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

[Cabal]

nm

 

[Naraoia]

You guys can't handle people telling you you're wrong, can you?

For guys who can't handle that, we sure hang around a lot in places where we are told we are wrong... *whistles*

 

[AV1611VET]

For guys who can't handle that, we sure hang around a lot in places where we are told we are wrong... *whistles*

I can't argue that --

 

[HAPMinistries]

What I find irritating is when people put on ridiculous performances like HAPMinistries has put on for us all. HAPM starts off asking for evidence of creatures being observed to evolve from one creature into another creature. A list is provided. He then sobs that the list is too big and that he feels swamped. People then tell him to take his pick and just address one of them. He ignores this and carries on ranting that the list is too big, that everyone is using ad hominems and fallacies. It is reiterated that he can pick one from the list if he doesn't want to address all. Response: ignore this and carry on ranting about how everyone is allegedly using fallacies including trying to swamp him. You then come along and applaud him for what he has written?! LOL, that really says it all about you, AVET.

Correction, I asked for 1 observed instance where a species evolved into a completely different species. Just 1. Do you know what 1 is?

And then a list gets thrown at me.

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.

I CLEARLY asked for 1. I know these sorts of fallacies usually work for you in the past, but not this time.

I still debunked 2 of the examples. Sadly, you ignore this, and claim I ignored it altogether, which is completely false. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that I did NOT ask for 'speciation'? But I asked for a complete change of species.

And in defining by what I meant in 'species', I responded with a resounding assurance to one post who spelled it out what I meant. STILL people chose to ignore and used an equivocation fallacy.

And now you are going to try to pass your fallacies off on AVET? lol

 

[HAPMinistries]

For guys who can't handle that, we sure hang around a lot in places where we are told we are wrong... *whistles*

I guess you like the abuse.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Looks like we have another time waster in the form of HAPMinistries. Move along people, nothing to see here ...

ad hominem

 

[Cabal]

ad hominem

I think HAPM deserves a round of applause, everyone.

He finally managed to correctly identify a fallacy (although given how often our little hypocrite accuses people of ad homs, it was inevitable really).

 

[Cabal]

Correction, I asked for 1 observed instance where a species evolved into a completely different species. Just 1. Do you know what 1 is?

And then a list gets thrown at me.

You should have said you didn't want a list. You gave the impression that you didn't even think there was one.

Let me guess, you thought you'd called our bluff, and when that turned out to be false you panicked? Aw.....

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.

A lie, seeing as I have specifically requested you challenge it, you are just hiding behind the fallacy in order to avoid addressing any of it.

I CLEARLY asked for 1. I know these sorts of fallacies usually work for you in the past, but not this time.

Hey now, I know you got one right recently, but you're still pretty shaky when it comes to fallacies.

I still debunked 2 of the examples.

Where? You most certainly did not. Please post where you think you did, so I can make you look even more daft.

Sadly, you ignore this, and claim I ignored it altogether, which is completely false.

Why do you have such a hard time understanding that I did NOT ask for 'speciation'?

Because I was deliriously optimistic enough to think that you might actually know what you were talking about when it came to the claims of evolution. But you don't. Oh well, one lives and one learns.

But I asked for a complete change of species.

Which is not what evolution claims would happen, nor is it what claims is needed to produce the species of today, so you're still being utterly irrelevant, sweetcheeks.

And in defining by what I meant in 'species', I responded with a resounding assurance to one post who spelled it out what I meant. STILL people chose to ignore and used an equivocation fallacy.

It's not an equivocation fallacy, it's pointing out YOUR strawman fallacy. You don't get to redefine what evolution claims.

And now you are going to try to pass your fallacies off on AVET? lol

That's not really that difficult, to be honest, he commits enough of them.

 

[HAPMinistries]

"Often"??? It seems we have vastly different experiences...

Sadly, not here.

The amount of change you are demanding in a short time is quite unlikely to happen

And enter the time of the gaps fallacy.
Of course, my intention is not to tear down evolution, but to see it in correct perspective. I appreciate your view on Theory and Hypothesis, and you are correct. Sadly, a lot of people regard these things as Law, and that is the horrible misconception, that, referring back to the original question of this thread:
'Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?'



And ABSOLUTELY YES, because of the constant misrepresentation of information, claiming to empirically know things that is not empirically known, etc.

You, however, claim that it's just as easily reversible. That claim is still waiting for some evidence.

Well it's not that complicated. When I come across the Wiki page, it had it well illustrated.

It showed taking different types of birds, kept having them reproduce with different types of birds until finally, the end birds could not reproduce with the original type of bird. They called it speciation.

Now, simply reverse the order.

Take the last bird and reproduce it back through the line, and you will have the original type of bird. Not rocket science here people.

 

[Cabal]

I guess you like the abuse.

Says the guy who just re-entered the thread after making his massive ignorance public.

 

[HAPMinistries]

I love that video.

It is logical to assume that life creates life BUT the first life has to be self-existent which is not logical to assume.

Lets play a game.

It is called "Infinite Regression".

You keep reproducing back, with finite species, you come to the conclusion, whether you use living OR non-living matter for your conclusion, what is most certain is that 'something' eternal MUST exist, otherwise, nothing would exist.

Do you understand this statement?

 

[HAPMinistries]

Says the guy who just re-entered the thread after making his massive ignorance public.

ad hominem

Really, is that all you can do, fallacies?
nice

 

[HAPMinistries]

You should have said you didn't want a list.

What part of 1 did you not understand?

Let me guess, you thought you'd called our bluff, and when that turned out to be false you panicked? Aw.....

I did call your bluff.
You have been exposed.
Everyone knows you are a fake.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Lets play a game.

It is called "Infinite Regression".

You keep reproducing back, with finite species, you come to the conclusion, whether you use living OR non-living matter for your conclusion, what is most certain is that 'something' eternal MUST exist, otherwise, nothing would exist.

Do you understand this statement?

I understand it. It just happens to be wrong.

 

[HAPMinistries]

I've said it at least 3 times in this thread already, that nobody has directly observed one species turn into another species first hand. If they did, then it would DISPROVE evolution. Speciation occurs over a time scale that exceeds the human life spans, as far as I know.

And thus enters the paradox.

Empirical evidence OF evolution would disprove evolution.
So it has to happen over a unknowable amount of time that there is no way of empirically knowing, aka, the Time of the Gaps fallacy.

Don't know how it is done? Throw time at it.

Still, I am not here to bash evolution, I am here to support the thread where it says:

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



And I say YES. Evolution is too much of a hypothesis for people to regard it is factual, yet people do... sad really.

 

[HAPMinistries]

I understand it. It just happens to be wrong.

So do explain how the universe could exist without something eternal existing.

Do know, that I am going to apply infinite regression to what you say, and reply, "And where did that come from?"

And if you say it all just appeared one day from nothing, I will call you a creationist.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Sadly, a lot of people regard these things as Law, and that is the horrible misconception, that, referring back to the original question of this thread:
'Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?'



And ABSOLUTELY YES, because of the constant misrepresentation of information, claiming to empirically know things that is not empirically known, etc.

Absolutely false. The media get things wrong. Scientists don't make tenure for gross mistakes.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

So do explain how the universe could exist without something eternal existing.

Do know, that I am going to apply infinite regression to what you say, and reply, "And where did that come from?"

And if you say it all just appeared one day from nothing, I will call you a creationist.

There is no point in time at which the universe did not exist.

Thanks for playing. Please take your choice of doll or coconut as you exit the gallery.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Oh, and that something eternal existing? Fails under the same conditions as infinite regress.

Nice try, though.

 

[HAPMinistries]

There is no point in time at which the universe did not exist.

So you believe the universe is eternal, correct?