I'm getting tired of reading posts containing no evidence. You can claim anything in the world is true as long as you don't have to back it up.
By the way, I've clearly explained to you several times why evolution is not a religion. In detail. And yet you ignore this and persist with remarks about "evolutionism" designed to provoke. This is
ad hominem nonsense. The branches of science I personally find most interesting are astronomy, followed by archaeology. Yet strangely, no creationist has accused me of worshipping Galileo.
You were warned at least once on EvC to stop using the inflammatory remarks. You continue to use them here because you know you will receive no such warning. Therefore I can only conclude that you are enjoying a little fantasy and I will remind you of this as necessary, since it has nothing to do with the real world.
Argument from IgnoranceThe two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:
Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.
Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.
You have stated that the theory of abiogenesis is currently insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not) be true.
Because of this perceived lack of evidence by you, presumably you think this makes creationism more likely.
This is technically akin to the argument from incredulity:
"I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true." (The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is (or claims to be) unable or unwilling to fully consider that it might be true, or is unwilling to believe evidence which does not support her or his preferred view.)
If you are not using an argument from incredulity with abiogenesis, then are you now admitting that abiogenesis might be possible -- not proven but
possible?
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.
Yes, I do. It's a silly fantasy in your head.
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.
Explain. With evidence. You know, that E-word that seems to be anathema to you.
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.
In those days no one knew otherwise. By 1815 the broad outlines of the geologic column from Paleozoic times onward had been worked out by people who were mostly creationist geologists. The relative order of the strata was first determined by the principles of stratification. Reverend Benjamin Richardson and Reverend Joseph Townsend were a couple of early geologists involved in this work. By 1830 Lyell's famous textbook, Principles of Geology, came out. The captain of the H.M.S. Beagle, a very strong Bible believer, made it a point to have a copy of Lyell's book for the ship's library. Obviously, even Lyell was not pushing evolution at the time. Such was the age of the great creationist geologists.
When I asked my question I was thinking about more recent times, now that the theory of evolution exists. Are there any creationist "scientists" now who are as open-minded as the people I just cited, and who will honestly follow the objective evidence where it leads -- possibly to new discoveries, even if they appear to conflict with their religious faith?
Do you actually have that list of creationist scientists esteemed by the mainstream, or is that part of your fantasy too?
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.
Unsubstantiated fluff. Unless you can provide some . . . gosh, I'm going to have to use that E-word again.
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.
rubbish. Evolution is accepted as a fact today for the very reasons that many branches of science have discovered solid evidence for it over the decades.
I like how Darwin can be trashed here like this, yet everyone takes offense when I call Hovind for the scientific idiot that he is -- and give evidence to prove it. Nice.
So you're upset because I don't accept the results of something that hasn't been done?
Nothing you say from your argument from incredulity is monumental enough to upset me. Bore me, maybe.
Well stick around a while. I intend to present a thing or two.
If I hold my breath much longer I'll be in danger of passing out.
So you don't agree that dark matter and dark energy are possible. Well this is a surprise. I'd ask you to tell me how else you think the gravitational effects that we see in the universe can be explained, being the expert astronomer that you are, but it's way off topic here.
