quote:
Exactly and yet the evolutionists point out that creationists beliefs are in fact misconceptions when they are not. They are strongly held beliefs.
Obviously a strognly-held beleif can still be a misconception, so can you please explain why this example referred to by Trixie in
Message 155 is not a misconception ?
[the creationist claimed that] the number of possible sequences of animo acids which could make up a chain of DNA was huge, since there were about 20 amino acids to choose from for each position on the DNA molecule
quote:
This has been the whole point that when a strongly held belief is held, the individual could not see it as a misconception.
Why, exactly, do you consider this point worth making ?
quote:
We all have strong justifications for our beliefs from - mum told me, to god told me, to science proves it.
Yet we see that creationists frequently make claims that are false and that they could easily discover to be false - if they just bothered to do some basic research. The question we are discussing is why they do that.
Here's another example from this group:
I'll kindly remind you what the Scopes Trial was all about. Proponents of evolution said that schools must make a special dispensation for the theory. They won that case. Now that somebody wants ID to have the same privileges that evolution had, its no dice.
Why would anyone who knew anything about the Scopes case say that ? Isn't it common knowledge that Scopes was on trial for breaking a law forbidding the teaching of evolution ? (And before you assert that common knowledge is often wrong - on this point it is correct).