You refuse to accept that evolution and abiogenesis could even be possible. You [color:"red"] refute [/color]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.
You're so lucky I speak evolutionese.
Please compare
what you said to
what you meant . Technically, you can get away with this, but see the usage notes, and consider carefully whether it's a good idea.
You likely picked this up at EvC, where many are in the habit of communicating deceptively. They frequently claim to have "refuted" an argument, hoping that lurkers are fooled into believing the common meaning of the word. If called on it, they can then turn around and claim they meant the other (virtually never occurring) meaning. But that's all on the up & up because they're pushing evolutionism, right?
As you cannot provide a single example of me making an argument from incredulity, it would be proper to consider a retraction. I don't have that many posts here, and most are in this very thread. It shouldn't be hard to find an example. If only one existed!
Now if you mean "arguing while incredulous" - shoot yes! Everyone does this. Any time something absurd comes up. It's impossible not to do it. Furthermore, if you mean "arguing to incredulity" that also applies. The whole point of argument is to make people incredulous about things that should not be believed.
But "arguing from incredulity" means failing to support one's argument with anything beyond one's own sheer disbelief. It's pretty rare for anyone to do this, and when it actually happens it usually isn't noticed because the absurdity of the proposition is obvious to everyone already.
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.
You clearly don't understand the term. There are many reasons given in most any IC argument. Many more are implied simply from everyone's daily life.
Fact is, one can't even frame the IC argument without stating some reasoning. But one could certainly argue the other side from incredulity.
"You can't convince me anything's impossible no matter how hard you try". See? Piece of cake.
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.
I can't tell here. When you say science, do you mean science, or evolutionism. One is a method of obtaining knowledge available freely to everyone, including animals. The other is, well you know what it is.
For the record I do think some scientists are liars. That one pretty thoroughly contradicted his own statement about Gonzales' capacity to do his job. And using evospeak to deny it was over ID while simultaneously saying it was over ID, that ain't exactly honest either.
Actually, it's required that some scientists must be mistaken. They do have disagreements, you know. But I consider everyone a scientist, so I try not to use the term too frequently, lest people become confused. You probably think there's something special about "official" scientists, and why not? You think what you want with your mind.
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.
Ah! "A better explanation of the sorting of the fossil record" - now that's valid. (I hope) Comparing two or more explanations is a good idea. Claiming that one explanation is the best merely because the thing it explains exists, well I'm not going there.
If you saw my post to LinearAQ, you may recognize that much of what you consider to be abiogenesis research is equally valid when viewed as CS research. Can I trust you not to tell 'em? It's expensive stuff, and if they're happy doing our work... I say let'm go on happily working! Shoot, we pay taxes too.
[/quote]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?[/quote]
Now you're confusing me. Or didn't you know Newton was a creationist? I guess not, or you wouldn't have asked that question there at the end.
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.
How much do you want to hear? The cosmic evolution chapters of the story are no better than the rest. It usually takes creationists time to get around to that nonsense, but as they learn more & think more about what's scientific and what's not... well, imaginary stuff that can never be detected by any means doesn't cut it. *
Unfortunately, many have fallen into the relativity trap as well, so it's hard to find discussions of any cosmic models that have any chance of being accurate.
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.
In Darwin's
Origin of Species he refers to "my theory" several times. I haven't searched for earlier abuse of the term, but he was surely one of the pioneers. But then he probably knew he'd be deified, so maybe it wasn't too arrogant of him. Presenting an hypothesis, testing, verifying - all that stuff's for mortals.
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.
Huh? Attempting? So you're upset because I don't accept the results of something that hasn't been done? Get real.
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?
You're overlooking something: the law of biogenesis has been "been rigorously investigated by many experts in the field". So rather than trying to explain it away, someone needs to show something. I don't care how much you think it's possible. That's just the argument from credulity. What you need is a testable hypothesis backed up by some testing, and maybe throw in any other evidence you can find for icing on the cake.
I know you see a lot of "abiogenesis research" going on, and you assume things are getting closer and closer. The truth is, they keep butting their heads up against new obstacles. There may be a series of 5 experiments along a line, and the last four are just trying to get around a problem they found on the first one. Then they try another approach when they finally realize they can't go that way.
Just look how many pathways they're exploring. That's because the earlier pathways they thought would work are failing. They're not getting closer, they're searching for more new alternatives. Just look at that very article. Look at how crazy some of that stuff is, if you don't think they're getting desperate. I don't dispute the
results of their tests, why would I? What I don't have is blind, unlimited faith that somehow, some day, they'll pull it off.
Don't take your lessons from Percy. He doesn't get this either.
Thank you for that sound advice.
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.
Well stick around a while. I intend to present a thing or two.
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.
I try to give ideas a hearing based on their merit. I really don't care too much about how many people believe it or don't. I just want the truth. If they're such all-fired experienced wise men, they should be able to explain it in clear language using sound reasoning. They shouldn't need circular reasoning, and they shouldn't try to confuse anyone.
* "imaginary stuff that can never be detected by any means doesn't cut it." I don't maintain that that's a perfect literal interpretation of current dogma. They've toned it down to "for all practical purposes undetectable by current methods", and even claim "indirect detection" is possible. They have like 2 blurry images and claim dark matter's the cause and this proves dark matter. Like there's not a dozen other things that can and do blur images... 'nuf said.
