It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Ignorance of Creationists

page: 13
35
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Everyone is ignorant. There is insufficient time in any one human's life to learn everything that the human race has learnt, and continues to learn.

However, scientists - or those that truly deserve the term - try to reduce ignorance. Anyone that claims "Everything was God! Anything that seems otherwise is simply in error! Any quest for knowledge is futile!" is wilfully ignorant.

So I for one choose to support the push to reduce ignorance. It may be futile, but that's not the point. It's about having integrity.




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


You are distorting the implications of facts. That is ignorant to the nth degree. You are in effect quote mining reality. Scientists do not claim that the hypothesis of abiogenesis relies on their ability to create life in a lab. Nobody claims that evolution has any responsibility to explain the origin of life, so that's a phrase that might as well been replaced with "Circuit theory doesn't claim to explain the origin of life", and it doesn't matter whether or not science has created life.

Ignorance is more than just not knowing facts, it's not knowing the application of facts.


Here's the three facts:

FACT#1 Scientists have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis.
FACT #2: The theory of evolution does not try and explain how life began.
FACT# 3: No science at all has ever created life.

Did you even read these?

Sometimes you go on rants that just don't make sense.

Why do these questions bug you so?

They are simple truths.

There is nothing you or anyone here can argue with -hence the term - fact.

If these are incorrect. Please correct them. Clearly. Precisely. And coherently.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with those questions. They certainly don't act in defence of creationism, and they don't "debunk" any scientific theories. So what's the plan, lol?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with those questions. They certainly don't act in defence of creationism, and they don't "debunk" any scientific theories. So what's the plan, lol?


Nah, no plan...or is there?...


Seriously, I'm just wanting some clarification on the subject is all.

Well, maybe there's a little more. I love to play chess and it seems pretty easy staying a move or two ahead of you guys...




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


It's more like we're playing poker, while you are the only one playing chess



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


It's more like we're playing poker, while you are the only one playing chess


Damn...that explains it. I've been playing the wrong game the entire time...



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


I just laid out for you that none of those facts does anything to discredit abiogenesis or evolution. They also do nothing in favor of creationism. You act as if you're 'a few moves ahead' of us, yet you're not even pointing out anything relevant to the conversation. Hell, it's not even anywhere near the topic title, which is that creationists tend to demonstrate a severe lack of scientific education.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


I just laid out for you that none of those facts does anything to discredit abiogenesis or evolution. They also do nothing in favor of creationism. You act as if you're 'a few moves ahead' of us, yet you're not even pointing out anything relevant to the conversation. Hell, it's not even anywhere near the topic title, which is that creationists tend to demonstrate a severe lack of scientific education.


"I just laid out for you that none of those facts does anything to discredit abiogenesis or evolution."

I never said it did. Or even implied it did. So why would you keep repeating such things?

"They also do nothing in favor of creationism."

Again, when did I say they did?

"You act as if you're 'a few moves ahead' of us, yet you're not even pointing out anything relevant to the conversation. Hell, it's not even anywhere near the topic title, which is that creationists tend to demonstrate a severe lack of scientific education."

Did you even read the previous entries? Did you?

Here let me quote one of mine:

"Now, back on topic, which belief is more ignorant?:

A. Atheists who believe in abiogenesis? - i.e. that we came from nothing; or that we came from proteins (abiogenesis) - which in turn came from nothing.

or

B. A Christian or any other religious persons belief that a supernatural being - who has no beginning or end - created us?"

You seem a lot less focused and less coherent than the last time we talked. I pray your intellect is not starting to fail you.




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 



Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


I just laid out for you that none of those facts does anything to discredit abiogenesis or evolution. They also do nothing in favor of creationism. You act as if you're 'a few moves ahead' of us, yet you're not even pointing out anything relevant to the conversation. Hell, it's not even anywhere near the topic title, which is that creationists tend to demonstrate a severe lack of scientific education.


"I just laid out for you that none of those facts does anything to discredit abiogenesis or evolution."

I never said it did. Or even implied it did. So why would you keep repeating such things?


Then why did you bring them up? Did you bring up random facts for no reason?

Fact 1: Bananas are typically yellow when ripened
Fact 2: Science has never been able to make a purple banana
Fact 3: Botany doesn't explain the origin of life



"They also do nothing in favor of creationism."

Again, when did I say they did?


And again, what is the point then?



"You act as if you're 'a few moves ahead' of us, yet you're not even pointing out anything relevant to the conversation. Hell, it's not even anywhere near the topic title, which is that creationists tend to demonstrate a severe lack of scientific education."

Did you even read the previous entries? Did you?

Here let me quote one of mine:

"Now, back on topic, which belief is more ignorant?:

A. Atheists who believe in abiogenesis? - i.e. that we came from nothing; or that we came from proteins (abiogenesis) - which in turn came from nothing.

or

B. A Christian or any other religious persons belief that a supernatural being - who has no beginning or end - created us?"


I've already addressed this, repeatedly. You're excluding the actual research that goes into abiogenesis theory. And, once more, we don't need to create a planet to come up with a theory of planetary formation. We don't need to observe the birth of a star to come up with a theory of stellar formation. We didn't need to create stellar nucleosynthesis to figure it out and we didn't need to recreate stellar fusion to figure out that stellar fusion occurs and is the way stars power themselves.

There is more than a bit of evidence pointing towards abiogenesis, whilst there is none pointing towards any supernatural concept.



You seem a lot less focused and less coherent than the last time we talked. I pray your intellect is not starting to fail you.


No, I'm quite a bit more focused and coherent than I've been before. You, on the other hand, still haven't learned to use the quotation functions.

Replace instances of "[" with "[" and instances of "]" with "]"

[quote] text [/quote] (ATS quote)

[ex] text [/ex] (External source quote)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 





Not necessarily, we have evidence pointing to how it probably occurred

PROBABLY? That doesn't sound very scientific to me. A theory remains just a hypothesis , until scientists can reproduce the process that the theory proposes to start. In fact, it must be replicable. Of course, very few theories can be proven universally, since one exception would negate the universality of the theory.
Furthermore, theories are only as good as the data and observations that support such. Since no one has actually OBSERVED evolution, the "theory" is deduced by archeological finds, and other such data.
In addition, it seems many are ignoring one fact-namely that several "theories" may be true at the same time. Evolution may be a possible explanation of some chains of the life cycle, while other processes may have lead to development of various life forms, spontaneously. Even then, evolution is a "local" hypothesis, applying only to earth. Even if life were discovered elsewhere in our solar system, and even if evolution seemed to fit for such life forms, it still would be considered a "local" theory.As a small dot in a vast universe,(and perhaps an even smaller dot in a multi-verse of m-dimensions) mankind would be quite arrogant to believe that observing that small dot, and drawing universal conclusions, and wrapping that into an all-inclusive theory, may be an act of supreme arrogance, and may qualify as a huge act of ignorance.
There is nothing in the belief of Creationism that Evolution can contradict. Theoretically, an all-knowing Being could have "created" life, in stages, which others call Evolution.
Personally. I believe that the truly ignorant person is one who believes that they hold all the answers. Only a perfect being could be capable of such, and humans certainly are not perfect. An imperfect being cannot possibly be perfect, by definition.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
There is more than a bit of evidence pointing towards abiogenesis, whilst there is none pointing towards any supernatural concept.



You seem a lot less focused and less coherent than the last time we talked. I pray your intellect is not starting to fail you.


No, I'm quite a bit more focused and coherent than I've been before. You, on the other hand, still haven't learned to use the quotation functions.

Replace instances of "[" with "[" and instances of "]" with "]"

[quote] text [/quote] (ATS quote)

[ex] text [/ex] (External source quote)


Thanks for the quotation help. But I just don't like doing it. Maybe I'll do it the right way a few times just to make you smile.


You say you're more focused now than ever and yet you say this?:
"There is more than a bit of evidence pointing towards abiogenesis, whilst there is none pointing towards any supernatural concept."

"A bit more evidence" - does that mean it has created life? Cuz the last time I checked, it means they have not. Which means you believe in something that has not created life. This is a fact.

Whereas I believe some super natural being, I call God and you refer to bananas or something, created us and this theory has not been disproven. This is a fact.

Let me quote myself from earlier in this thread:

"So I stand by my statements:

You would rather believe in something that has never created life (that's a fact) and still needs to be created itself (another fact).

I would rather believe in a super-natural being that may have created life (which is at least possible) and does not need to be created (which is at least possible).

Let me make these statements clear:

It is by far more ignorant to believe in things that have been proven false than to believe in things that may be in fact - true or at the very least it's still plausible.

Although I don't believe ignorant is the correct word to even be using here.

ig·no·rant/ˈignərənt/Adjective1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general.

I think illogical is a much better word to describe your view:

il·log·i·cal/iˈläjikəl/Adjective: Lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning."


Oops...looky there...I keep making mistakes with my quoting - my bad.





posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 



Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Thanks for the quotation help. But I just don't like doing it. Maybe I'll do it the right way a few times just to make you smile.


Just trying to keep the boards tidy looking.



You say you're more focused now than ever and yet you say this?:
"There is more than a bit of evidence pointing towards abiogenesis, whilst there is none pointing towards any supernatural concept."

"A bit more evidence" - does that mean it has created life? Cuz the last time I checked, it means they have not. Which means you believe in something that has not created life. This is a fact.


And, as I already pointed out, the validity of the theory doesn't rest on the ability of scientists to implement it at the present date. We've yet to create a self-sustaining nuclear fusion reactor, does that stars don't use nuclear fusion?

Now, we have some evidence to indicate that life on this Earth arose from carbon molecules. That means I'm accepting the hypothesis of abiogenesis in its current state until a better hypothesis or possibly theory comes along. If someone comes up with something better with more evidence, I'll accept it.

This isn't believing in the same sense that you religious folk believe something.



Whereas I believe some super natural being, I call God and you refer to bananas or something, created us and this theory has not been disproven. This is a fact.


Here are also a few non-disproven hypotheses as to the origin of life:
Zeus created us
Odin created us
Amaterasu created us
Ra created us
etc with further mythical examples

I'm going to go a step further with non-disproven hypotheses that I'll come up with off the top of my head:
We are the product of a unicorn ejaculating rainbows into a puddle of love
A gigantic cosmic hippo farted human life into existence
Humanity is the product of the life cycle of omnipotent celestial beans

These are not disproven simply because they are referred to as unfalsifiable, as in they are ideas which we would be unable to prove or disprove. The only way we could look at their validity is if we find an alternative solution to the same problem that's based in evidence. In this case, we have an alternative hypothesis that is grounded in evidence, it is referred to as abiogenesis.

I can no more disprove the claim that a unicorn ejaculated rainbows into a puddle of love creating life than I can disprove the idea that your deity created humans.



Let me quote myself from earlier in this thread:

"So I stand by my statements:

You would rather believe in something that has never created life (that's a fact) and still needs to be created itself (another fact).


And I'll explain to you why this is incorrect (and more specifically a logical fallacy known as a straw man).

Abiogenesis doesn't need to be created itself. And it may have created life, at the moment there's a question mark, not a definite no.



I would rather believe in a super-natural being that may have created life (which is at least possible) and does not need to be created (which is at least possible).


You have yet to demonstrate the possibility that this being created life nor have you demonstrated that it is possible for a being to not need to be created.



Let me make these statements clear:

It is by far more ignorant to believe in things that have been proven false than to believe in things that may be in fact - true or at the very least it's still plausible.


And here is where your entire enterprise falls out from under itself. Nothing you have stated proves anything false, it merely asserts incompleteness in scientific arguments. You are shoving your deity into a gap in scientific understanding, hence the term "God of the gaps".



Although I don't believe ignorant is the correct word to even be using here.

ig·no·rant/ˈignərənt/Adjective1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general.

I think illogical is a much better word to describe your view:

il·log·i·cal/iˈläjikəl/Adjective: Lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning."


Oops...looky there...I keep making mistakes with my quoting - my bad.


No, you. I'm sorry, had to be said. You're demonstrating a lack of understanding of anything in science and are demonstrating an inability to form a coherent line of reasoning with regard to this discussion.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Nobody will ever completley know where we camefrom
and how we got here. As a botanist I know evolution is there but it doesn't mean that we came from the sea. Where is the scientific proof to validate that we evolved from creatures in the sea?

Evolutionists criticize creationists for not looking at scientific facts while the evolutionists say their claims are scientific. Yes there is scientific evidence that evolution occurs but there is not scientific evidence proving Darwins chain of evolution that we evolved from the sea, and if you have a scientific article showing that we evolved from fishes then please show me as I am open to any logical argument.

While on the case of creationists, their arguments are irrational. I do believe that the underlying force in the multiverse did create everything but I don't try to personify what ever it is.

As of yet, evolution is still regarded as a theory in scientific classes throughout academia. And the evolutionists and just as guilty as the creationists for shoving biggotry based upon a belief system down other peoples throats.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 



Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by PieKeeper
 





Not necessarily, we have evidence pointing to how it probably occurred

PROBABLY? That doesn't sound very scientific to me.


Actually, that sounds overwhelmingly scientific. Scientists don't tend to deal with absolutes unless there is a massive body of evidence behind a concept (like evolution, gravity, etc).



A theory remains just a hypothesis , until scientists can reproduce the process that the theory proposes to start.


No, it doesn't. We know that stellar fusion is a fact, yet we don't have any way of recreating a successful sustained nuclear fusion reaction.



In fact, it must be replicable. Of course, very few theories can be proven universally, since one exception would negate the universality of the theory.


And those very few theories are the ones that are currently accepted by science. Like evolution, cell theory, germ theory, circuit theory, the theory of gravitation, etc.



Furthermore, theories are only as good as the data and observations that support such. Since no one has actually OBSERVED evolution, the "theory" is deduced by archeological finds, and other such data.


For a professor you sure don't know your fields of science, it's paleontology rather than archeology (archeology only deals with human artifacts) and we have observed evolution repeatedly.

I wish I could count how many times I've posted this link.
As well as this one.

Those are both observed instances of speciation.



In addition, it seems many are ignoring one fact-namely that several "theories" may be true at the same time.


Um...yes...like how we have a theory of evolution and then preceding that would be abiogenesis...



Evolution may be a possible explanation of some chains of the life cycle, while other processes may have lead to development of various life forms, spontaneously.


Except...we have not a single example of a creature that couldn't have evolved nor do we have an example of a spontaneously formed life form.



Even then, evolution is a "local" hypothesis, applying only to earth.


No, it applies to life. It makes a prediction that all life that works around inheritable data (like genetics) and reproduction would evolve. If we find life elsewhere in the universe that doesn't support this, then we have to examine the situation based upon the data.



Even if life were discovered elsewhere in our solar system, and even if evolution seemed to fit for such life forms, it still would be considered a "local" theory.


Again, no it wouldn't. It still makes a prediction for all life.



As a small dot in a vast universe,(and perhaps an even smaller dot in a multi-verse of m-dimensions) mankind would be quite arrogant to believe that observing that small dot, and drawing universal conclusions, and wrapping that into an all-inclusive theory, may be an act of supreme arrogance, and may qualify as a huge act of ignorance.


It would be arrogant to claim it as definitive, but it wouldn't be arrogant or ignorant to claim it as the most likely scenario, as theories tend to make predictions. You know, professor, I'm starting to doubt your qualifications.



There is nothing in the belief of Creationism that Evolution can contradict. Theoretically, an all-knowing Being could have "created" life, in stages, which others call Evolution.


Then why put in the unnecessary step of the creator when there is no evidence for it?



Personally. I believe that the truly ignorant person is one who believes that they hold all the answers.


And that's why nobody claims to have them all. I, on the other hand, claim to have some of the answers.



Only a perfect being could be capable of such, and humans certainly are not perfect. An imperfect being cannot possibly be perfect, by definition.


Oh my, a tautology. How...delightful. Ok, so...you've proven nothing.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   





posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
How you are repeatedly allowed to quote large amounts of text and get away with it and others aren't - i.e. - thedebunkmachine who replied right after you, I'll never understand.

Back on topic.

You are really confused about what a fact is.

Whether or not abiogenesis will or will not create life does not matter to my first factual statement:

FACT#1 Scientists have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis.

Here's the definition of a fact:

"The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept." - wiki

I included the science one just for you.


As you read the definition you will notice that it states "past or present" - nowhere in the definition does it state future.

So, while abiogenesis may create life, one day in the future - it is a simple fact that it has not so as of today, agreed?

And since abiogenesis has not been proven to create life, (the scientific definition), then we can also agree that my simple fact that abiogenesis has not created life is true, agreed - again?

Now your attempt at a very convoluted point about an actual fact of science not creating a self sustaining fusion reactor, is exactly why I am trying to make 100% clear what a fact is and what is not.

You continually try to mix facts with let's call them - non-facts to try and prove your point.

Now your next statement about you accepting the hypothesis of abiogenesis seems rational enough on the surface.

But what you are honestly saying is that you are accepting something that for a fact has not produced life, rather than accepting the hypothesis that "a unicorn ejaculated rainbows into a puddle of love creating life", which as of today, has not been proven false.

I submit to you that your unicorn hypothesis has more validity, since it has not been proven false, than your blind faith in a theory that has for a fact not produced life.

Because truth be told, until we make a time machine and travel back to when everything was created (is that even possible?), or until we create life from scratch, we just don't know for a fact which of these two fairy tales will end up being the fact, agreed?

Which brings me in to your next point. As of today, I can disprove abiogenesis as a fact, but by your own admission you can not disprove the idea that my deity or your unicorn created humans.

Yes. I fully understand you are trying to make a mockery of my belief in a God by using the unicorn analogy but what you are really doing is making a mockery of your own limited interpretation of science. Because how do you know for a fact that your science will not end up proving a super-natural being started it all?

You throw the word straw man like it's water. Do you even know what it means?

Here's the definition:

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." - wiki

It's most ironic that you use the word so much sense you are the one guilty of doing it so much. I think that is referred to as projection, right?

How about you admit in plain english with a simple yes - that the following statement is factual:

FACT#1 Scientists have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis.

Don't throw in any garblygook about unicorns or stars - just admit that this statement is a fact.

After you admit this, I will move on to the other factual statements.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I think you're mistaken assuming all atheists automatically accept every abiogenesis hypothesis. Some of those hypothesis sound quite compelling, but they haven't been turned into fully functional theories like evolution yet. So in short, the only thing we can say is "we don't know what started life", which most atheists I've met do.

Which is a lot more humble than what religious people do. In their incredible ignorance, they often refuse to accept reality if it contradicts their world view. And they also seem quite content in believing in stuff they have NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF of....which is like a kid believing Harry Potter or unicorns are real. Really quite sad, especially if they actively attack proven scientific theories while believing in those fairytales.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 



Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
How you are repeatedly allowed to quote large amounts of text and get away with it and others aren't - i.e. - thedebunkmachine who replied right after you, I'll never understand.


thedebunkmachine quoted an entire post verbatim, without comment. I, on the other hand, reply to every segment of commented text, as I'm going now.



Back on topic.


Ah, finally back to the lack of scientific knowledge among creationists.



You are really confused about what a fact is.


No, I'm quite assured of what a fact is. You, on the other hand, aren't aware of how to place facts in an argument or how to draw conclusions about it.



Whether or not abiogenesis will or will not create life does not matter to my first factual statement:

FACT#1 Scientists have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis.


Yet you draw upon this 'fact' to say that abiogenesis have been proven false, without a causation. How you can keep repeatedly ignoring this when I point it out to you is beyond me.



Here's the definition of a fact:

"The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept." - wiki

I included the science one just for you.



And yet we're talking about the last one, and go directly to the Princeton source next time, as the Wikipedia entry (which you didn't bother linking to) actually contains a reference here.



As you read the definition you will notice that it states "past or present" - nowhere in the definition does it state future.


And nobody said that it did. Red herring.



So, while abiogenesis may create life, one day in the future - it is a simple fact that it has not so as of today, agreed?


No, it is not a simple fact. It may not have been done in a lab, but that doesn't mean it never happened in nature. You're twisting the argument to create an equivalence between the inability of scientists to do something and the possibility that it happened in nature.



And since abiogenesis has not been proven to create life, (the scientific definition), then we can also agree that my simple fact that abiogenesis has not created life is true, agreed - again?


No, we cannot. We can say that scientists haven't been able to simulate the conditions or run long or large enough experiments to properly run abiogenesis simulations. This, of course, doesn't mean it never happened on Earth. It also doesn't mean that it did.



Now your attempt at a very convoluted point about an actual fact of science not creating a self sustaining fusion reactor, is exactly why I am trying to make 100% clear what a fact is and what is not.


I'm pointing out that the inability of scientists to do something doesn't mean that it's false. We also don't know how to form a solar system.



You continually try to mix facts with let's call them - non-facts to try and prove your point.


Please point out a non-fact that I've used.



Now your next statement about you accepting the hypothesis of abiogenesis seems rational enough on the surface.


Because it is the hypothesis most supported by the evidence. It isn't definitively supported, like in the case of evolution, but it has support.



But what you are honestly saying is that you are accepting something that for a fact has not produced life,


"accepting something that for a fact has not produced life in a laboratory setting"
Stop twisting the argument. We don't know for a fact whether or not it has produced life in the natural world or not.



rather than accepting the hypothesis that "a unicorn ejaculated rainbows into a puddle of love creating life", which as of today, has not been proven false.


And abiogenesis has not been proven false either.

I submit to you that your unicorn hypothesis has more validity, since it has not been proven false, than your blind faith in a theory that has for a fact not produced life.



Because truth be told, until we make a time machine and travel back to when everything was created (is that even possible?), or until we create life from scratch, we just don't know for a fact which of these two fairy tales will end up being the fact, agreed?


Nope, disagreed. You see, we can actually figure out what the conditions of the Earth were in its infancy. We can then recreate those conditions in a lab. If they produce the building blocks of life in a short period of time in a tiny area, it is a good indication of the validity of abiogenesis. It isn't definitive by any stretch, but it doesn't require a time machine or a hand-creation of life. We can come to some level of certainty without getting the full way.

Of course, ti would be far more definitive if we observed life arising in a recreation of the primordial Earth, but we cna decide that one idea has more evidnece than the other without that.



Which brings me in to your next point. As of today, I can disprove abiogenesis as a fact, but by your own admission you can not disprove the idea that my deity or your unicorn created humans.


No, you cannot disprove it (well, hypothetically you could, but you do not have the ability to). But didn't I just point out that unfalsifiable ideas aren't valid? An idea needs to be proven positively to be stated, it cannot simply be put forth as more true because it's impossible to invalidate. That is, by definition, illogical.



Yes. I fully understand you are trying to make a mockery of my belief in a God by using the unicorn analogy


No, I'm not making a mockery of your belief, I'm pointing out how ridiculous claims can be made that are impossible to prove false. I just literally pulled out a ridiculous idea.



but what you are really doing is making a mockery of your own limited interpretation of science. Because how do you know for a fact that your science will not end up proving a super-natural being started it all?


I never said it wouldn't I wouldn't have a problem if it did. However, at this very moment, there exists not a single shred of evidence to support that hypothesis, so what's the point in accepting it?



You throw the word straw man like it's water. Do you even know what it means?


Why yes, I do.



Here's the definition:

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." - wiki

It's most ironic that you use the word so much sense you are the one guilty of doing it so much. I think that is referred to as projection, right?


I'm sorry, but please show where I've used a straw man. You're simply saying that I've used it without pointing out where.



How about you admit in plain english with a simple yes - that the following statement is factual:

FACT#1 Scientists have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis.


Though it says nothing about whether or not abiogenesis or biopoesis occurred on Earth in its primordial eras, scientists have not yet created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis.

I fixed that for you.



Don't throw in any garblygook about unicorns or stars - just admit that this statement is a fact.

After you admit this, I will move on to the other factual statements.


And then you will pull out a non sequitur and say that these facts, all unrelated, somehow disprove abiogenesis. As you've already done. Yet, your conclusion will not follow from your premises.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


After trying to explain to mrvdreamknight that lack of conclusive evidence for does not constitute evidence against, I've come to the conclusion that Piekeeper's approach is probably the best.


edit on 12/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
PROBABLY? That doesn't sound very scientific to me.


Probability is a common part of science, since most things never occur 100%. Say that there's a disease in a population of people. This theoretical disease, based on past occurrences, virulence, etc. is analyzed to predict the amount of people that will contract the disease and die. What we end up is a statement of "probably"; we are given an estimation of how many people will "probably" die. It's not claimed to be an exact figure. "Probably" is just a word we use when there is a good chance of something happening, and we make decisions and predictions based on these chances. Will your next flight crash? Based on past occurrences, "probably" (there is a good possibility) not, but there's is still a slight chance of it happening.



Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
A theory remains just a hypothesis , until scientists can reproduce the process that the theory proposes to start. In fact, it must be replicable. Of course, very few theories can be proven universally, since one exception would negate the universality of the theory.
Furthermore, theories are only as good as the data and observations that support such. Since no one has actually OBSERVED evolution, the "theory" is deduced by archeological finds, and other such data.


A scientific theory is different than the standard definition of a theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of a process. The Theory of Evolution explains the process of evolution, which is the change in the allele (gene) frequency of a population over time. It has been observed, and it's known to occur. We've also been able to observe speciation events.



Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
There is nothing in the belief of Creationism that Evolution can contradict. Theoretically, an all-knowing Being could have "created" life, in stages, which others call Evolution.


Some creationists believe that life on Earth in it's current state (circa 6,000 years ago) was instantly created. Genetics and the fossil record, which play a role in Evolutionary Theory, refute this claim.




top topics



 
35
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join