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.
You refuse to accept that evolution and abiogenesis could even be possible. You refute all evidence presented for these, claim that there simply is no evidence, and instead continually slot in inflammatory language about how evolution is a religion and evolutionists are cunning deceivers. This stacks up to one massive denial. You can argue from the standpoint of being incredulous and give your reasons why, but explaining your reasons doesn't change your standpoint.
If you look in earlier posts, which would probably be a handy thing to do since you are new here, you will see that Russ often argues from this standpoint too. Many creationists do because the nature of their beliefs is such that they will not accept the possibility of anything that contradicts them. The idea of irreducible complexity is a form of the argument from incredulity and Russ and I have had several conversations about that.
That's because your little political slogans are always predictably regurgitated.
Crikey, you mean someone has claimed before that you were presenting an argument from incredulity? Incredible. Maybe you are hearing these things because they are appropriate comments to make, though I am getting used by now to expecting little in return from you apart from
ad hominem remarks about myself or evolutionists. I'm used to hearing them here. They don't exactly flatter their authors.
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.
You seem to think that science is a conspiracy. I don't expect to hear any more incredulous remarks about claims that you think scientists are liars. Examine your language in the above statement.
You seem to presume that all scientists have preconceived notions and that the only reason they do experiments or advocate theories is to dupe the public into believing them. Maybe I can understand now why this baselessly hostile way of thinking persists. What people actually do have preconceived notions about how things are, and must fit all the facts they come across into their world view, twisting or rejecting them as necessary? I can think of a few. But this is not a description of science or scientists. I've explained to you myself that I see the evidence such as the fossil record, and I agree that evolution is the best explanation. We don't seem to be able to get past the little bee in the bonnet about how I must have some kind of fervent religious desire to believe in evolution, and therefore the fossil record and anything else I can find are handy in stoking the flames.
When you find the time -- I know there are a lot of posts here -- I'm waiting for some ideas of experiments we can do to test the validity of creationism; a better explanation for the sorting of the fossil record and phyletic gradualism than evolution provides; and a list of those creationist scientists whom you say are esteemed by mainstream science.
To get back to your quote above, LinearAQ addressed this. Investigation and experimentation can change the way we think the world works. This is what science is based on. Theories are changed as new ideas come to light. Newton was right -- but so was Einstein. I fully expect our notions to continue to change as more discoveries are made. But these will be done via the scientific method. Can any creationists claim to have made discoveries which have contributed to the body of scientific knowledge?
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.
The same tiresome tactics I have already highlighted:
ad hominem comments, including an apparent claim that abiogenesis can't be a viable theory because scientists don't completely understand how it could work. So we don't know all the details -- fancy that! A good scientist never claims that they do. So the fact that we're learning more about a new and interesting field of science means nothing to you other than our lack of knowledge is proof to you that the whole field is invalid? I read the Wikipedia article that LinearAQ linked to; did you? Scientists have discovered a great deal more than I realised and there are some very interesting lines of study.
I've read estimates that up to 94% of the universe is composed of things called dark matter and dark energy, which we know little about. This is pretty amazing, don't you think? Yet I have never heard a creationist claim that this line of study is invalid because we know so little about it, and scientists don't agree. You seem to like to be selective about where you're going to criticise.
Just what do you imply has been "been observed, tested, replicated, and published in science journals" here?
Read the Wikipedia article on the origins of life. You never know, you might learn something. You will find many citations there of the scientists involved in the research, and their papers and theories. Theories, by the way, do not become theories if the research involved cannot be replicated by other scientists.
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.
That's what scientists are attempting to do. In the meantime you can't show me that it is impossible either, which means more research is needed, as I stated earlier.
I guess you don't understand the concept of "burden of proof".
What I told you about the burden of proof is not just my personal opinion, but that of some other scientists whose books I have read. They have a beef about dogmatic skeptics who think that a matter is open-and-shut when it can be "explained away." What they do not seem to accept is that their methods of explaining something away also need to be tested to ascertain whether or not they are valid alternatives. If an idea has been rigorously investigated by many experts in the field, then why should someone who claims it's all nonsense, without presenting an equally compelling body of evidence, be taken seriously?
Don't take your lessons from Percy. He doesn't get this either.
Ask me later when you've learned to spot circular reasoning in an argument and how to avoid employing it.
Here is an example. The Bible is literally true, therefore God must have created everything according to what the Bible says, because the Bible is literally true.
I've explained to you that I, and any good scientist, go where the evidence leads. In my opinion the evidence points pretty strongly to evolution. I have not come across an alternative which explains it better. When the field of genetics arose, it might have completely invalidated the theory of evolution; instead it has ended up complementing it.
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.
I'm not sure how you got to this line of reasoning from my remarks about Gonzalez. But in this case, I imagine the people who employ him and who have read his work would know more about him than you, yes.
We both know that the majority is not always correct. However, what they say should not be ignored entirely, especially if it involves people whose life work is in that field. Ignoring what they say makes no sense. If, however, you have listened to their arguments and you still disagree, then you need very good evidence of your own to back you up. Otherwise you are doing nothing but conspiracy-mongering.
