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

[sandwiches]

There is no way of knowing, and because there is no way of knowing, it is simply a educated guess, a hypothesis, and that is all it is and will be until we have a way of truly knowing.[/FONT][/COLOR]

What's a way of "truly knowing" something?

 

[Targ]

Sorry, but since when has carbon dating been done on living creatures? If you understood how carbon dating works, you would know that carbon dating only works starting at the moment the creature dies. Find any textbook on the subject and it will tell you this, so what you are saying is nothing startling, new or damning.

You may as well be telling us that the whole concept of using a small hammer to test someone's reflexes doesn't work, "because I tested it on a corpse's knees and it's legs didn't move! Therefore doctors are wrong! Homeopaths FTW!!!!1"

 

[Cabal]

To you personally, but not in the knowing of a species descendants.

Species is not an individual. You fail.

I have already exposed you for never presenting evidence but always using fallacies to try to drive home a point. Simply accusing me of what you do is self defeating for you.

Funny how I first accused you of that and here you are mimicking the people who are running rings around you yet again. How unimaginative.

You are not able to prove any fossil had procreated and passed on anything. This is already debunked, and you still persist.

I'm not sure why you persist with it, seeing as it's irrelevant to begin with. We are talking about the ancestry on the species level, not the individual level.

Now I get to repeat myself:

That is absurd.
I showed example of carbon dating a living snail to be 27,000 years old. I laugh, and for good reason, because I know the snails age.

Let me repeat, I know the snails age.

...Let me say that again, I know the snail's age.

Why did I say that so many times? To let you know that for something to be 'reliable', you have to be able to know if the results are accurate. In dealing with ANYTHING over the gross periods of time, there is absolutely no way of knowing it is accurate. There is no way of knowing, and because there is no way of knowing, it is simply a educated guess, a hypothesis, and that is all it is and will be until we have a way of truly knowing.

And if you actually understood anything about carbon dating, which by dint of this post you demonstrably don't, you'd know why this was crap from start to finish. Run along now.

Ad hominem

And you still don't know what that is.

Again, you fall into fallacies to defend your inability to face the environment. Skepticism is not calling into question that which you have a presupposition against, but to question everything. Sadly, you do not even research, because my Leap Second example had no video

Yeah, it was based on a strawman, namely this:

"BUT, according to the 'Time of the Gaps' fallacy, we only gain a second 1 time every 200 years."

There is no time of the gaps, it is all of your own fantasy. I didn't respond to it, because quite frankly, I had better things to do with my time. Maybe you can post it a little more clearly without resorting to made-up hypotheses and then people might be bothered to deal with it.

So let me get this straight, I am incompetent... yet you have not researched anything presented, and have not yet entered the debate.

Sure I have. I've already pwned the vast majority of your points into the ground during the course of this thread. Your denial doesn't change that, unfortunately for you

Maybe I should buy you some crayons and a coloring book so you can sit in the corner and amuse yourself?

There's that hypocrisy again.

Creationism is not even a subject that has been discussed here. Are you aware of this?

Whatever, clear as day what your agenda is. However you want to dance around that, your objections and approach to this subject have not been reasonable.

You say this without researching what is presented? I did not commit a argumentum verbosium as you did. I slowly, over days, present ed a little information at a time, so anyone wanting to discuss with me about the thread and my view could be informed, and give a counter-view if they so chose.

And I addressed most of what you posted, you're focusing on the fact that I have not directly addressed two videos which I genuinely cannot watch at the moment (and seem to have been adequately paddled by the other members of the board anyway), but before you posted them you showed yourself to be ignorant enough of the subject matter that I was reasonably confident the videos wouldn't be any different. You want that to change and be taken seriously, drop the creationist garbage that has been refuted ad infinitum ad nauseum and start being reasonable. Learn what evolution actually claims, for one thing.

And regarding your alleged "argumentum verbosium", I specifically said that you could address one or two of the cases, directly refuting the intentions claimed by your copypaste of the definition of the fallacy, but I see you'd still rather keep bleating "fallacy" rather than man up and actually address the argument. Unsurprising.

Again, you have not entered the debate, and already declare no knowledge is presented. Look into my eyes, , that is not very intelligent.

Again, I'll worry about criticism about my intelligence from someone who is actually intelligent - you don't qualify

This is the Christian Forums, and yet you are not a Christian, but you are here to 'evangelize' your agnostic atheist skeptical naturalist approach, correct. You are 'imitating' what you have seen the church do. It is the church and evangelism that you are emulating by being here.

Check my faith icon.

Oh, and you might want to check the rules, and think carefully before making a post like this in future.

But what you do not have is the Holy Ghost. We evangelize not only with our head, but with our very heart and soul, our very essence. We are a people set on fire by God, and it is such a contrast to your age of en-darken-ment, that you actually win people for Christ by simply being yourself. All a Christian has to do is expose what it is you believe life came from, aka Abiogenesis, and your whole stance on "knowledge and rationalization" completely go out the window. Couple that with the obsessive use of fallacies, and people feel comfortable in knowing that you think in a tiny box, and it is impossible for you to find the answers of eternity and meaning of life. Do you really believe your only purpose is to survive and replicate?

What does it mean for all your sanctimonious preaching when you have to resort to lies, hypocrisy and denial yourself?

 

[HAPMinistries]

No matter how accurately you determine the ratio of carbon-14/carbon-12 it is not suitable for dating material from marine organisms.

Obviously.

 

[HAPMinistries]

What's a way of "truly knowing" something?

• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results

There no way of testing a hypothesis that extends over the Time of the Gaps allowance of time. The hypothesis can not be given credibility or completely disproved because it is completely hypothetical.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Lets do a thought experiment here to show why direct ancestral fossils are not needed.

Lets say over millions of years

You completely missed it.
And you give an example that questions evolution's accuracy by stating, "lets assume evolution is true." No, that is the PROBLEM that you are assuming evolution to be true.

To use a fossil as an example of something life today had descended from, then you need to prove the fossil reproduced. That is common sense, but I will say we have different approaches.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Oh, and you might want to check the rules, and think carefully before making a post like this in future.

Standing in a garage and calling yourself a car does not make you a car.

You never answered any points, because you can not. Your push for deception has been proven.

That's it.

 

[Cabal]

Standing in a garage and calling yourself a car does not make you a car.

You never answered any points, because you can not. Your push for deception has been proven.

That's it.

And what is constantly avoiding the responses to your points, claiming (erroneously) that no points have been made and calling that deception but deception itself?

Hypocrisy again.

 

[Cabal]

You completely missed it.
And you give an example that questions evolution's accuracy by stating, "lets assume evolution is true." No, that is the PROBLEM that you are assuming evolution to be true.

To use a fossil as an example of something life today had descended from, then you need to prove the fossil reproduced. That is common sense, but I will say we have different approaches.

Species =/= individuals.

Please, keep making more daft points like this, it's entertaining

 

[HAPMinistries]

And what is constantly avoiding the responses to your points, claiming (erroneously) that no points have been made and calling that deception but deception itself?

Hypocrisy again.

There were no responses, just personal attacks, ad hominems.

You claim hypocrisy when you admit you never watched any of the videos presented, and you quoted the Leap Second evidence, and simply made a fallacy.

So, you leave nothing because you say nothing.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Species =/= individuals.

Please, keep making more daft points like this, it's entertaining

Abiogenesis and evolution are two different fields.

 

[Cabal]

There were no responses, just personal attacks, ad hominems.

You claim hypocrisy when you admit you never watched any of the videos presented, and you quoted the Leap Second evidence, and simply made a fallacy.

So, you leave nothing because you say nothing.

Please, do whatever you have to do keep ignoring the points. Show us all how utterly intellectually bankrupt your position is.

I've responded to the bulk of your points barring two videos that are likely as daft as the rest of your claims made in this thread, and yet you're blathering on and on about that and a list that I was happy for you to address only in part in order to avoid making any attempt at a rational response to the majority of your points that I have addressed. Pathetic, but not unexpected.

 

[HAPMinistries]

I've responded to the bulk of your points barring two videos

Making fallacies are not responses.

 

[Cabal]

Making fallacies are not responses.

Except they aren't, but you've already demonstrated your ignorance of what fallacies actually are. Ad hominems, quote-mining, argumentum verbosium - as I said, it would be quicker to list the fallacies you do understand.

But hey, ignore the points, I don't care. Just makes your position even more untenable. You want to actually garner some credibility, stop acting the hypocrite and respond. Otherwise, run along.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Except they aren't, but you've already demonstrated your ignorance of what fallacies actually are. Ad hominems... it would be quicker to list the fallacies you do understand.

But hey, ignore the points, I don't care. Just makes your position even more untenable. You want to actually garner some credibility, stop acting the hypocrite and respond. Otherwise, run along.

Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

Since I first posted on this thread, you have used nothing but fallacies in response to me. You are a constant fallacy.

 

[Cabal]

Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

Since I first posted on this thread, you have used nothing but fallacies in response to me. You are a constant fallacy.

Except I've already addressed your arguments for the most part, and as your lack of both scientific knowledge and intellectual integrity factor into the invalidity of your arguments, it is not unreasonable to bring them up, ergo, not an ad hom.

Seriously, give it up with the fallacies. You've practically a perfect track record of fail with them.

Like I said, all you're going to do is cry fallacy because you don't have the stones to actually make a decent response to any of the points people raise in response to your laughably under-informed claims. You want to be taken seriously - cut it out. Simple choice.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Except I've already addressed your arguments for the most part

You did no such thing, you came out insulting, which is the peak of your debating ability.

A fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. You say you want responses to your fallacies, not fully understanding that your reasoning and argumentation is completely incorrect, couple that with your refusal to quit using fallacies, and address your reasoning, and your continued use of derogatory terms, and you all but proved to me that you are a evangelist of 'the other kind'. I know what you are, and I can plainly see why you are here.

A billboard in New Jersey is promoting atheism

Read more: New Jersey Billboard Promotes Atheism by Asking Motorists to 'Celebrate Reason' - FoxNews.com


​

Are you not aware that the Great Awakening happened when Protestants started being able to read bible in their own language, and seeking God with a passion? Do you not realize that by questing Christian's faith, you will in fact set them on fire? If you think Kent Hovind and Ken Ham were a headache, wait until you see a generation of Hovinds and Hams and, my personal favorite, Greg Bahnsen

YouTube - Greg Bahnsen vs Stein - The Great Debate (part 2 of 14)

 

[sandwiches]

• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results

There no way of testing a hypothesis that extends over the Time of the Gaps allowance of time. The hypothesis can not be given credibility or completely disproved because it is completely hypothetical.

So, unless a person can experience what they hypothesize, they can't make reasonable assertions?

 

[HAPMinistries]

So, unless a person can experience what they hypothesize, they can't make reasonable assertions?

A educated guess, yes, people can make guesses.

 

[matthewgar]

You completely missed it.
And you give an example that questions evolution's accuracy by stating, "lets assume evolution is true." No, that is the PROBLEM that you are assuming evolution to be true.

To use a fossil as an example of something life today had descended from, then you need to prove the fossil reproduced. That is common sense, but I will say we have different approaches.

*laughs face palming* this guy is a hoot :> I was tempted to again say lets ignore him, but it's gems likt this that really make it worth it :>

Hap do you understand how a thought experiment works? I was asking you to leave behind for the moment any bias belief and such against evolution, not to believe or accept it, but just for the duration of the experiment assume it's true, and see how the scenario would work, this is how evolution predicts and sees, why your statements fail multiple times to bring questions to evolution, because your questions are nonsensical in the framework of evolution.