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

[Cabal]

Did I ask for an example of speciation silly one?

I asked for one species that evolved into a completely different species.

Do you know the difference?

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wow. Seriously. Look up what speciation means.

I think I'm going to frame that post, it's a classic!

 

[Delphiki]

You should get a better job.

^ ad homenim

Brush up on logic 101.

WordNet Search - 3.0

It was a person who noticed that it was filed. Does it take a scientist to discover that? nope, but one sure can be fooled by it.

Ah, so it was a person and not a platypus scientist.

Do decide that one species can become a completely different species, YES you do, OR to decide that life can come from a ROCK over a million or few years, YES, you do.

Strawman. No scientist says we come from rocks. Again, showing you're lack of understanding of evolution.

Such a disrespect for the very system that's provided you with things even as simple as the common light bulb. No wonder the one in your head doesn't seem to be working.
^ ad hominem

 

[AV1611VET]

My goodness, I really did skim-read the list I posted.

Lookey here:

Originally Posted by Cabal

New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

​

Ah, yes -- artificial selection.

How could I have missed that, myself?

 

[HAPMinistries]

If you think they all did not speciate, please post individual refutations of each claimed case of speciation in that list.

You really have nothing, don't you?

argumentum verbosium

I already knew you had nothing, just funny to watch.

Debating naturalists is like playing chess with pigeons, they crap on the board, knock the pieces over, then fly away claiming victory.

 

[AV1611VET]

^ ad homenim

Oh, my --

Where's an Internet cop when you need one?

Read the last line of this doosey: 76

 

[Cabal]

Without science?
Funny, without creation, there would be nothing to hear.

I don't dispute there was creation - I just dispute young-earth creationism.

And sadly you kept making fallacies, didn't you?

No, I didn't, for the reasons I posted. Unlucky, but try again, eh?

OF COURSE THEY DID! Do you not think ministers called Piltdown Man a fake all those years?

Claiming it is a fake is one thing - but creationists do that indiscriminately with genuine fossils as they feel threatened by them. Anyone can claim. It was science that showed them to be fake.

AND, only certain people are allowed to see these 'great pieces of evidence'.

Yes, they should invent some kind of museum where people could go and maybe...see them in a display case and...no, no, that's crazy talk

You commit fallacies. That is about it. I called you on them. If anything, I have been owning you.

Given that you demonstrably don't even know the basic fallacies, you certainly have not.

While you're at it, look up Dunning-Kruger effect - you're a prime case.

I see you do not know the difference between a species becoming a completely different species, and speciation. For someone who does this for a living, you are pretty dull.

They're the same thing, genius.

Really? And what does Abiogenesis claim? Hope you don't make your warm pond with water that comes from any rocks.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A bit more complicated than "coming from a rock".

I thought it was the only language you knew.

Fine, if you want to be an obvious hypocrite, don't let me stop you. It's entertaining watching sanctimonious types like you shoot yourself in the foot.

Yes, it was.

Nope - it was an request for you to back your assertion. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe what you claim.

Funny, what has been asked of me has been nothing but fallacious. All you do is cry because I call you on it.

And you're crying over being asked to provide evidence for your claims. Thank you for making it so blindingly obvious that you haven't a shred of integrity on this topic.

Appeal to Authority silly person.

Nope - pointing out where you should find evidence for your claims. Not even remotely the same thing. Not claiming they're right by an appeal to authority - but you made a universal claim about what science claims, so turn to the scientific literature to back up your claim that it makes that claim.

Or don't, and continue with the laughably low credibility you have.

Which is hard to explain thoughts, dreams, and imagination, isn't it?

It's called the brain, and it's quite physical.

Actually, that is what you do.

I'll worry about this when it comes from someone who actually knows what speciation and basic logical fallacies are.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Ah, so it was a person and not a platypus scientist.

So it takes a platypus scientist to notice someone used a steel file on a jawbone?

Strawman. No scientist says we come from rocks. Again, showing you're lack of understanding of evolution.

You show your lack of understanding between the difference in evolution and ABIOGENESIS.

See, evolution is the hypothesis that tries to explain the origin of "species". Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that tries to explain the origin of "life".

Really, you should study this stuff before posting.

Such a disrespect for the very system that's provided you with things even as simple as the common light bulb. No wonder the one in your head doesn't seem to be working.
^ ad hominem

Really Naturalism did all that? No, wait, it is SCIENCE. This is the common Naturalism vs Science debate.

 

[AV1611VET]

Debating naturalists is like playing chess with pigeons, they crap on the board, knock the pieces over, then fly away claiming victory.

I leave their clock running until their flag falls, then get the tournament director to give me the point --

 

[Cabal]

You really have nothing, don't you?

argumentum verbosium

Bit rich coming from someone who didn't even read the sources yet magically knows that they're all wrong.

I already knew you had nothing, just funny to watch.

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

Debating naturalists is like playing chess with pigeons, they crap on the board, knock the pieces over, then fly away claiming victory.

Ah, gotcha, you're one of those creationists who is barely capable of formulating a sentence so you just resort to parroting your opponents phrases and terms back at them. A telltale sign of utter cluelessness.

 

[Cabal]

Oh, my --

Where's an Internet cop when you need one?

Read the last line of this doosey: 76

I'm glad that post made an impact.

(And again, not an ad hom, as I still addressed the point!)

To be honest, given that HAPMinistries likes to whine so much about alleged ad homs on him, if he wants that objection to be taken seriously he should not be such a hypocrite himself on the ad hom issue.

 

[Delphiki]

You show your lack of understanding between the difference in evolution and ABIOGENESIS.

See, evolution is the hypothesis that tries to explain the origin of "species". Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that tries to explain the origin of "life".

Really, you should study this stuff before posting.

What's funny is, I know this. I didn't think that you actually learned it from Cabal a few posts ago. Good for you! Now go hop in the shower and wash that wretched evil science knowledge off!

Without science?
Funny, without creation, there would be nothing to hear.

This one's called equivocation. You're actually in the middle of a discussion regarding creationism, not creation. One is the belief in the other. You have to show that creationism is true before you can make an argument using creation itself as a crutch for your argument.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Claiming it is a fake is one thing

Yea, but it doesn't count unless a Naturalist claims it is a fake.

right

Given that you demonstrably don't even know the basic fallacies

You are pretty well versed in using them, I will admit, what you do not know about science, you know about committing fallacies.

A bit more complicated than "coming from a rock".

You admit, abiogenesis teaches that all life came from a rock?

And you're crying over being asked to provide evidence for your claims.

My claims is Naturalism is built on zero.
So far, you have shown it to be true.

you made a universal claim about what science claims, so turn to the scientific literature

I made a claim that Naturalism is biased. I have actually quoted a film and a magazine.

But your appeal to authority keeps clicking, doesn't it?

It's called the brain, and it's quite physical.

Funny, I asked for 'thought' not brain. Do you know the difference between a thought and a brain? I guess not...

I'll worry about this when it comes from someone who actually knows what speciation and basic logical fallacies are.

Yes, and I know I did not ask for examples of speciation, yet that is what you gave.

Still you have presented Zero examples of Any species ever evolving into a completely different species throughout the History of Mankind.

Just 1, all I asked, and you failed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bit rich coming from someone who didn't even read the sources yet magically knows that they're all wrong.

Don't get me started on Pluto again.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm glad that post made an impact.

(And again, not an ad hom, as I still addressed the point!)

To be honest, given that HAPMinistries likes to whine so much about alleged ad homs on him, if he wants that objection to be taken seriously he should not be such a hypocrite himself on the ad hom issue.

Ya -- we're all hypocrites, aren't we?

 

[Cabal]

Don't get me started on Pluto again.

Yeah, please don't, it would still be irrelevant, seeing as people knew about the name-change already and didn't care, no matter how much you claim otherwise.

 

[HAPMinistries]

What's funny is, I know this. I didn't think that you actually learned it from Cabal a few posts ago. Good for you! Now go hop in the shower and wash that wretched evil science knowledge off!

So hows that 'falling apart' thing working for ya ad hominem?

This one's called equivocation. You're actually in the middle of a discussion regarding creationism

ACTUALLY, I am on a thread called:
Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?


Do you see the word "Creationism" in there? I sure don't...

 

[Cabal]

Ya -- we're all hypocrites, aren't we?

Hey, if you're going to throw the Bible around, it also claims you're to live to a higher standard that those deemed to not be following.

Try and start living up to that, yeah? Jesus didn't take a particularly positive view of the hypocrisy of the fundamentalist creationists of the day, the Pharisees.

 

[Delphiki]

Do you see the word "Creationism" in there? I sure don't...

It's not the OP, but where the current discussion has currently derailed to.

 

[HAPMinistries]

given that HAPMinistries likes to whine so much about alleged ad homs on him, if he wants that objection to be taken seriously he should not be such a hypocrite himself on the ad hom issue.

Tears are falling....
Let the bleeding hearts of the world unite.

Truth is, if you didn't commit fallacies, I couldn't call you on them, could I?

You go around using ways of deception to try to convince people insane things. You are absolutely a work of worldliness. Your ways are total deception, and tonight, you cry, because you got caught for what you are, a fraud.

 

[HAPMinistries]

It's not the OP, but where the current discussion has currently derailed to.

See, that's a funny thing. THAT is what fallacies do, they change the subject.

So why the change of subject, too hot for ya?

Really, tell the truth.