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

[HAPMinistries]

Check this out, talk later.

YouTube - The Atheist Illusion

 

[HAPMinistries]

No rock is involved, I don't see why you hate abiogenesis since god used mud.

God is accepted by 'faith'.

You rationally believe in Abiogenesis. That is the difference.

And yes rock is involved silly one.

 

[Nabobalis]

God is accepted by 'faith'.

You rationally believe in Abiogenesis. That is the difference.

And yes rock is involved silly one.

I don't rationally believe in abiogenesis, since it is currently a hypothesis and is under investigation still. There isn't much to accept yet.

 

[Nabobalis]

Well what I just did would be considered a 'straw man', for the record, but it was the only way of giving an illustration at the moment.

So let me put it more on a true par like this.

What if a question was given, "Why isn't everyone a Christian?"

And my response was because people are ignorant of the bible and what it says, and are too dumb or lazy to read and find out for their self.


Now obviously people know the bible very well and are still not Christians.


So, back to the ad hominem.

When a person comes on a thread claiming "The "anti-science movement" is a product of those too lazy or too stupid to learn what science has to teach, and too arrogant to admit to being too lazy or too stupid." While people are debating the subject, is just grossly unintelligent bias. It is not a rational conclusion.

If you said:

"Why isn't everyone a Christian?"

And my response was because some people are ignorant of the bible and what it says, and are too dumb or lazy to read and find out for their self.

[FONT=&quot]You would be partially correct.

In terms of the anti-science movement it is true, when we see how they argue, how they blindingly ignore facts that contradict their arguments and when exposed will either cry foul, conspiracy or just ignore it completely and state their argument again.[/FONT]

 

[Nabobalis]

Check this out, talk later.

YouTube - The Atheist Illusion

It is the same video as before. *yawn*

Yet again, it uses that we have yet to see life form, therefore it never forms and therefore god.

 

[sfs]

What if a question was given, "Why isn't everyone a Christian?"

And my response was because people are ignorant of the bible and what it says, and are too dumb or lazy to read and find out for their self.

Now obviously people know the bible very well and are still not Christians.

Right. The fact that people know the Bible very well and are still not Christians demonstrates that a false claim was made.

So, back to the ad hominem.

When a person comes on a thread claiming "The "anti-science movement" is a product of those too lazy or too stupid to learn what science has to teach, and too arrogant to admit to being too lazy or too stupid." While people are debating the subject, is just grossly unintelligent bias. It is not a rational conclusion.

I don't see the parallel. How does debating in this thread demonstrate that someone is not lazy or stupid? Typing posts doesn't strike me as work in any meaningful sense -- I usually post when I'm too lazy to do something productive, for example -- and it's pretty obvious that stupid people write posts, at least if you've ever read a forum for more than five minutes.

Mind you, I think that the quoted statement is false. There do indeed exist people who attack evolution (the particular bit of science we're most interested here) and who are neither stupid nor lazy. Todd Wood and Kurt Wise are obvious examples. What that has to do with the present discussion is not clear. I don't really know whether you're stupid or not, and I can't tell whether you're lazy. What I do know is that you're quite ignorant when it comes to evolution (as you demonstrated in your first post here, with your description of Orce Man and Neandertals, etc, as hoaxes), and you appear uninterested in correcting that situation.

 

[HAPMinistries]

It is the same video as before. *yawn*

Yet again, it uses that we have yet to see life form, therefore it never forms and therefore god.

It addresses the same subject, and debunks the conclusions of Abiogenesis, correct.

So you want a different subject, ok.

YouTube - Evolutionists vs Evolution

 

[HAPMinistries]

Right. The fact that people know the Bible very well and are still not Christians demonstrates that a false claim was made.



I don't see the parallel.

Chew on it a while, it will come to you.

 

[Naraoia]

As creationists (our most recent trophy included) often make this strawman argument about evolution, I would advise the utmost care never to even hint at such a possibility.

There is absolutely NO WAY that by evolution the currently existing species of "cats" can ever come from the currently existing species of "dogs".

There could be, at some future point, descendants of dogs that resembles in every possible way our current cats.... but these wouldn´t be classified as belonging to our current "cat" species.

Of course That's what I get for being lazy to type out "a degree of divergence comparable to that between cats and dogs"

Well that's funny, I asked which came first, the chicken or the egg?
I mean, you could say dinosaur too and find yourself to be correct in your own eyes...

Then why does it bother you that I went straight back to the origin of the kind of egg chickens hatch from?

Very good.

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?

It is a cop out for anything unexplainable. Yes, that simple.

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.

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.

The point of that long fiasco was to acknowledge that the length of time has not been observed, neither has the type of evolution that creates new species

Um, the type of evolution that creates new species, even by your idio...syncratic definition, has been observed. Up to and including hopeful monsters with full-fledged, viable homeotic mutations. (Also, may I suggest From DNA to Diversity? It's a delightfully short textbookish thing focused on precisely that kind of change.)

[reference back on what I mean by species, unless you just want to watch me post 'equivocation']

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

Because the hypothesis is it becomes a different species. Did you not know that?

Complete non-sequitur. The hypothesis that something can become a different species says nothing about the time scale. What's a realistic, or expected, time scale has to be derived empirically.

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

Depends on which part of evolution you are speaking about. Here is always where equivocation comes in.

Why, which part do you think isn't well supported?

Getting a reproducible result. But first you have to get 'a' result.

The predictions of common descent lead to some of the most reproducible results. (See here for a more detailed treatment)

- Organisms can be classified into non-arbitrary nested hierarchies, and hierarchies based on different lines of evidence (e.g. morphology and gene sequences) match with statistical significance.

- Fossils should also fall into the same hierarchy.

- The arrangement of fossils in time should be consistent with the nested hierarchy (e.g. if cats and dogs come from a common ancestor, then animals that could be the common ancestor should precede slightly more dog- and catlike animals, and so on until actual dogs and cats appear).

ALL of these predictions have been verified within methodological limitations. Classifications built on phenotypic traits and on multiple genes do match to a significant extent. Most fossil organisms can be fairly confidently placed in the same framework. And the relative age criterion is verified by a large number of different lineages.

Considering the number of potential falsifications - living and fossil species described, genes and even genomes sequenced - since Darwin's time, I think his little idea is doing rather well.

Making birds mate? LOL

Reversing reproductive isolation. Stop playing the idiot, or I'll be forced to believe you are not playing.

 

[Nabobalis]

It addresses the same subject, and debunks the conclusions of Abiogenesis, correct.

That video did not debunk anything. It makes an assumption which is wrong and is the basis of the whole video.

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?

 

[Naraoia]

Abiogenesis does.

Citation needed.

So you are saying that at no point of the process of Abiogenesis is ROCK not involved? lol

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

By the way, a "rock" may well have been involved. Clay particles can help the building blocks of RNA to polymerise into RNA. (A paper, and a nifty animation based on the same work [play the video next to "prebiotic RNA polymerization"]).

How about Space Sugar, lol, is Space Sugar involved in Abiogenesis?

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

 

[sfs]

Chew on it a while, it will come to you.

I did chew on it a while, and I didn't see the parallel. That's why I wrote what I did, explaining why I didn't think the cases were parallel, and asking you how they were parallel. Your response here tells me nothing at all.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Chew on it a while, it will come to you.

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

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

God is accepted by 'faith'.

So God is accepted without evidence or logic.

You rationally believe in Abiogenesis. That is the difference.

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

Good to understand the difference.

And yes rock is involved silly one.

Nope. How much do you know about abiogenesis?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

It addresses the same subject, and debunks the conclusions of Abiogenesis, correct.

So you want a different subject, ok.

YouTube - Evolutionists vs Evolution

I watched the whole thing. It doesn't debunk abiogenesis. Sorry. Try again.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Well it takes a long time for you guys to catch up.

Since you're the one who appears confused, perhaps it just takes a while to figure out what you're talking about.

Any kind of intelligent person will conclude with a eternal form, be it a static eternal universe, or one that expands and contracts, yet always existed.

Yes. The universe has always existed. But it never came into being.

I recently heard that some believe matter can be created as long as gravity exists... which, of course, makes no sense, because gravity comes from the existing matter...

This is because you don't understand the physics involved.

Still, something eternal exists.

Yes. The universe.

So the next question to ask, in trying to discover 'which eternal form' exists, is do you believe the eternal form has life and consciousness?

The universe does not appear to have life of itself or consciousness.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

ad hominem

You really don't understand what an ad hominem is, do you?

 

[canukian]

i am is no way opposed to science.

i sure as heck am opposed to corrupt SCIENTISTS aka the global warming phoney money grubbing ones.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Oh, wait, you want empirical evidence of a eternal form solving infinite regression?! LOL! Well if you look outside your window... LOL!

Nope.

It is common sense, if something has no beginning or end, then it could start a chain of infinite regression.

If it has no beginning or end, then it could not START a chain of infinite regression. Do you proof your posts for logic fail?

In fact, only a eternal form can start a chain of infinite regression.

If it STARTS a chain of infinite regression, then the chain isn't infinite.

Since we are 'inside' a chain of infinite regression, the the origin can be only 1 thing, a eternal form.

No, actually we're not.

Now if you know another way, do share?

We already have. The universe has existed forever. It has a beginning, t=0. It did not come into being. It is eternal and infinite, but bounded.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

i am is no way opposed to science.

i sure as heck am opposed to corrupt SCIENTISTS aka the global warming phoney money grubbing ones.

No, they work for the United States Government, actually. Well, one of them is. The other one never did, really.