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.
So don't read 'em. Or get some rest.
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.
I must have missed that. Can you point me to an explanation. I figure belief systems requiring blind faith, adherence to doctrines, recitations, etc. are religions. Here you claim otherwise, but you're just arguing from incredulity. If that much. Looks more like an unsubstantiated assertion now that I think about it.
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.
Truth can be inflammatory to some. I can't help that.
I can try to tease a little less, but I'm not too strong so don't tempt me.
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.
Um, first you need an hypothesis. Guess I shouldn't have deleted the quote. But the word's there, plain as day.
I've been thinking about that too. Since these experiments are never random, and always carefully designed by intelligent agents, I'm beginning to think they support ID much more than they support standard abiogenesis.
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 already told you.
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.
I was trying to be polite. You said it - not me.
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.
What do you mean "with evidence"? Sound reasoning about how to interpret science stands on its own. If my reasoning is unsound, I hope someone will point out my error. But "with evidence"? You're just a-temptin' me now.
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?
What'd I say? I told you to do your own research. You act like I owe you an answer. And besides, it's more funny when you claim silly things about peoples capacity to perform science, speaking as one who doesn't know them or anything about them.
Awwww, why not? Dr. George Washington Carver. I doubt you'll attack him too viciously.
Unsubstantiated fluff. Unless you can provide some . . . gosh, I'm going to have to use that E-word again.
Who brought up dark matter? Did they pack any evidence? Oh - that's right - there ain't none!
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.
Trashed? I divulged the fact that his story was one of the first "Theories! Hot off the press!" Why does the truth offend you so? When advancing an idea as important as that, surely a little hype in blatant disregard for scientific custom can't be too out-of-order, can it?
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.
It certainly is. And I've seen how evolutionists react when threatened by astronomy.<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/chiefwiggum.jpg" alt="" />
