Re: Evolution Deniers


<sheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1134504052.326012.88750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> CreateThis wrote:
>> sheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> > VoiceOfReason wrote:
>> >
>> >>Grendel wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Beagle wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>Sorry if this has been raised before, but wouldn't it be better to
>> >>>>formally categorise IDers and Creationists in their many, somewhat
>> >>>>confusing forms as Evolution Deniers? And, yes, I know it echoes
>> >>>>Holocaust Deniers, because I think their intellectual honesty is on
>> >>>>roughly the same level, not to mention the ideological nastiness that
>> >>>>lies (very thinly masked) behind their antics.
>> >>>
>> >>>Evolution deniers (ED) are better EDucated
>> >>
>> >>Then why do they fail to exhibit any evidence of it?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>and tend to think for themselves.
>> >>
>> >>Except where religion is concerned, in which case it's all about
>> >>believing what you're told to believe like a good little boy.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > You seems to criticize those who reject evolution, but you obviously
>> > know nothing about religion.
>> >
>> >
>> >>>We choose not to believe in evolution and accept what real science
>> >>>(puts
>> >>>on the moon gives us computers science) says about how life and
>> >>>organisms work.
>> >>
>> >>You also blatantly lie about your reasons. Biology is real science -
>> >>hence modern medicine. Spacecraft and computers are engineering feats
>> >>*based* on science (and BTW, they tell us nothing about how life and
>> >>organisms work).
>> >>
>> >>You choose not to believe in evolution because it crosses into your
>> >>cult beliefs.
>> >
>> >
>> > Some chose not to believe in it because of the incalcuable probability
>> > against it.
>>
>> ...like they're told to believe. Or are you trying to say you thought
>> up this 'incalculability' idea all by yourself?
>>
>> A little open minded reading would show you it's a bogus idea. But, of
>> course, to accept that you'd have to be, well... open minded. So never
>> mind.
>>
>> CT
>
> Since you put it THAT way, what are you talking about?

If you have a probablility argument, it is likely that it has already been
falsified. So, your statement about probability shows that you either have
not read anything but creationist published arguments, or you have something
new on the subject to share. My bet is the former, but please share what
you have.

JR
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Does anybody want to proofread and criticize a 7000 plus word
    ... Statistical Probability in the Evolution of Mendelian Populations ... advantageous mutations that frequently recur, ... and some elements of neutral molecular evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Does anybody want to proofread and criticize a 7000 plus word
    ... Statistical Probability in the Evolution of Mendelian Populations ... advantageous mutations that frequently recur, ... and some elements of neutral molecular evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Blueprints vs. Bricks and Mortar
    ... Another is that evolution works by crossing long ... You are arguing that the probability of *any* organism ... Your own sites shows that is not how systems evolve. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The greatest scientific philosopher of all time
    ... > current language of mathematics - first order logic - that indeed this ... > according to the evolution paradigm it only makes sense that we should ... >>if you try to anchor terms by references - reference is underdetermined. ... >>Carnap tried to work out a full calculus of probability of inference, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: a good person is a person who...
    ... in the process of life that makes evolution work, ... Evolution is just a natural process. ... The difference between proof and extremely high probability is ... Only insofar as hedonism, as you put it, is only one component of the ...
    (misc.writing)