Since I have so many fans I can not reply to just one post, so as you see your quote, smile.
*Note - Before I start, to those who do not believe in God, my end result and hope for you is to walk streets of Gold and eternal happiness, so if you believe I am an 'enemy', then I am an enemy that would torture you with eternal joy with no pain or sorrow, so try not to take the things that I say personally.
No one did that I could see... You, on the other hand, responded by crying
ad hominem at things that demonstrably weren't. The irony is kind of amusing.
The problem is the LACK of evidence that a general hypothesis becomes a Thesis by Bias Corruption, and has nothing to do with real evidence or science.
Here is an example for you
Have you or mankind in general observed 1 million years?
Have you or mankind in general observed 100,000 years?
Because if the answer is no, then ANYTHING that is proposed over that amount of time would be a HYPOTHESIS. ANYTHING.
Here is a question for you: is it possible to conclude that something happened from its consequences? Is it possible to do that with reasonable certainty?
(If that's too abstract: if you wake up in the morning and look out the window to see puddles everywhere, how well-supported is the HYPOTHESIS that it rained during the night?)
See, this is what I was talking about. Question away, just bear in mind that we've likely heard this stuff from creationists before, and it is no less wrong than it was previously - try not to get too petulant when we point that out.
That's by far the closest to an actual
ad hominem in your list. Considering that its main point is that we have seen your arguments before, that's not saying much.
I googled the stuff that pwned your PRATTs into the ground, does that count?
An
ad hominem fallacy is attacking the person instead of their arguments (especially if what you attack about the person has nothing to do with the subject of the debate).
Now, I don't know if you've seen the acronym PRATT before. It means "Point Refuted a Thousand Times".
Unless you are equal to the points you make, I'm afraid this is not an
ad hominem...
Only decades after the horse has already left the stable. Btw, it's funny how you accept the science that shows some fossils to be fake but reject the exact same science that shows your personal interpretations of the bible to be wrong.
...did I accept a fossil? If I did, where is it? I need to put it in storage.
Read that quote again. It says that you
accepted that some fossils are fake [based on the results of scientific investigation]. Not that you accepted a fossil.
5 Show me an example in the scientific literature of this hard anti-God push.
Show me a pink elephant in yellow underwear fluent in Spanish.
Ohhh, wait, ONLY Scientific Literature is Authoritative!
You said there is an anti-God push in science. I'm sorry, but the place to find out what is and isn't in science
is the scientific literature.
Popular science is written either by non-scientists (in the case of news articles, these are often abysmally underinformed journalists) or by a small, biased subset of scientists who (like Dawkins) may have a personal agenda to push. In
actual science... most people don't even talk about God.
lol argumentum ad verecundiam
I didn't ask you to accept something on anyone's authority. I merely suggested that if you want to demonstrate X "in science", you ought to show it in the stuff science outputs.
7 Would you mind providing a few specific examples?
Sure, have you ever observed 1 million years? Because if not, ANYTHING you would say on the subject would be a hypothesis.
See above. Puddles, rain, etc.
8 Dunno about the lemur, but archaeoraptor never made it into a peer-reviewed publication.
Just National Geographic.
National Geographic is not a scientific publication, it's a popular magazine. And the fact that you didn't know that suggests to me that your familiarity with science is close to nonexistent.
Why should I believe anything you say about science, when I
am a trainee scientist?
9 Ranting doesn't really help your case, you know.
Pointing out that hurling unsupported insults at science is not a great argument is hardly an
ad hominem. Let's see again what I responded to:
HAPministries said:
For those that claim that no outside forces corrected these things, there are ministers debunking this garbage every day. It is science that is stopping it's ears and closing it's eyes.
Note phrases like "debunking this garbage", science is "stopping its ears and closing its eyes" [corrected for grammar]. Then count up the actual facts offered in support.
Do you really think that that's an argument and not a rant?
10 Which is totally unbiased, right?
Like National Geographic?
Excuse me? You were arguing that
Expelled reveals an obvious bias in science. I was questioning the neutrality of the movie. What does the neutrality of NG have to do with that?
11 What is an obvious bias? I haven't seen Expelled (and what I heard about it doesn't make me too keen to see it), so I would rather you elaborated.
Ever buy an issue of National Geographic?
Yes, I was a subscriber for several years. Beautiful photography, well worth buying just for that. What's your point? If it is that NG demonstrates the anti-God bias of science, then (1) show me where it does so, (2) or better, find another example, because NG is
still not a scientific publication.
13 "I've just written two posts insulting your entire profession. By the way, have a nice day!"
Try getting a better job.
Thanks, but I quite like being a scientist.
Whether or not we do is kind of irrelevant, though. The fact remains that you pretended to be all nice and friendly after a post that was anything but, which is... I don't know. I'd say irritating, but I found it funny more than anything else.
