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

[Cabal]

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

right

SHOWS that it is a fake. Not just claims. Read posts before you respond to them.

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

You have yet to show where I have committed any - which would be difficult for you anyway seeing as you do not know what they are.

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

Not what I said. Again, read posts before you respond to them.

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

And we have a goalpost move. If I were playing logical fallacy I-spy, you'd have me on a winner.

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?

Appeal to relevance, if anything. I've already stated how this is not an appeal to authority, because I'm not claiming the literature is correct - I only ask that you show evidence for your claim about what science claims from there, as what you posted is neither accurate nor representative of all science.

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

They occur in the brain. Sorry, I thought I wouldn't have to spell that out for you. Colour me overoptimistic.

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

Speciation is the splitting off of a new species from another. Ask for anything else, and you are addressing a strawman version of evolution, at which point your opinions become irrelevant.

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.

I've given plenty of examples of how new species form according to how evolution claims they do, so the theory stands on that front. If you want to ramble on about your strawman version of evolution, please carry on the entertainment.

 

[HAPMinistries]

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

Your fallacies tell off on you.

argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

See, I asked for 1.
If you had 1, you would have said 1.
But you didn't.
SO, you used a fallacy.
You are so simple.

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.

I know what I am talking about, and obviously, you do not, do you?

 

[Cabal]

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?

It doesn't seemed to stopped you committing them yourself either, which is what makes you a hypocrite.

And again - you didn't call me on any, because you have shown clear as day that you are as clueless about logical fallacies as you are about evolution.

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

Yawn-o-rama. YECism and worldliness; false dichotomy. I'm a Christian theistic evolutionist.

and tonight, you cry, because you got caught for what you are, a fraud.

No, tonight I roflcopter because a jumped-up creationist hypocrite thinks he beat me.

 

[Cabal]

Your fallacies tell off on you.

argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

See, I asked for 1.
If you had 1, you would have said 1.
But you didn't.
SO, you used a fallacy.

You are so simple.

In order for what I posted to be a fallacy, you would need to show that the material is actually false. Just because I posted a lot doesn't automatically mean the material is false. Additionally, I will openly state that I don't wish for it to slide by unchallenged either. But let's be honest, it's not like you have the faculties to actually critically analyse scientific literature, which is why you cry fallacy instead of actually addressing the material.

I know what I am talking about, and obviously, you do not, do you?

You have shown that you do not. You can't argue your way out of that.

 

[HAPMinistries]

In order for what I posted to be a fallacy, you would need to show that the material is actually false.

LOL

Too bad that I already been down this road before. So, I do already know.

You have nothing.

One species evolving into a completely different species has never been observed to happen.

You have been soundly debunked, UNLESS...

unless you want to present 1...

 

[Cabal]

LOL

Too bad that I already been down this road before. So, I do already know.

Really? You showed those exact claims listed to be false?

All you're doing here is hiding behind the notion of one particular fallacy in order to avoid replying - because you are incapable of making an argument on the science.

You have nothing.

One species evolving into a completely different species has never been observed to happen.

You have been soundly debunked, UNLESS...

unless you want to present 1...

I presented a list, which you have not debunked, as ignoring the argument is not debunking.

If you want to narrow the list down and address part of it, feel free. At least address some of it, but stop pretending that ignoring the list entirely because of some supposed fallacy that I'm allegedly committing because I don't want you to examine the claim in greater detail (even though I'm, um, inviting you to examine the claim in greater detail) constitutes a debunk.

 

[Freodin]

I presented a list, which you have not debunked, as ignoring the argument is not debunking.

Cabal, with your experience here you should know by now that when a creationist asks for a species evolving into a completely different species, they mean "into a completely different already existing species". The cat into dog variant, you know?

 

[Nabobalis]

Cabal, with your experience here you should know by now that when a creationist asks for a species evolving into a completely different species, they mean "into a completely different already existing species". The cat into dog variant, you know?

The one that disproves evolution. It is amazing sometimes, that they argue against something that doesn't even exist (a made up version of evolution).

 

[Cabal]

Cabal, with your experience here you should know by now that when a creationist asks for a species evolving into a completely different species, they mean "into a completely different already existing species". The cat into dog variant, you know?

Oh sure. I just wanted to see them dance around the issue. They've already been told that evolution works by speciation as listed, if they want to resort to anything else, it's a strawman.

 

[matthewgar]

Cabal, with your experience here you should know by now that when a creationist asks for a species evolving into a completely different species, they mean "into a completely different already existing species". The cat into dog variant, you know?

Cept lets be honest, even when someone does this like I did, it gets completly ignored with almost no responses :>

http://www.christianforums.com/t7510856/

Right there showing cats and dogs coming from a common ancestor, but of course they don't like that.

 

[Delphiki]

Who was the idiot that says we believe we evolved from cockroaches? lol

It was somewhere.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who was the idiot that says we believe we evolved from cockroaches? lol

It was somewhere.

We supposedly came from the jungle, didn't we?

 

[Delphiki]

We supposedly came from the jungle, didn't we?

I don't get what you're implying.

Humans don't live in the jungle?

Humans didn't have ancestors that lived in the jungle?

Cockroaches are from the jungle?

You think evolution says all humans are descendant from jungle life?

Can you stop trying to be enigmatic and say something useful, please?

 

[AV1611VET]

Humans didn't have ancestors that lived in the jungle?

Are you telling me that not one of these guys lived in the jungle?

 

[Delphiki]

Are you telling me that not one of these guys lived in the jungle?

There was a question mark at the end of my sentence. I was asking you if that's what you were implying. When asked to clarify your question, don't ask another question. Try giving an answer. If you don't clarify yourself when asked, then there's no chance anyone will understand you.

Also, what does that even have to do with cockroaches?

 

[AV1611VET]

There was a question mark at the end of my sentence. I was asking you if that's what you were implying. When asked to clarify your question, don't ask another question. Try giving an answer. If you don't clarify yourself when asked, then there's no chance anyone will understand you.

Also, what does that even have to do with cockroaches?

I said it before, and I'll say it again: we did not come from a jungle, we came from a Garden.

 

[HAPMinistries]

All you're doing here is hiding behind the notion of one particular fallacy in order to avoid replying - because you are incapable of making an argument on the science.

LOL, so I show your fallacy.
I expose your fallacy.
I even define it for you.

And you are still committing it?

How sad can you possibly be?
I asked for one, and you committed a fallacy.

You are still welcome to give us, if you can, 1 example of one species becoming observed to become a completely different species throughout the HISTORY of mankind?

Right now, the total is Zero.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Cabal, with your experience here you should know by now that when a creationist asks for a species evolving into a completely different species, they mean "into a completely different already existing species". The cat into dog variant, you know?

YEA!
Someone with a brain.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Oh sure. I just wanted to see them dance around the issue. They've already been told that evolution works by speciation as listed, if they want to resort to anything else, it's a strawman.

Yes, but speciation does not change one species to a completely different species.

That is why I have given you the chance to give 1 observed example, otherwise, it has never been observed to happen, and is a complete hypothesis, right?

 

[HAPMinistries]

Right there showing cats and dogs coming from a common ancestor, but of course they don't like that.

Are you saying mankind observed this change from whatever common ancestor to dogs and cats, or is this completely hypothetical?