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

[Delphiki]

And thus enters the paradox.

Empirical evidence OF evolution would disprove evolution.

No, you dolt. You just have no clue about the theory of evolution, is all.

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.

No, you dolt, we have ways to know how old something is by the constant rate at which certain things age (as through radioactive decay, for example).

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

No, you dolt. It's not like scientists just come up with an arbitrary number to fit the ToE. At specific times, earth had certain conditions (like specific levels of CO2), not to mention that radioactive decay is more reliable than your typical stopwatch.

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?'

Then why are you "bashing evolution".... dolt.

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

It was a hypothesis with Darwin. Many of the details of his hypothesis were actually found to be wrong, but even by the time it was a theory, the general concept was the same -- because of the evidence and observations that were made since.

So if one has to directly see something happen for it to become a theory, then I guess your parents having been babies at one point in time is just a hypothesis, right?

Oh, and let's not start on that Jesus guy.

 

[Delphiki]

I formally take back what I first said in this thread. I was trying to be generous by saying that perhaps science-minded people just aren't tolerant enough of the anti-science crowd, and that it may reflect badly enough on them to not be taken seriously. I take this back because I seem to get the same results whether I'm nice or not. So, if you're a dolt, I'm calling you a dolt.

 

[HAPMinistries]

No, you dolt.

ad hominem

No, you dolt, we have ways to know how old something is by the constant rate at which certain things age (as through radioactive decay, for example).

ad hominem
You know on a small scale. That is all you know.

No, you dolt. It's not like scientists just come up with an arbitrary number to fit the ToE.

ad hominem
You only know on a small scale.

It was a hypothesis with Darwin.

And it still is.

Oh, and let's not start on that Jesus guy.

Actually I was going to move to Abiogenesis next.

 

[HAPMinistries]

I formally take back what I first said in this thread. I was trying to be generous by saying that perhaps science-minded people just aren't tolerant enough of the anti-science crowd, and that it may reflect badly enough on them to not be taken seriously. I take this back because I seem to get the same results whether I'm nice or not. So, if you're a dolt, I'm calling you a dolt.

This is Science vs Naturalism.

It is Naturalists that are the anti-Science crowd.

...and ad hominem, lol

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

ad hominem

No, it's not. You might want to consider learning what an ad hominem is. It will make you look more intelligent, I think.

ad hominem
You know on a small scale. That is all you know.

You didn't answer him. And his point that you're ignorant of the science involved is quite correct, not an ad hominem at all.

ad hominem
You only know on a small scale.

You really need to learn two things: some basic science, and what an ad hominem fallacy actually is.

Oh, and the Theory of Evolution? One of the best-tested, most-supported, most explanatory theories in science.

 

[Belk]

This is Science vs Naturalism.

It is Naturalists that are the anti-Science crowd.

...and ad hominem, lol

No, an ad hominem would be Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was simply an insult.

 

[Delphiki]

Hey, HAP!





































































dolt.

 

[HAPMinistries]

No, it's not. You might want to consider learning what an ad hominem is.

Oh don't get lost in your love of fallacies, do you believe the universe is eternal?

 

[HAPMinistries]

Hey, HAP!





































































dolt.

ad hominem
lol

 

[Nabobalis]

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?

Infinite Regression never ends, so you can't just arbitrarily end it and then say god. But that is not the logical conclusion since you assume that life creates life and therefore must carry on forever unless you have a good reason for it to end.

That is a simple argument at the same level as that video.

If you run back in time you get to a point where life was created/started and that doesn’t mean something has to be eternal.

 

[HAPMinistries]

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

So you believe the universe is eternal?

By 'eternal' I mean:

e·ter·nal

   /ɪˈtɜr

nl/ Show Spelled[ih-tur-nl] Show IPA
–adjective

without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing ( opposed to temporal):

 

[Delphiki]

Oh and HAP....

You're also wrong about what naturalism is.
Let's do a quick wikipedia glance, shall we?

Naturalism is a philosophy that posits a particular picture of reality, being, and existence that typically excludes the supernatural.

Well maybe you're thinking of a different stance on naturalism.. what are they?.. let's see...

• Methodological naturalism (or scientific naturalism) which focuses on epistemology: This stance is concerned with knowledge: what are methods for gaining trustworthy knowledge of the natural world? It is an epistemological view that is specifically concerned with practical methods for acquiring knowledge, irrespective of one's metaphysical or religious views. It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events.[3] Explanations of observable effects are considered to be practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes (i.e., specific mechanisms, not indeterminate miracles). Methodological naturalism is the principle underlying all of modern science. This idea extends to philosophy as well, in various degrees, such that science and philosophy are said to form a continuum, according to this view. W.V. Quine, George Santayana, and other philosophers have advocated this view.
• Metaphysical naturalism, (or ontological naturalism or philosophical naturalism) which focuses on ontology: This stance is concerned with existence: what does exist and what does not exist? Naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature."[4]

Dolt.

 

[Nabobalis]

Why not start all over again, we have provided a huge range of examples of speciation, so disprove one of them.

Also you have to accept that evolution and abiogenesis are not connected or the same thing andyou never just win arguments about science with logic, sometimes logic fails when it comes to the evidence e.g. quantum mechanics.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Infinite Regression never ends

Unless it runs into something eternal. And of course, if it doesn't run into something eternal, then nothing could have ever possibly started.

If you run back in time you get to a point where life was created/started and that doesn’t mean something has to be eternal.

Yes, something absolutely has to be eternal, or nothing would exist.

We seem to be making a circle here, so let me say it like this. Infinite Regression must be solved, and you can not solve it with anything finite.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

So you believe the universe is eternal?

By 'eternal' I mean:

e·ter·nal

   /ɪˈtɜr

nl/ Show Spelled[ih-tur-nl] Show IPA
–adjective

without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing ( opposed to temporal):

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

 

[HAPMinistries]

Oh and HAP....
Dolt.

Very good, it is Methodological Naturalism vs Science.

...ad hominem

 

[Belk]

Unless it runs into something eternal. And of course, if it doesn't run into something eternal, then nothing could have ever possibly started.




Yes, something absolutely has to be eternal, or nothing would exist.

We seem to be making a circle here, so let me say it like this. Infinite Regression must be solved, and you can not solve it with anything finite.

Ah, but time cube fixes that problem.

www.timecube.com

 

[HAPMinistries]

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

So the universe would fall under the definition of 'eternal', correct?

[I promise this is not a trick question, so don't worry about it so much.]

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Unless it runs into something eternal.

No, DEFINITIONALLY it never ends. Period.

And of course, if it doesn't run into something eternal, then nothing could have ever possibly started.

Absolutely false. At any point in an infinite sequence, an origin for a following even can occur. You haven't studied logic yet in school, I take it.

Yes, something absolutely has to be eternal, or nothing would exist.

Nope. You're getting mixed up around the fact that your timeframe itself has boundary conditions.

We seem to be making a circle here, so let me say it like this. Infinite Regression must be solved, and you can not solve it with anything finite.

No, it doesn't have to be solved. But if we solve it your way - well, it's still not solved. In fact, your "eternal" being just compounds the problem.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

So the universe would fall under the definition of 'eternal', correct?

[I promise this is not a trick question, so don't worry about it so much.]

No. Observationally, the universe doesn't match your definition. It has a beginning, in the sense that there exists a t=0, and it doesn't seem to have an ending, in the sense that there exists at maximum but finite t.

But the universe has existed for all time.