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

[sandwiches]

talk is indeed cheap, and i know a hopeless case when i see one. ta ta!

So, that's how you admit you have no evidence? Good to know.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

talk is indeed cheap, and i know a hopeless case when i see one. ta ta!

You admit your case is hopeless? Excellent.

 

[HAPMinistries]

So, do you accept that I know what I'm talking about when I say I've seen precious few creationists with the faintest clue about evolution?

Sadly, a lot of people who claim to support evolution know nothing about evolution, and just like being derogatory towards Christians.

Except it's an explanation in its own right. Time is not "thrown at" questions we can't answer. Time is an answer a considerable amount of physical evidence points to.

Time can not be empirically proven, unless of course, you experience the amount of time. I see a lot of evidence that points away from the long time-lines.

If you have issues with radiometric dating beyond the moronic "but it's indirect" objection, I'm happy to discuss. If you still haven't managed to move past direct observation, I suggest you ponder my question about puddles. Somehow that seems to have got lost in the turmoil.

Speaking as a Christian who has been asked a million times, even this morning, for empirical evidence for God, you can understand my disapproval when science uses a measuring tool that can not be empirically tested.

Learn what species actually means, unless you want to keep on being misunderstood.

Funny, I even posted the definition for you, and you still do not get it.

So will you answer my question? What reason is there to expect that the time scale is directly observable?

Because that is what the hypothesis teaches. Unless you are not able to discern the difference in species?

 

[HAPMinistries]

Abiogenesis is only 50 or so years old(might be younger) so it is still a work in progress and so far has not come up with any concrete way of forming life. So how do you debunk something that isn't even complete?

Because it is called a Theory, just like evolution.
Debunked.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Citation needed.

"At some point a rock was involved in some form" =/= "all life came from a rock". Lol.

LOL
Way to prove yourself wrong.

By the way, a "rock" may well have been involved.

 

[HAPMinistries]

I did chew on it a while, and I didn't see the parallel.

try taking your first comment, and then reversing the nouns.

 

[HAPMinistries]

For the life of me I can't see what's so funny about that notion.

You don't think anything is funny about The HEAT of theorized birthing suns would scatter, but not break down space sugar, which of coursed formed in the sugar cane galaxy, where it would travel across the universe, never exposing itself to any heat anywhere, mind you, to slam on the earth, friction not giving enough heat to break the sugar down, and of course, the Earth 'hypothetically' had no atmosphere, where suddenly, the atmosphere came, so did the rain, sweeping the space sugar into a warp puddle where it breaks down, the warm puddle doing what stars could not do, and whala, a reproducing micro-organism of life.

Space Sugar is pretty hilarious.

 

[HAPMinistries]

If you're too proud to admit you've got nothing, then conversing with you has no value except you entertainment.

I know you speak from experience, because you always have nothing, but if a parallel analogy is too complex, even when you admit to understanding one side, is very absurd.

 

[HAPMinistries]

So God is accepted without evidence or logic.

Depends on your level of faith, blind faith, small faith, etc.

We accept that abiogenesis took place because of evidence and logic.

I just posted about the Space Sugar part so the whole evidence and logic thing betrays this comment. There is nothing logical about deducting life coming from non-living matter.

Nope. How much do you know about abiogenesis?

Enough to know it is debunked. How about you?

 

[Nabobalis]

Because it is called a Theory, just like evolution.
Debunked.

Nope, it is a hypothesis, evolution is a theory.

You don't know what a theory even is.

Debunked.

 

[pgp_protector]

So God is accepted without evidence or logic.

Depends on your level of faith, blind faith, small faith, etc.

We accept that abiogenesis took place because of evidence and logic.

I just posted about the Space Sugar part so the whole evidence and logic thing betrays this comment. There is nothing logical about deducting life coming from non-living matter.


Enough to know it is debunked. How about you?

So of all the matter that you're made of, what chemical is alive?

 

[HAPMinistries]

So to start my point, I will present a video:

YouTube - World Population Debunks Macro Evolution


Here I find horrible responses, like if cockroaches kept reproducing, they would flood the earth, it is a supply and demand thing.

The horrible point of that logic is we are now pushing that point because of an explosion of population. Still, the earth has not been short on resources for mankind to grow.


Another horrible example is arguing the 'constant' of the the numbers. It is a percentage dolts! Some years better, some years worse, but we never have a reason for world population decreasing at any point.

I am interested to hear your thoughts on why World Population does not Debunk the Time of the Gaps Fallacy time-lines always thrown at problems by evolutionists.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Nope, it is a hypothesis, evolution is a theory.

You don't know what a theory even is.

Debunked.

FAIL

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theory
See for yourself.
"Soup" theory

The deep sea vent theory

Clay theory

 

[Naraoia]

Sadly, a lot of people who claim to support evolution know nothing about evolution, and just like being derogatory towards Christians.

I understand if you're bitter about that kind of person, but where have I ever been derogatory towards Christians? (Links, please, otherwise it's slander.)

Also note that being derogatory towards a specific idea a subset of Christians happen to hold, or towards individual people, is not the same as being derogatory towards Christians. I'm abundantly guilty of the former two, but I'd be just as derogatory towards atheists if they held the same belief or behaved in the same way.

Time can not be empirically proven, unless of course, you experience the amount of time.

Nothing can be empirically proven. Proven beyond reasonable doubt is the best we can expect from any evidence, including direct observation.

I see a lot of evidence that points away from the long time-lines.

Such as? See, I'm happy to discuss evidence. Even happier than trying to think up the most politely insulting response to flippant remarks.

Speaking as a Christian who has been asked a million times, even this morning, for empirical evidence for God, you can understand my disapproval when science uses a measuring tool that can not be empirically tested.

I have no idea what you mean by the second half of the sentence, and I don't think I asked you for empirical evidence of God. Certainly not in the passage you quoted.

So would you please stop dodging my question? In case you forgot, let's recap:

Can events be inferred from their consequences? If you wake up in the morning and look out your window to find brand new puddles everywhere, is it reasonable to conclude that it rained during the night?

Funny, I even posted the definition for you, and you still do not get it.

If you read my posts for understanding, instead of trying to find keywords you can use to craft irrelevant responses, you'd know that I "got" and worked with your definition. For instance, in the paragraph that you forgot to quote just before the bit you quoted.

If that short paragraph was not clear enough here's the long version, referring back to the dog/cat example. Dogs and cats evolved from a common ancestor, and each accumulated a bunch of differences from that common ancestor and the other lineage in the process. In what ways do cats and dogs differ? IOW, what "types" of evolution do you need to bridge the gap between animals with a similar degree of disparity?

Well, they have different morphologies: skeletons, muscles etc. They also eat different things, cats generally being more carnivorous. Another way in which their physiology differs is that dogs (at least true dogs) are endurance runners, whereas cats are optimised for short bursts of speed. In addition, dogs and cats behave in different ways; dogs are more often social, for example.

Morphology, physiology, behaviour etc. all vary within individual species (real definition), and in ways that can be extrapolated to give dog/cat level differences. Such differences are exploited by breeders, if nothing else. So yes, the "types" of evolution needed have been observed. (This neat example embodies the actual evolution of all three).

As you can see, this was based on your definition. I didn't even try to talk about the differences between coyotes and wolves (which are what most people mean by species)

That doesn't change the fact that your definition is not the accepted biological meaning of the word, and if you keep using it in discussions, people will keep assuming that you actually mean species.

Because that is what the hypothesis teaches. Unless you are not able to discern the difference in species?

Which hypothesis? Be specific. Evolutionary theory doesn't, so presumably you are talking about something I'm not aware of?

LOL
Way to prove yourself wrong.

How exactly did I prove myself wrong? By pointing out that you equivocated two different ideas?

Lol indeed. Just not the way you think.

Also, where did you show your example of reversed speciation again?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

So to start my point, I will present a video:

YouTube - World Population Debunks Macro Evolution


Here I find horrible responses, like if cockroaches kept reproducing, they would flood the earth, it is a supply and demand thing.

The horrible point of that logic is we are now pushing that point because of an explosion of population. Still, the earth has not been short on resources for mankind to grow.


Another horrible example is arguing the 'constant' of the the numbers. It is a percentage dolts! Some years better, some years worse, but we never have a reason for world population decreasing at any point.

I am interested to hear your thoughts on why World Population does not Debunk the Time of the Gaps Fallacy time-lines always thrown at problems by evolutionists.

You've already answered your own question. World Population is meaningless with regard to the age of the planet, since the population fluctuates based on - as you put it - supply and demand.

And if you think the world population has no reason to decrease, you've obviously never heard of disease, famine, flood, fire, earthquake, tsunami, etc.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I just posted about the Space Sugar part so the whole evidence and logic thing betrays this comment. There is nothing logical about deducting life coming from non-living matter.

LOL. You don't know much about logic, I'm afraid. Consider: at one point, there was no life. Now there is life. Abiogenesis is guaranteed - we're just arguing about how it happened.

 

[sfs]

try taking your first comment, and then reversing the nouns.

My first comment was, "The fact that people know the Bible very well and are still not Christians demonstrates that a false claim was made." There are five nouns there, and I don't see how swapping any of them yields anything intelligible. "The fact the Bible knows people very well and is still not a Christian. . ."? No. "The Bible that facts know the Christian very well and are still not claims demonstrates that a false people was made?" No, that can't be it.

Here's a thought: why don't you just explain what you meant?

 

[Ezio Auditore di Firenze]

The idea that people would turn away from knowledge for the warmth of ignorance is not new. Sad, but not new.

 

[sandwiches]

Nothing can be empirically proven. Proven beyond reasonable doubt is the best we can expect from any evidence, including direct observation.

This amazing level of skepticism from theists blows my mind. If only they put it to use in matters of their deities.

 

[AV1611VET]

This amazing level of skepticism from theists blows my mind. If only they put it to use in matters of their deities.

Then we could walk by sight like you guys do, couldn't we?