I never "argue from incredulity".
Yet you are incredulous that abiogenesis could be possible. This is a common creationist claim -- that something cannot be so because they cannot believe it could be so -- one of Russ' favourites too. Why don't you have a bit of a hunt around here and look at some past conversations. You can revive some old threads if you want, rather than carrying on in this one alone.
This is a common evolutionist false accusation. Read your own words, and tell me when and where I have ever argued that anything was untrue on the basis of my own inability to believe it. I always list reasons why I don't believe a thing when making an argument. Asserting one's bare opinion without any accompanying reasoning is only appropriate for polling/voting purposes.
I doubt Russ is guilty of this either. You toss around phrases you've adopted from evolutionist hypemongers, but do you bother to ask yourself if they're true or appropriate?
But I appreciate the compliment.
I'm not sure I understand how someone would feel flattered by being told that they are using a logical fallacy in a debate.
That's because your little political slogans are always predictably regurgitated. I'm capable of pattern recognition, and I know what it means when I see one. Think for yourself if you would be unpredictable.
You are discussing these comments about spontaneous generation and rust/snowflakes/etc with LinearAQ so I will make redundant posts on the issue. Both of us have explained to you how spontaneous generation is a different idea from abiogenesis.
Assertions aren't explanations. I know the difference: one came along later after the other one failed. The second one tried to insulate itself by invoking a fantasy realm. The promoters think that makes it stronger, but it's just another weakness. Now they need to demonstrate the existence of their little fantasy setting, and science is formidably against them.[/quote]
It also shows that scientists are willing to change their ideas about the world based on experimentation and new knnowledge. Can you say the same for creationists? When do they put their own beliefs to the test? Can you suggest an experiment that would produce some positive evidence for creationism?
Change their views? Your "scientists" are merely trying to revive a dead idea for religious purposes.
Creation scientists have adjusted quite well to new evidence. Setterfield's cdk hypothesis is considered weaker than it was in the past due to further research. Some seem to be giving up on it entirely, although I personally think it's too early to say either way.
No one has ever said that scientists are 100% certain of the answer. There is currently less evidence for abiogenesis than there is for evolution. We are learning more all the time though, and the abiogenesis idea for how life began is now robust enough to be considered a theory.
Robust, eh? I can understand you calling it a "theory", since it had little choice but to skip the hypothesis stage - just go straight from wishful thinking to established fact (assuming you're still speaking evolutionese). No science required - just more "learning". Learning what? Every new discovery indicates it's just that much more difficult than they claimed it was going to be!
But they're learning - learning how to spin and indoctrinate. Learning how to redefine words.
No. We have a solution. Evolutionists are just unhappy with it, and want another answer. There's no need to study something just to support their unscientific religion.
Men mentally levitating themselves to the moon is another issue considered impossible. People wanting it to be possible does not justify research.
A true skeptic keeps an open mind. "Explaining away" ideas is not skepticism but dogmatism. If someone claims that an idea which has been observed, tested, replicated, and published in science journals is incorrect, then that claim needs proof, just as the people who advocate the idea need proof for its legitimacy.
Just what do you imply has been "been observed, tested, replicated, and published in science journals" here? Just like when you said I'm calling the majority of the world's chemists liars/dummies, you're failing to reveal the issue. I'm done guessing.
If someone claimed that they could levitate themselves to the moon then this is easy to disprove scientifically. First, we know of gravity and its effects. Second, we know that there is no air up there to breathe. Third, we know of other effects of the hostile environment of space on the human body. An easier way still would be to say "show me," which they would be unable to do.
Let's try that here. Let's try the exact same approach you advocate. You say abiogenesis is possible. Saying it don't make it so. SHOW ME.
This is not the same as dismissing a claim out of hand. If you are going to rubbish a scientific theory, then as I said above, you do need to provide your own evidence against it. I don't agree with these "burden of proof" statements, though maybe you picked them up from a few people at EvC, I don't know.
I guess you don't understand the concept of "burden of proof". Well, one step at a time. Ask me later when you've learned to spot circular reasoning in an argument and how to avoid employing it.
You have consistently states the view that scientists are liars. You claim that you know better than they do. For example, you claimed that Gonzales was "doing fine work" even though you are not an astronomer and have never read a single paper of his.
So my hasty conclusion that Gonzales did fine work amounts to calling scientists liars? Well don't that beat all?
It seems disagreeing with the majority = calling them liars too. So science should all be decided by majority vote, nothing can be questioned, everybody go home.
Thank you. Most evolutionists keep such sentiments to themselves and don't share them so openly. In this regard, you're honesty exceeds theirs. Now we know what kind of attitude we're dealing with.
(Crud! One isn't supposed to end a sentence with a preposition, but it's even more unpleasant than Yoda-mode to say "Now we know with what kind of attitude we're dealing.") I used to think I had communications skills. Suggestions anyone?
