>> evidence and facts. With this endeavor it follows that there can be no
>>> contradictory or contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
>>> demonstrates the characteristics of religion. In the US there is the
>>> missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news (gospel)
>>> especially in the American education system. This one sided approach is
>>> strongly demanded and any opposing data or information is met with harsh
>>> condemnation and even to legal renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>
>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious to
>>> criticism, but because of a personal identity with evolution, to attack
>>> evolution is seen as a personal attack, rendering
>>> a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal assaults.
>>
>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>
>> Thank you for posting.
> >
>Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if so
>then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David

First: Opinions, beliefs, and hypotheses are not evidence. By
definition, they aren't even based on evidence. That you continue to
conflate these things with evidence shows you have no idea what
qualifies as evidence, for or against evolution.

Second: I acknowledge the tendency to search for supporting evidence
is a human one, but contrary to the scientific method. Instead, the
scientific method is to design experiments which *disprove*
hypotheses, and by so doing remove that human bias. This difference
is the great strength of the scientific method and the great weakness
of Revealed Truth and eyewitness testimony.

Third: The statement "if it looks designed then it is designed" well
illustrates First and Second, as it relies entirely on mere opinion,
and lacks any requirement for objective evidence to support that
opinion.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On 4 Mar 2024 at 08:25:31 GMT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:

> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Are you a scientist, Jill?

On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 03:25:31 -0500
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 20:03:45 -0500, Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[]
> > >
> >Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
> >designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
> >appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if so
> >then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>
>
> First: Opinions, beliefs, and hypotheses are not evidence. By
> definition, they aren't even based on evidence. That you continue to
> conflate these things with evidence shows you have no idea what
> qualifies as evidence, for or against evolution.
>
> Second: I acknowledge the tendency to search for supporting evidence
> is a human one, but contrary to the scientific method. Instead, the
> scientific method is to design experiments which *disprove*
> hypotheses, and by so doing remove that human bias. This difference
> is the great strength of the scientific method and the great weakness
> of Revealed Truth and eyewitness testimony.
>
> Third: The statement "if it looks designed then it is designed" well
> illustrates First and Second, as it relies entirely on mere opinion,
> and lacks any requirement for objective evidence to support that
> opinion.
>

He's been told often enough. I don't think you'll convince him to do
anything rational, such as examine any real evidence.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 10:44:51 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 03:25:31 -0500
>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 20:03:45 -0500, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>[]
>> > >
>> >Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>> >designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>> >appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if so
>> >then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>>
>>
>> First: Opinions, beliefs, and hypotheses are not evidence. By
>> definition, they aren't even based on evidence. That you continue to
>> conflate these things with evidence shows you have no idea what
>> qualifies as evidence, for or against evolution.
>>
>> Second: I acknowledge the tendency to search for supporting evidence
>> is a human one, but contrary to the scientific method. Instead, the
>> scientific method is to design experiments which *disprove*
>> hypotheses, and by so doing remove that human bias. This difference
>> is the great strength of the scientific method and the great weakness
>> of Revealed Truth and eyewitness testimony.
>>
>> Third: The statement "if it looks designed then it is designed" well
>> illustrates First and Second, as it relies entirely on mere opinion,
>> and lacks any requirement for objective evidence to support that
>> opinion.
>>
>
>He's been told often enough. I don't think you'll convince him to do
>anything rational, such as examine any real evidence.

I accept that I have as much chance to convince R.Dean of anything
rational as I do you.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 20:03:45 -0500, Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean" <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman" <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate newsgroup
>>>>>> instead of one dedicated to arguing about creationism.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>
>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a reality that
>>>> conflicting scientific evidence does not exist. But how does he or she
>>>> know? When confronted, the first time, with an opinion; a belief; a
>>>> hypothesis or a theory, I think most people initially are inclined to
>>>> "like or a dislike" the discovery. If a person dislikes the opinion or
>>>> theory it's very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
>>>>
>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in a
>>>> favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive, supportive
>>>> evidence. If in this search one happens to discover evidence contrary or
>>>> contradictory to the theory, then the propensity is to ignore the
>>>> evidence, explain the contrary evidence away, or go searching for some
>>>> means to fit the contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to
>>>> label the contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the main
>>>> driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming paradigm in
>>>> the minds of some people. Again with this approach it's possible to
>>>> "prove" anything the heart desires to be real or true. In this sense
>>>> evolution becomes an essential part of one's reality and one's identity.
>>>>
>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence, there is
>>>> the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet found. The final
>>>> conclusion becomes central to the paradigm, which takes precedence,
>>>> supremacy and priority over everything including opinion, observation,
>>>> evidence and facts. With this endeavor it follows that there can be no
>>>> contradictory or contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
>>>> demonstrates the characteristics of religion. In the US there is the
>>>> missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news (gospel)
>>>> especially in the American education system. This one sided approach is
>>>> strongly demanded and any opposing data or information is met with harsh
>>>> condemnation and even to legal renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>
>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious to
>>>> criticism, but because of a personal identity with evolution, to attack
>>>> evolution is seen as a personal attack, rendering
>>>> a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal assaults.
>>>
>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>
>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>
>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if so
>> then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>
>
> First: Opinions, beliefs, and hypotheses are not evidence. By
> definition, they aren't even based on evidence. That you continue to
> conflate these things with evidence shows you have no idea what
> qualifies as evidence, for or against evolution.
>
Perhaps you did not read what I wrote. Theories are the result of what's
seen as evidence. I made references to evidence. Theories don't just
appear out of opinion or beliefs, but rather from what is seen as evidence.
>
> Second: I acknowledge the tendency to search for supporting evidence
> is a human one, but contrary to the scientific method. Instead, the
> scientific method is to design experiments which *disprove*
> hypotheses, and by so doing remove that human bias. This difference
> is the great strength of the scientific method and the great weakness
> of Revealed Truth and eyewitness testimony.
>
Scientist are human too, how many times through out history have
scientist arrived at conclusions only to reverse them as evidence is
increases.
I made no reverence to either revealed truth or eyewitness testimony.
So, what was you point?
>
> Third: The statement "if it looks designed then it is designed" well
> illustrates First and Second, as it relies entirely on mere opinion,
> and lacks any requirement for objective evidence to support that
> opinion.
>
If it looks design then, the tendency to search for alternative
explanations within the scope of naturalism. In any case, I was
paraphrasing something Richard Dawkins wrote.
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>

On 3/4/24 7:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
> Scientist are human too, how many times through out history have
> scientist arrived at conclusions only to reverse them as evidence is
> increases.

After a consensus has been reached and held for over a century? Zero
times, that I can think of. (At least, since 1834, when the word
"scientist" was coined.)

There probably are a handful of such cases in specialist fields, where
the number of qualified experts capable of evaluating the evidence
varied from zero to a few dozen. But not in widely-known important
fields. Can you think of any?

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 07:39:08 -0500
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 10:44:51 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 03:25:31 -0500
> >jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 20:03:45 -0500, Ron Dean
> >> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >[]
[]

> >He's been told often enough. I don't think you'll convince him to do
> >anything rational, such as examine any real evidence.
>
>
> I accept that I have as much chance to convince R.Dean of anything
> rational as I do you.
>
Try me. Convince me you wish to oppose woolly-thinking with rationality;
you could start by learning to snip.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 03:25:31 -0500
> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 20:03:45 -0500, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> []
>>>>
>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if so
>>> then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>>
>>
>> First: Opinions, beliefs, and hypotheses are not evidence. By
>> definition, they aren't even based on evidence. That you continue to
>> conflate these things with evidence shows you have no idea what
>> qualifies as evidence, for or against evolution.
>>
>> Second: I acknowledge the tendency to search for supporting evidence
>> is a human one, but contrary to the scientific method. Instead, the
>> scientific method is to design experiments which *disprove*
>> hypotheses, and by so doing remove that human bias. This difference
>> is the great strength of the scientific method and the great weakness
>> of Revealed Truth and eyewitness testimony.
>>
>> Third: The statement "if it looks designed then it is designed" well
>> illustrates First and Second, as it relies entirely on mere opinion,
>> and lacks any requirement for objective evidence to support that
>> opinion.
>>
>
> He's been told often enough. I don't think you'll convince him to do
> anything rational, such as examine any real evidence.
>
It's possible to "prove" to yourself the validity or the truth or
virtually anything when your search is only for positive, supportive
scientific evidence of a position that you want to believe. I would bet
this describers you! I seriously doubt that you can list any scientific
evidence or scientific arguments that's contrary to evolution or that
counters evolutionary theory. To search just for supportive evidence is
neither justified or honest!

>
>
>

Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 03:25:31 -0500
> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 20:03:45 -0500, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> []
>>>>
>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if so
>>> then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>>
>>
>> First: Opinions, beliefs, and hypotheses are not evidence. By
>> definition, they aren't even based on evidence. That you continue to
>> conflate these things with evidence shows you have no idea what
>> qualifies as evidence, for or against evolution.
>>
>> Second: I acknowledge the tendency to search for supporting evidence
>> is a human one, but contrary to the scientific method. Instead, the
>> scientific method is to design experiments which *disprove*
>> hypotheses, and by so doing remove that human bias. This difference
>> is the great strength of the scientific method and the great weakness
>> of Revealed Truth and eyewitness testimony.
>>
>> Third: The statement "if it looks designed then it is designed" well
>> illustrates First and Second, as it relies entirely on mere opinion,
>> and lacks any requirement for objective evidence to support that
>> opinion.
>>
>
> He's been told often enough. I don't think you'll convince him to do
> anything rational, such as examine any real evidence.
>
You think rational means to search for supportive evidence _only_ .
Which is exactly what you do, and you think that rational! It is NOT!
>
>

jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 10:44:51 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 03:25:31 -0500
>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 20:03:45 -0500, Ron Dean
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> []
>>>>>
>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if so
>>>> then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>>>
>>>
>>> First: Opinions, beliefs, and hypotheses are not evidence. By
>>> definition, they aren't even based on evidence. That you continue to
>>> conflate these things with evidence shows you have no idea what
>>> qualifies as evidence, for or against evolution.
>>>
>>> Second: I acknowledge the tendency to search for supporting evidence
>>> is a human one, but contrary to the scientific method. Instead, the
>>> scientific method is to design experiments which *disprove*
>>> hypotheses, and by so doing remove that human bias. This difference
>>> is the great strength of the scientific method and the great weakness
>>> of Revealed Truth and eyewitness testimony.
>>>
>>> Third: The statement "if it looks designed then it is designed" well
>>> illustrates First and Second, as it relies entirely on mere opinion,
>>> and lacks any requirement for objective evidence to support that
>>> opinion.
>>>
>>
>> He's been told often enough. I don't think you'll convince him to do
>> anything rational, such as examine any real evidence.
>
>
> I accept that I have as much chance to convince R.Dean of anything
> rational as I do you.
>
You two are cut from the same cloth. You think that rational means
searching for supportive or positive scientific evidence. Chances are
you would be hard pressed to list any counter scientific evidence to
evolution.
This is false!
>
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 10:37:34 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 20:03:45 -0500, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>> On 3 Mar 2024 at 19:39:32 GMT, "Ron Dean" <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 15:15:57 GMT, "John Harshman" <john.harshman@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/2/24 12:50 AM, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snipped]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps you could post this in some other, more appropriate newsgroup
>>>>>>> instead of one dedicated to arguing about creationism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe in God :-D
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's a common claim among people who accept evolution as a reality that
>>>>> conflicting scientific evidence does not exist. But how does he or she
>>>>> know? When confronted, the first time, with an opinion; a belief; a
>>>>> hypothesis or a theory, I think most people initially are inclined to
>>>>> "like or a dislike" the discovery. If a person dislikes the opinion or
>>>>> theory it's very often ignored, dismissed and forgotten.
>>>>>
>>>>> By contrast, if a theory is appreciated or liked or seen as in a
>>>>> favorable light, then the tendency is to search for positive, supportive
>>>>> evidence. If in this search one happens to discover evidence contrary or
>>>>> contradictory to the theory, then the propensity is to ignore the
>>>>> evidence, explain the contrary evidence away, or go searching for some
>>>>> means to fit the contradictory evidence into the theory or finally to
>>>>> label the contradictory evidence religious data or religiously motivated.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that religious antagonism or resentment is one of the main
>>>>> driving force enabling evolution to become an overwhelming paradigm in
>>>>> the minds of some people. Again with this approach it's possible to
>>>>> "prove" anything the heart desires to be real or true. In this sense
>>>>> evolution becomes an essential part of one's reality and one's identity.
>>>>>
>>>>> And where there is an absence of expected or required evidence, there is
>>>>> the trust that the evidence exist, but just not yet found. The final
>>>>> conclusion becomes central to the paradigm, which takes precedence,
>>>>> supremacy and priority over everything including opinion, observation,
>>>>> evidence and facts. With this endeavor it follows that there can be no
>>>>> contradictory or contrary evidence against evolution. In this evolution
>>>>> demonstrates the characteristics of religion. In the US there is the
>>>>> missionary zeal to educate, IE push evolution as good news (gospel)
>>>>> especially in the American education system. This one sided approach is
>>>>> strongly demanded and any opposing data or information is met with harsh
>>>>> condemnation and even to legal renderings by judicial commitments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Science is supposed t be impersonal, unemotional and impervious to
>>>>> criticism, but because of a personal identity with evolution, to attack
>>>>> evolution is seen as a personal attack, rendering
>>>>> a wrath of embittered, spiteful and rhetorical verbal assaults.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting thoughts, Ron.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for posting.
>>>>
>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if so
>>> then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>>
>>
>> First: Opinions, beliefs, and hypotheses are not evidence. By
>> definition, they aren't even based on evidence. That you continue to
>> conflate these things with evidence shows you have no idea what
>> qualifies as evidence, for or against evolution.
> >
>Perhaps you did not read what I wrote. Theories are the result of what's
>seen as evidence. I made references to evidence. Theories don't just
>appear out of opinion or beliefs, but rather from what is seen as evidence.

I quoted what someone posting as Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
posted. If that is you, then the quoted text shows I read and
responded precisely to what you wrote, which conflates opinions,
beliefs, and hypotheses with evidence and theories. What you, Ron
Dean continue to conveniently ignore is these categories are not the
same, and by so doing continue to show you have no idea what qualifies
as evidence.

Contrary to what you seem to think, theories are not just collections
of evidence aka stamp collecting, but instead are supporting
explanations for all of the evidence, in contrast to cherrypicking the
evidence that fits your preferred worldview.

>> Second: I acknowledge the tendency to search for supporting evidence
>> is a human one, but contrary to the scientific method. Instead, the
>> scientific method is to design experiments which *disprove*
>> hypotheses, and by so doing remove that human bias. This difference
>> is the great strength of the scientific method and the great weakness
>> of Revealed Truth and eyewitness testimony.
> >
>Scientist are human too, how many times through out history have
>scientist arrived at conclusions only to reverse them as evidence is
>increases.

Scientists reverse themselves not because they are human, but because
of their commitment to the scientific method. You should try it
sometime, if only for the novelty of the experience.

>I made no reverence to either revealed truth or eyewitness testimony.
>So, what was you point?

The statement "if it looks designed then it is designed" refers to
revealed truth and eyewitness testimony. That you deny it shows you
don't understand what you're saying. And since you asked, that's my
point. You're welcome.

>> Third: The statement "if it looks designed then it is designed" well
>> illustrates First and Second, as it relies entirely on mere opinion,
>> and lacks any requirement for objective evidence to support that
>> opinion.
>>
>If it looks design then, the tendency to search for alternative
>explanations within the scope of naturalism.

The reason for that is because supernaturalism explains nothing. Your
unseen, unknown, unspecified designer could have done anything,
including made the evidence look as if they fit within the scope of
naturalism.

>In any case, I was
>paraphrasing something Richard Dawkins wrote.

Incorrect. As has been pointed out many times by many posters over
the years, you're quotemining something Richard Dawkins wrote.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 02:43:40 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 10:44:51 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 03:25:31 -0500
>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 20:03:45 -0500, Ron Dean
>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>> []
>>>>>>
>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if so
>>>>> then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First: Opinions, beliefs, and hypotheses are not evidence. By
>>>> definition, they aren't even based on evidence. That you continue to
>>>> conflate these things with evidence shows you have no idea what
>>>> qualifies as evidence, for or against evolution.
>>>>
>>>> Second: I acknowledge the tendency to search for supporting evidence
>>>> is a human one, but contrary to the scientific method. Instead, the
>>>> scientific method is to design experiments which *disprove*
>>>> hypotheses, and by so doing remove that human bias. This difference
>>>> is the great strength of the scientific method and the great weakness
>>>> of Revealed Truth and eyewitness testimony.
>>>>
>>>> Third: The statement "if it looks designed then it is designed" well
>>>> illustrates First and Second, as it relies entirely on mere opinion,
>>>> and lacks any requirement for objective evidence to support that
>>>> opinion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He's been told often enough. I don't think you'll convince him to do
>>> anything rational, such as examine any real evidence.
>>
>>
>> I accept that I have as much chance to convince R.Dean of anything
>> rational as I do you.
>>
>You two are cut from the same cloth. You think that rational means
>searching for supportive or positive scientific evidence. Chances are
>you would be hard pressed to list any counter scientific evidence to
>evolution.
>This is false!

You continue to bear false witness. Why is that?

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 02:43:40 -0500, Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 10:44:51 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 03:25:31 -0500
>>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 20:03:45 -0500, Ron Dean
>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> []
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if so
>>>>>> then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First: Opinions, beliefs, and hypotheses are not evidence. By
>>>>> definition, they aren't even based on evidence. That you continue to
>>>>> conflate these things with evidence shows you have no idea what
>>>>> qualifies as evidence, for or against evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Second: I acknowledge the tendency to search for supporting evidence
>>>>> is a human one, but contrary to the scientific method. Instead, the
>>>>> scientific method is to design experiments which *disprove*
>>>>> hypotheses, and by so doing remove that human bias. This difference
>>>>> is the great strength of the scientific method and the great weakness
>>>>> of Revealed Truth and eyewitness testimony.
>>>>>
>>>>> Third: The statement "if it looks designed then it is designed" well
>>>>> illustrates First and Second, as it relies entirely on mere opinion,
>>>>> and lacks any requirement for objective evidence to support that
>>>>> opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He's been told often enough. I don't think you'll convince him to do
>>>> anything rational, such as examine any real evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>> I accept that I have as much chance to convince R.Dean of anything
>>> rational as I do you.
>>>
>> You two are cut from the same cloth. You think that rational means
>> searching for supportive or positive scientific evidence. Chances are
>> you would be hard pressed to list any counter scientific evidence to
>> evolution.
>> This is false!
>
>
> You continue to bear false witness. Why is that?
>
You have proven my point. You've shown that you have found supportive
evidence. I see nothing about counter scientific evidence.

I will admit, I recognize and acknowledge the existence of some of the
most supportive evidence for evolution, beginning with the rise of
increasing levels of complexity of living organisms over time from
younger to older strata IE from single bacteria like single cell
organisms to ever increasingly complex multiple cellular organisms to
today's life forms. A second and highly supportive evidence is the
universality of the DNA information code. Every living thing, from the
kingdoms through phylum class etc to species is expressed by the same code.
Another similar and unique characteristic of all life is the fact that
of the hundred or so natural occurring amino acids only the same 20
amino acids are utilized by living organisms. And of course we have the
evidence of the horse series from a very small animal to larger and
larger animals with hoofs to ever increasing sizes of horses and varying
hoofs to today's large horse families. And more recently there is the
whale series from an land animal such as bear sized or hippopotamus size
animal to the giant ocean creatures of today. And of course there is
the sequences of sequential intermediate and transitional forms down
through time and the earth's rock strata.

There are other claims, but I think the above mentioned evidences are
among the most rational and
reasonable examples of supportive evidence for evolution.

>
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:34 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 02:43:40 -0500, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jillery wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 10:44:51 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 03:25:31 -0500
>>>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 20:03:45 -0500, Ron Dean
>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> []
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if so
>>>>>>> then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First: Opinions, beliefs, and hypotheses are not evidence. By
>>>>>> definition, they aren't even based on evidence. That you continue to
>>>>>> conflate these things with evidence shows you have no idea what
>>>>>> qualifies as evidence, for or against evolution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second: I acknowledge the tendency to search for supporting evidence
>>>>>> is a human one, but contrary to the scientific method. Instead, the
>>>>>> scientific method is to design experiments which *disprove*
>>>>>> hypotheses, and by so doing remove that human bias. This difference
>>>>>> is the great strength of the scientific method and the great weakness
>>>>>> of Revealed Truth and eyewitness testimony.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Third: The statement "if it looks designed then it is designed" well
>>>>>> illustrates First and Second, as it relies entirely on mere opinion,
>>>>>> and lacks any requirement for objective evidence to support that
>>>>>> opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He's been told often enough. I don't think you'll convince him to do
>>>>> anything rational, such as examine any real evidence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I accept that I have as much chance to convince R.Dean of anything
>>>> rational as I do you.
>>>>
>>> You two are cut from the same cloth. You think that rational means
>>> searching for supportive or positive scientific evidence. Chances are
>>> you would be hard pressed to list any counter scientific evidence to
>>> evolution.
>>> This is false!
>>
>>
>> You continue to bear false witness. Why is that?
> >
>You have proven my point. You've shown that you have found supportive
>evidence. I see nothing about counter scientific evidence.

Non-sequiturs do not an argument make. You made the issue here not
about "counter-scientific evidence", but about you posting asinine
ad-hominems you don't even try to back up.

>I will admit, I recognize and acknowledge the existence of some of the
>most supportive evidence for evolution, beginning with the rise of
>increasing levels of complexity of living organisms over time from
>younger to older strata IE from single bacteria like single cell
>organisms to ever increasingly complex multiple cellular organisms to
>today's life forms. A second and highly supportive evidence is the
>universality of the DNA information code. Every living thing, from the
>kingdoms through phylum class etc to species is expressed by the same code.
>Another similar and unique characteristic of all life is the fact that
>of the hundred or so natural occurring amino acids only the same 20
>amino acids are utilized by living organisms. And of course we have the
>evidence of the horse series from a very small animal to larger and
>larger animals with hoofs to ever increasing sizes of horses and varying
>hoofs to today's large horse families. And more recently there is the
>whale series from an land animal such as bear sized or hippopotamus size
> animal to the giant ocean creatures of today. And of course there is
>the sequences of sequential intermediate and transitional forms down
>through time and the earth's rock strata.
>
>There are other claims, but I think the above mentioned evidences are
>among the most rational and
>reasonable examples of supportive evidence for evolution.

That's nice. Now how about you post a rational and reasonable example
of supportive evidence for design? Hint: "if it looks to be designed
then it is designed" doesn't qualify.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On 3/4/24 3:30 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> > [...]
> It's possible to "prove" to yourself the validity or the truth or
> virtually anything when your search is only for positive, supportive
> scientific evidence of a position that you want to believe. I would bet
> this describers you! I seriously doubt that you can list any scientific
> evidence or scientific arguments that's contrary to evolution or that
> counters evolutionary theory. To search just for supportive evidence is
> neither justified or honest!

Horizontal gene transfer.

Your turn. List the scientific evidence that's contrary to intelligent
design.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On 3/4/24 11:35 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 03:25:31 -0500
>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 20:03:45 -0500, Ron Dean
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> []
>>>>>
>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if so
>>>> then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>>>
>>>
>>> First: Opinions, beliefs, and hypotheses are not evidence.  By
>>> definition, they aren't even based on evidence.  That you continue to
>>> conflate these things with evidence shows you have no idea what
>>> qualifies as evidence, for or against evolution.
>>>
>>> Second: I acknowledge the tendency to search for supporting evidence
>>> is a human one, but contrary to the scientific method.  Instead, the
>>> scientific method is to design experiments which *disprove*
>>> hypotheses, and by so doing remove that human bias.  This difference
>>> is the great strength of the scientific method and the great weakness
>>> of Revealed Truth and eyewitness testimony.
>>>
>>> Third: The statement "if it looks designed then it is designed" well
>>> illustrates First and Second, as it relies entirely on mere opinion,
>>> and lacks any requirement for objective evidence to support that
>>> opinion.
>>>
>>
>> He's been told often enough. I don't think you'll convince him to do
>> anything rational, such as examine any real evidence.
>>
> You think rational means to search for supportive evidence _only_ .
> Which is exactly what you do, and you think that rational! It is NOT!

Actually, the scientific method is to make a hypothesis, look at the
implications of it being true and of it being false, and conduct an
experiment to test between those options.

Do you see anything wrong with that approach?

Because the use of that approach is why evolution is accepted. And the
rejection of even considering that approach is why intelligent design is
not.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/4/24 7:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
> [...]
>> Scientist are human too, how many times through out history have
>> scientist arrived at conclusions only to reverse them as evidence is
>> increases.
>
> After a consensus has been reached and held for over a century?  Zero
> times, that I can think of.  (At least, since 1834, when the word
> "scientist" was coined.)
>
> There probably are a handful of such cases in specialist fields, where
> the number of qualified experts capable of evaluating the evidence
> varied from zero to a few dozen.  But not in widely-known important
> fields.  Can you think of any?
>
Listed here are 10 theories that were later debunked.
https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/
And there are some that were falsified or superseded by further discoveries.

But, as I pointed out above, scientist are human committing many of the
same transgressions and having the same moral challenges as the rest of
us humans have. Perhaps, the most devastating factor of all are the
numerous frauds in science by some scientist, beginning with the cold
fusion hoax. There are many other frauds in science and in different
fields of science that were, in many cases, I think were exposed by
other scientist.
Wikipedia list numerous cases of what they labeled "misconduct" by
scientist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents
With Just a little research there is a world of information about fraud
in research, experiments scientific reports, and some doctoring the
results because of the quest for funding and grants.

But the problem with evolution is it's sacrosanct, You do not question
or challenge evolution. To do so, you are to be looked upon as being so
deluded or dishonest that there's no need not waste time with them. So,
in this light, it's embarrassing to ask a question that question or
challenge the theory of evolution. But considering that other branches
are subject fraud and many of these misconducts are detected and
discounted, suppose in some crucial respects, evolution is not entirely
accurate, how will such misconducts be determined. Truth is they
_will_not_ be. As I've already pointed out evolution is sacrosanct.

On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 07:56:08 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:

>On 3/4/24 11:35 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 03:25:31 -0500
>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 20:03:45 -0500, Ron Dean
>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>> []
>>>>>>
>>>>> Evidence for design in nature is overwhelming. If it looks to be
>>>>> designed then it is designed. But if you trust evolutionist, what
>>>>> appears to be design is just an illusion, a chimera or a mirage, if so
>>>>> then it's a deliberate and willful deception by God. . David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First: Opinions, beliefs, and hypotheses are not evidence.  By
>>>> definition, they aren't even based on evidence.  That you continue to
>>>> conflate these things with evidence shows you have no idea what
>>>> qualifies as evidence, for or against evolution.
>>>>
>>>> Second: I acknowledge the tendency to search for supporting evidence
>>>> is a human one, but contrary to the scientific method.  Instead, the
>>>> scientific method is to design experiments which *disprove*
>>>> hypotheses, and by so doing remove that human bias.  This difference
>>>> is the great strength of the scientific method and the great weakness
>>>> of Revealed Truth and eyewitness testimony.
>>>>
>>>> Third: The statement "if it looks designed then it is designed" well
>>>> illustrates First and Second, as it relies entirely on mere opinion,
>>>> and lacks any requirement for objective evidence to support that
>>>> opinion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He's been told often enough. I don't think you'll convince him to do
>>> anything rational, such as examine any real evidence.
>>>
>> You think rational means to search for supportive evidence _only_ .
>> Which is exactly what you do, and you think that rational! It is NOT!
>
>Actually, the scientific method is to make a hypothesis, look at the
>implications of it being true and of it being false, and conduct an
>experiment to test between those options.

IIUC you mean the above to be a more comprehensive version of what I
wrote, while both make the relevant point that searching strictly for
positive evidence of hypotheses is contrary to the scientific method.

>Do you see anything wrong with that approach?
>
>Because the use of that approach is why evolution is accepted. And the
>rejection of even considering that approach is why intelligent design is
>not.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 07:52:14 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:

>On 3/4/24 3:30 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> > [...]
>> It's possible to "prove" to yourself the validity or the truth or
>> virtually anything when your search is only for positive, supportive
>> scientific evidence of a position that you want to believe. I would bet
>> this describers you! I seriously doubt that you can list any scientific
>> evidence or scientific arguments that's contrary to evolution or that
>> counters evolutionary theory. To search just for supportive evidence is
>> neither justified or honest!
>
>Horizontal gene transfer.
>
>Your turn. List the scientific evidence that's contrary to intelligent
>design.

Actually, horizontal gene transfer is not contrary to evolution or
evolutionary theory. At most, it's contrary to an unnecessarily
restrictive understanding of natural selection/biological inheritance.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On 3/6/24 8:06 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 3/4/24 7:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Scientist are human too, how many times through out history have
>>> scientist arrived at conclusions only to reverse them as evidence is
>>> increases.
>>
>> After a consensus has been reached and held for over a century?  Zero
>> times, that I can think of.  (At least, since 1834, when the word
>> "scientist" was coined.)
>>
>> There probably are a handful of such cases in specialist fields, where
>> the number of qualified experts capable of evaluating the evidence
>> varied from zero to a few dozen.  But not in widely-known important
>> fields.  Can you think of any?
>>
> Listed here are 10 theories that were later debunked.
> https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/
> And there are some that were falsified or superseded by further
> discoveries.

That list helps make my point. Half of the items on it are from before
the scientific era (note, for example, that phrenology was already dying
by the 1834 date I gave above), and the other half were either quickly
discredited or never accepted by the scientific consensus in the first
place. Probably the best example from your list, Martian canals, was
proposed first in 1877 and under severe criticism already by 1907. The
first item on the list, Pons & Fleishman's cold fusion, never got
scientific acceptance in the first place.

> But, as I pointed out above, scientist are human committing many of the
> same transgressions and having the same moral challenges as the rest of
> us humans have. Perhaps, the most devastating factor of all are the
> numerous frauds in science by some scientist, beginning with the cold
> fusion hoax. There are many other frauds in science and in different
> fields of science that were, in many cases, I think were exposed by
> other scientist.
> Wikipedia list numerous cases of what they labeled "misconduct" by
> scientist.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents
> With Just a little research there is a world of information about fraud
> in research, experiments scientific reports, and some doctoring the
> results because of the quest for funding and grants.
>
> But the problem with evolution is it's sacrosanct, [...]

Sorry, your hypothesis of sacrosanctity is falsified by evidence. If
evolution were sacrosanct, it would not have been falsified at least
twice (and revised into a new theory with the problem fixed, and much in
common with the old, even the original, theory).

Also, evolution is not only a theory in biology; it is a tool in
engineering. Engineers don't use things that don't work, at least not
for very long.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/6/24 8:06 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 3/4/24 7:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Scientist are human too, how many times through out history have
>>>> scientist arrived at conclusions only to reverse them as evidence is
>>>> increases.
>>>
>>> After a consensus has been reached and held for over a century?  Zero
>>> times, that I can think of.  (At least, since 1834, when the word
>>> "scientist" was coined.)
>>>
>>> There probably are a handful of such cases in specialist fields,
>>> where the number of qualified experts capable of evaluating the
>>> evidence varied from zero to a few dozen.  But not in widely-known
>>> important fields.  Can you think of any?
>>>
>> Listed here are 10 theories that were later debunked.
>> https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/
>>
>> And there are some that were falsified or superseded by further
>> discoveries.
>
> That list helps make my point. Half of the items on it are from before
> the scientific era (note, for example, that phrenology was already dying
> by the 1834 date I gave above), and the other half were either quickly
> discredited or never accepted by the scientific consensus in the first
> place. Probably the best example from your list, Martian canals, was
> proposed first in 1877 and under severe criticism already by 1907. The
> first item on the list, Pons & Fleishman's cold fusion, never got
> scientific acceptance in the first place.
>
>> But, as I pointed out above, scientist are human committing many of
>> the same transgressions and having the same moral challenges as the
>> rest of us humans have. Perhaps, the most devastating factor of all
>> are the numerous frauds in science by some scientist, beginning with
>> the cold fusion hoax. There are many other frauds in science and in
>> different fields of science that were, in many cases, I think were
>> exposed by other scientist.
>> Wikipedia list numerous cases of what they labeled "misconduct" by
>> scientist.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents
>> With Just a little research there is a world of information about
>> fraud in research, experiments scientific reports, and some doctoring
>> the results because of the quest for funding and grants.
>>
>> But the problem with evolution is it's sacrosanct, [...]
>
> Sorry, your hypothesis of sacrosanctity is falsified by evidence. If
> evolution were sacrosanct, it would not have been falsified at least
> twice (and revised into a new theory with the problem fixed, and much in
> common with the old, even the original, theory).
>
> Also, evolution is not only a theory in biology; it is a tool in
> engineering. Engineers don't use things that don't work, at least not
> for very long.
>
As the Wikipedia list dozens case of "misconduct" in the various
branches of Science. The fact that there is only one or two instances of
reported fraud in evolution is highly suspicious, considering the large
number of science researchers. But as I pointed out before if, as a
scientist, you seriously want to believe something if true, then in the
search for supportive evidence, contrary evidence and conflicting data
is uncovered, scientist are humans too, there is a strong tendency to
invent reasons and justifications in which the unwelcome evidence is
overlooked, discarded or it is somehow integrated in evolutionary
theory. And when there is a large group of scientist committed to
evolution I suspect there are quite a few scientist and other
intellectuals who are in disbelief of evolution, but do not reveal their
doubts for fear of retribution. But for every individual referenced
in this list below, I would bet there are numerous others who fall into
the doubters category, but because of they have no desire or willingness
to face the consequences, they just keep quite.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207

And in fact anyone who doubts or challenges evolution is very frequently
met with ire, scorn and indignation. This I think is a unique reaction,
with evolution. I cannot think of another branch or field of science
such as astronomy, anthropology, sociology etc. that invokes such
acrimony and wrath upon the challengers.

On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:01:12 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 3/6/24 8:06 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/24 7:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Scientist are human too, how many times through out history have
>>>>> scientist arrived at conclusions only to reverse them as evidence is
>>>>> increases.
>>>>
>>>> After a consensus has been reached and held for over a century?  Zero
>>>> times, that I can think of.  (At least, since 1834, when the word
>>>> "scientist" was coined.)
>>>>
>>>> There probably are a handful of such cases in specialist fields,
>>>> where the number of qualified experts capable of evaluating the
>>>> evidence varied from zero to a few dozen.  But not in widely-known
>>>> important fields.  Can you think of any?
>>>>
>>> Listed here are 10 theories that were later debunked.
>>> https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/
>>>
>>> And there are some that were falsified or superseded by further
>>> discoveries.
>>
>> That list helps make my point. Half of the items on it are from before
>> the scientific era (note, for example, that phrenology was already dying
>> by the 1834 date I gave above), and the other half were either quickly
>> discredited or never accepted by the scientific consensus in the first
>> place. Probably the best example from your list, Martian canals, was
>> proposed first in 1877 and under severe criticism already by 1907. The
>> first item on the list, Pons & Fleishman's cold fusion, never got
>> scientific acceptance in the first place.
>>
>>> But, as I pointed out above, scientist are human committing many of
>>> the same transgressions and having the same moral challenges as the
>>> rest of us humans have. Perhaps, the most devastating factor of all
>>> are the numerous frauds in science by some scientist, beginning with
>>> the cold fusion hoax. There are many other frauds in science and in
>>> different fields of science that were, in many cases, I think were
>>> exposed by other scientist.
>>> Wikipedia list numerous cases of what they labeled "misconduct" by
>>> scientist.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents
>>> With Just a little research there is a world of information about
>>> fraud in research, experiments scientific reports, and some doctoring
>>> the results because of the quest for funding and grants.
>>>
>>> But the problem with evolution is it's sacrosanct, [...]
>>
>> Sorry, your hypothesis of sacrosanctity is falsified by evidence. If
>> evolution were sacrosanct, it would not have been falsified at least
>> twice (and revised into a new theory with the problem fixed, and much in
>> common with the old, even the original, theory).
>>
>> Also, evolution is not only a theory in biology; it is a tool in
>> engineering. Engineers don't use things that don't work, at least not
>> for very long.
>>
>As the Wikipedia list dozens case of "misconduct" in the various
>branches of Science. The fact that there is only one or two instances of
>reported fraud in evolution is highly suspicious, considering the large
>number of science researchers. But as I pointed out before if, as a
>scientist, you seriously want to believe something if true, then in the
>search for supportive evidence, contrary evidence and conflicting data
>is uncovered, scientist are humans too, there is a strong tendency to
>invent reasons and justifications in which the unwelcome evidence is
>overlooked, discarded or it is somehow integrated in evolutionary
>theory. And when there is a large group of scientist committed to
>evolution I suspect there are quite a few scientist and other
>intellectuals who are in disbelief of evolution, but do not reveal their
>doubts for fear of retribution. But for every individual referenced
>in this list below, I would bet there are numerous others who fall into
>the doubters category, but because of they have no desire or willingness
>to face the consequences, they just keep quite.
>
>http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207
>
>And in fact anyone who doubts or challenges evolution is very frequently
>met with ire, scorn and indignation. This I think is a unique reaction,
>with evolution. I cannot think of another branch or field of science
>such as astronomy, anthropology, sociology etc. that invokes such
>acrimony and wrath upon the challengers.

Anybody who challenges objective evidence on the basis of an
unspecified, unknown, unseen designer deserve to be, and are rightly,
met with ire, scorn, and indignation, regardless of the field. I know
you know that your claim evolution enjoys some privileged status is
nonsense.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On 3/8/24 1:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 3/6/24 8:06 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/24 7:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Scientist are human too, how many times through out history have
>>>>> scientist arrived at conclusions only to reverse them as evidence
>>>>> is increases.
>>>>
>>>> After a consensus has been reached and held for over a century?
>>>> Zero times, that I can think of.  (At least, since 1834, when the
>>>> word "scientist" was coined.)
>>>>
>>>> There probably are a handful of such cases in specialist fields,
>>>> where the number of qualified experts capable of evaluating the
>>>> evidence varied from zero to a few dozen.  But not in widely-known
>>>> important fields.  Can you think of any?
>>>>
>>> Listed here are 10 theories that were later debunked.
>>> https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/
>>> And there are some that were falsified or superseded by further
>>> discoveries.
>>
>> That list helps make my point. Half of the items on it are from before
>> the scientific era (note, for example, that phrenology was already
>> dying by the 1834 date I gave above), and the other half were either
>> quickly discredited or never accepted by the scientific consensus in
>> the first place. Probably the best example from your list, Martian
>> canals, was proposed first in 1877 and under severe criticism already
>> by 1907. The first item on the list, Pons & Fleishman's cold fusion,
>> never got scientific acceptance in the first place.
>>
>>> But, as I pointed out above, scientist are human committing many of
>>> the same transgressions and having the same moral challenges as the
>>> rest of us humans have. Perhaps, the most devastating factor of all
>>> are the numerous frauds in science by some scientist, beginning with
>>> the cold fusion hoax. There are many other frauds in science and in
>>> different fields of science that were, in many cases, I think were
>>> exposed by other scientist.
>>> Wikipedia list numerous cases of what they labeled "misconduct" by
>>> scientist.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents
>>> With Just a little research there is a world of information about
>>> fraud in research, experiments scientific reports, and some doctoring
>>> the results because of the quest for funding and grants.
>>>
>>> But the problem with evolution is it's sacrosanct, [...]
>>
>> Sorry, your hypothesis of sacrosanctity is falsified by evidence. If
>> evolution were sacrosanct, it would not have been falsified at least
>> twice (and revised into a new theory with the problem fixed, and much
>> in common with the old, even the original, theory).
>>
>> Also, evolution is not only a theory in biology; it is a tool in
>> engineering. Engineers don't use things that don't work, at least not
>> for very long.
>>
> As the Wikipedia list dozens  case of  "misconduct" in the various
> branches of Science. The fact that there is only one or two instances of
> reported fraud in evolution is highly suspicious, considering the large
> number of science researchers.

What large number? Show me the data, don't just make baseless claims
based on your uninformed preconceptions of the field of science.

> But as I pointed out before if, as a
> scientist, you seriously want to believe something if true, then in the
> search for supportive evidence, contrary evidence and conflicting data
> is uncovered, scientist are humans too, there is a strong tendency to
> invent reasons and justifications  in which the unwelcome evidence is
> overlooked, discarded or it is somehow integrated in evolutionary
> theory.

That's like saying, "Professional athletes are humans, too, so they will
have a tendency to laziness, rarely exercising, and will tend to eat
junk food."

If you are a scientist, you learn NOT to want to believe things are
true. You learn to want to CHECK and MAKE SURE.

> And when there is a large group of scientist committed to
> evolution I suspect there are quite a few scientist and other
> intellectuals who are in disbelief of evolution, but do not reveal their
> doubts for fear of retribution. But for every individual referenced
> in this list below, I would bet there are numerous others who fall into
> the doubters category, but because of they have no desire or willingness
> to face the consequences, they just keep quite.

You are lying to yourself.

> http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207
>
> And in fact anyone who doubts or challenges evolution is very frequently
> met with ire, scorn and indignation. This I think is a unique reaction,
> with evolution. I cannot think of another branch or field of science
> such as astronomy, anthropology, sociology etc. that invokes such
> acrimony and wrath upon the challengers.

People tend to get testy when people like you, who know less than
nothing about them or about what they're doing, make up nasty shit and
spread it around. I have seen you yourself react with ire, scorn, and
indignation upon far lesser provocation.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell