Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?

[Nabobalis]

um, I did.

What part of 'Only something eternal can solve infinite regression.' do you not understand?

That is simple to understand but it isn't evidence of anything let, so while you may of "solved" the infinite regression you have no reason to solve it in the first place let alone in this way.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Also it was used to point out the fallacy of your, "SHow me something becoming something else." Even if you saw every single offspring through a female line from dinosaur to chicken, you wouldn't see at any single spot looking 10 up and 10 down something becoming another species. If you looked every 100 you would see change. THis is the point were making, if a cat became something completly different in the same way a reptile over time became a cat, then you would have to jump far down the line, not look at 1000 years of cats. You might notice big differences if you lined up 1000 years of your house cat back down it's line to a ancestral cat, but outside of breeding the differences wouldn't be that noticable over short times, and certainly not 150 years since Origin of species.

Again, I am talking about the origin of existence, not species. This has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Nabobalis]

ad hominem

The truth can hurt sometimes, so ad hominem or not you can't just make it go away.

 

[HAPMinistries]

That is simple to understand but it isn't evidence of anything let, so while you may of "solved" the infinite regression you have no reason to solve it in the first place let alone in this way.

Oh, wait, you want empirical evidence of a eternal form solving infinite regression?! LOL! Well if you look outside your window... LOL!

It is common sense, if something has no beginning or end, then it could start a chain of infinite regression.

In fact, only a eternal form can start a chain of infinite regression.

Since we are 'inside' a chain of infinite regression, the the origin can be only 1 thing, a eternal form.

Now if you know another way, do share?

 

[Nabobalis]

Oh, wait, you want empirical evidence of a eternal form solving infinite regression?! LOL! Well if you look outside your window... LOL!

It is common sense, if something has no beginning or end, then it could start a chain of infinite regression.

In fact, only a eternal form can start a chain of infinite regression.

Since we are 'inside' a chain of infinite regression, the the origin can be only 1 thing, a eternal form.

Now if you know another way, do share?

I have looked outside my window, I do it many times and I don't see any eternal form.

But an eternal form does not answer anything, all it does it change the question. If you are happy to answer that infinite regression is solved by an eternal form, you have to state why such an eternal form exists since you replaced infinite with eternal.

So back to square 1.

I can only speculate on what another way is. It could be a god or it could be a eternal big bang/big crunch. But common sense does fail when it comes to physics.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Look, I have a degree in evolutionary biology from one of the top UK universities

Very good.

In what way? Are you arguing that the necessary time wasn't available? (in which case I'm happy to argue that it was) Or are you arguing that so much time is not necessary?

It is a cop out for anything unexplainable. Yes, that simple.

it's still not fast enough to make cats out of dogs in an observable period.

The point of that long fiasco was to acknowledge that the length of time has not been observed, neither has the type of evolution that creates new species [reference back on what I mean by species, unless you just want to watch me post 'equivocation']

I ask again: under evolutionary assumptions, why should we expect anything to turn into a "completely different" species in front of our eyes?

Because the hypothesis is it becomes a different species. Did you not know that?

Um, subtle terminological distinctions notwithstanding, evolution is still one of the best supported ideas in science. Call it what you want, it doesn't change that fact.

Depends on which part of evolution you are speaking about. Here is always where equivocation comes in.

What level of certainty constitutes "knowing"?

Getting a reproducible result. But first you have to get 'a' result.

Illustrating something doesn't equal demonstrating that it happens.

Making birds mate? LOL

 

[HAPMinistries]

But an eternal form does not answer anything, all it does it change the question. If you are happy to answer that infinite regression is solved by an eternal form, you have to state why such an eternal form exists since you replaced infinite with eternal.

Well it takes a long time for you guys to catch up.
Any kind of intelligent person will conclude with a eternal form, be it a static eternal universe, or one that expands and contracts, yet always existed.

I recently heard that some believe matter can be created as long as gravity exists... which, of course, makes no sense, because gravity comes from the existing matter...

Still, something eternal exists.

So the next question to ask, in trying to discover 'which eternal form' exists, is do you believe the eternal form has life and consciousness?

 

[sfs]

Well that's funny, I asked which came first, the chicken or the egg?

And you were told the answer. What's funny about it?

 

[HAPMinistries]

The truth can hurt sometimes, so ad hominem or not you can't just make it go away.

A insult is not truth.
Truth is not subjective to a viewpoint.

Let me put it like this:
If I say 2+2=4.
And you say I am a dolt idiot who does not understand evolution or science.

It does not confront or even address the statement. It is simply a fallacy.

 

[HAPMinistries]

And you were told the answer. What's funny about it?

Because everyone has said egg but you.

 

[Cabal]

A insult is not truth.
Truth is not subjective to a viewpoint.

Let me put it like this:
If I say 2+2=4.
And you say I am a dolt idiot who does not understand evolution or science.

It does not confront or even address the statement. It is simply a fallacy.

It's not really an accurate analogy though, as the premise is that you said something correct, when you didn't.

Really, don't attempt to use analogies - you're a creationist. Dealing with analogies isn't really their strong point.

 

[sfs]

ad hominem

Nope, still not an ad hominem.

 

[Nabobalis]

Well it takes a long time for you guys to catch up.
Any kind of intelligent person will conclude with a eternal form, be it a static eternal universe, or one that expands and contracts, yet always existed.

I recently heard that some believe matter can be created as long as gravity exists... which, of course, makes no sense, because gravity comes from the existing matter...

Still, something eternal exists.

So the next question to ask, in trying to discover 'which eternal form' exists, is do you believe the eternal form has life and consciousness?

Any intelligent person will conclude that they don't know and have no reason to speculate wihout evidence.

Also no one thinks that matter can be created as long as gravity exists. What you have heard is a out of context quote from Hawking's book.

If you want to speculate on what the eternal form is, go ahead but without evdience you can't be sure of anything.

 

[HAPMinistries]

That methodologyis what underpins the method and that is the method used for the discoveries that enrich out lives.

The methodology is a philosophy.

No one believes that all life came from a rock.

Abiogenesis does.

 

[Nabobalis]

A insult is not truth.
Truth is not subjective to a viewpoint.

Let me put it like this:
If I say 2+2=4.
And you say I am a dolt idiot who does not understand evolution or science.

It does not confront or even address the statement. It is simply a fallacy.

You made the assumption that what you said was correct. But if you state a correct fact, it does mean you still don't understand evolution or science.

 

[Nabobalis]

Double Post

 

[Nabobalis]

The methodology is a philosophy.



Abiogenesis does.

If it even is a philosophy I don't see the problem?

Abiogenesis says no such thing. But the bible does!

 

[HAPMinistries]

You made the assumption that what you said was correct. But if you state a correct fact, it does mean you still don't understand evolution or science.

Well what I just did would be considered a 'straw man', for the record, but it was the only way of giving an illustration at the moment.

So let me put it more on a true par like this.

What if a question was given, "Why isn't everyone a Christian?"

And my response was because people are ignorant of the bible and what it says, and are too dumb or lazy to read and find out for their self.


Now obviously people know the bible very well and are still not Christians.


So, back to the ad hominem.

When a person comes on a thread claiming "The "anti-science movement" is a product of those too lazy or too stupid to learn what science has to teach, and too arrogant to admit to being too lazy or too stupid." While people are debating the subject, is just grossly unintelligent bias. It is not a rational conclusion.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Abiogenesis says no such thing.

So you are saying that at no point of the process of Abiogenesis is ROCK not involved? lol

How about Space Sugar, lol, is Space Sugar involved in Abiogenesis?

 

[Nabobalis]

So you are saying that at no point of the process of Abiogenesis is ROCK not involved? lol

How about Space Sugar, lol, is Space Sugar involved in Abiogenesis?

No rock is involved, I don't see why you hate abiogenesis since god used mud.