Shocking claim to Macro-evolution!

[nPeace]

You dont know much about science and the scientific method do you? What you claim here is nothing more than hypothesis yet you need to make it a fact. That is misrepresentation.

For someone who says god did it, without any evidence or knowledge of conditions or how god did it i do find it hilarious when they attempt to discredit science when they have no inkling of how science works.

Perhaps you are right, I do not know what science that is no science is. The reasoning presented as science without using the scientific method in not science.

...with his (Ibn al-Haytham) emphasis on experimental data and reproducibility of results, he is often referred to as the "world's first true scientist".

By the way, it would appear that there are scientist who like me, do not understand science, nor the scientific method. How cute is that... One being discussed on this thread.
What a strange concept.

Perhaps if Ibn al-Haytham were alive today, he would be on Tour's side... and not because of being Muslim.
Ibn al-Haytham: The Muslim Scientist Who Birthed the Scientific Method

 

[nPeace]

What makes you think that? That is the sin of creationists, not scientists. What specific actions are they assuming?

If you can't support your claims you only support mine when I say that creationists should never use the word "assume" in any of its tenses. Tour had to lie about a fellow scientist and make gross errors in doing so. You really should watch the video that I linked. It went over specific points in Tour's video and demonstrated his errors. If you have any questions I will gladly answer them.

EDIT: By the way what happened to that thread you started? I cannot find it. We were going to go over the basics and work our way up.

I returned to find that the post was removed.
Did you respond? If you are interested, I could create another.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I returned to find that the post was removed.
Did you respond? If you are interested, I could create another.

I did, I was quite polite, at least I thought that I was trying to be informative and not insulting.

Very strange.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lol. It's not a personal opinion! It's science.

Do you know what "abiogenesis" is? Why do you ask?
Where's the connection? don't you get it?
You gotta have an origin for the rest of the chain!

The question is not that there was an origin of life, but the implication that it must be a certain kind of origin in order for evolution to take place. It does not matter. Evolution does not demand life arise in a particular way, just that there be life. So chastising evolutionary theory, because abiogenesis is an unknown is not science, but personal opinion. If life arose by divine action, evolution would still be true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps you are right, I do not know what science that is no science is. The reasoning presented as science without using the scientific method in not science.

...with his (Ibn al-Haytham) emphasis on experimental data and reproducibility of results, he is often referred to as the "world's first true scientist".

By the way, it would appear that there are scientist who like me, do not understand science, nor the scientific method. How cute is that... One being discussed on this thread.
What a strange concept.

Perhaps if he were alive today, he would be on Tour's side... and not because of being Muslim.
Ibn al-Haytham: The Muslim Scientist Who Birthed the Scientific Method

You can't rely on people that are arguing emotionally against a concept. If you watch the video that I posted in response where Tours lied about the work of Szostak was clearly explained. Of course the video that I posted only deals with the attacks on Szostak. It takes much longer to correct and refute lies than it takes to say them Duane Gish realized that a long time ago when he "debated" against evolution. He had a well rehearsed series of lies and misstatements that he would spout off It would make it look as if he was winning the debate to the uneducated. They could not pick up the lies and took what he said as gospel.

 

[nPeace]

I did, I was quite polite, at least I thought that I was trying to be informative and not insulting.

Very strange.

It was not removed because of anything you said, but what I said.
I am interested in your response, so I will start over tomorrow. Thanks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lol. Think again.

That kind of responses from evolutionists....is what makes evolutionists look so pathetic!

You can't come up with any rational argument, can you?

But the argument that the theory of evolution is invalid, because the origin of life is unknown, is not a rational argument.

 

[nPeace]

You can't rely on people that are arguing emotionally against a concept. If you watch the video that I posted in response where Tours lied about the work of Szostak was clearly explained. Of course the video that I posted only deals with the attacks on Szostak. It takes much longer to correct and refute lies than it takes to say them Duane Gish realized that a long time ago when he "debated" against evolution. He had a well rehearsed series of lies and misstatements that he would spout off It would make it look as if he was winning the debate to the uneducated. They could not pick up the lies and took what he said as gospel.

I'll watch it later, but he is not my spokesman. i stand by what i say, on my own.

 

[exchemist]

Quite an interesting.post.
We can't do it, in a million years, but we assume it can happen in billions of years.
We have no way of testing something we assume can happen, given billions of years, but we assume it's not impossible.
But for one to say it is not possible, they have "an axe to grind".
We can't test the supernatural, but one who says there is evidence, and the supernatural is both probable, and possible, is irrational, to some (not referring to you), and one who dogmatically dismisses the supernatural as imaginary, has no axe to grind - they are rational (again, not referring to you).
Quite interesting.

I'm glad you find it so. What you have stumbled upon is the principle of methodological naturalism. We use that when we do science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll watch it later, but he is not my spokesman. i stand by what i say, on my own.

The problem is that without an education in the sciences one cannot properly judge the claims of others. For example do you know how abiogenesis is tested?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And @npease, you are lucky, @exchemist can explain technical parts of abiogenesis much better than I can. Odds are he will help you understand how it is tested and it is scientific if you ask politely. And remember, when you claim that something is an "assumption" you put a burden of proof upon yourself. Once you state that you have to prove that it is an assumption. If you can't and base your claim upon your own ignorance you in effect refute yourself. It is not a wise debating technique to make claims that you cannot support that you know that you are going to be called out on. Instead of stating that something is an assumption it is better to ask a question. Asking "How do they know . . . " is infinitely better than claiming that an assumption exists when in all likelihood that is not the case.

 

[nPeace]

And @npease, you are lucky, @exchemist can explain technical parts of abiogenesis much better than I can. Odds are he will help you understand how it is tested and it is scientific if you ask politely. And remember, when you claim that something is an "assumption" you put a burden of proof upon yourself. Once you state that you have to prove that it is an assumption. If you can't and base your claim upon your own ignorance you in effect refute yourself. It is not a wise debating technique to make claims that you cannot support that you know that you are going to be called out on. Instead of stating that something is an assumption it is better to ask a question. Asking "How do they know . . . " is infinitely better than claiming that an assumption exists when in all likelihood that is not the case.

My response was based on what exchemist said. I did not add, nor take away.
It would be quite easy to point that out, if that were the case.

 

[nPeace]

The problem is that without an education in the sciences one cannot properly judge the claims of others. For example do you know how abiogenesis is tested?

I do my homework. I don't find it hard to find what I look for.
Contrary to what you think of me, I can understand what I read.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My response was based on what exchemist said. I did not add, nor take away.
It would be quite easy to point that out, if that were the case.

What exactly did he say that you responded to? I lost track.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do my homework. I don't find it hard to find what I look for.
Contrary to what you think of me, I can understand what I read.

What are you looking for? I may be able to find the sources that can answer some of your questions for you.

 

[ChristineM]

Perhaps you are right, I do not know what science that is no science is. The reasoning presented as science without using the scientific method in not science.

...with his (Ibn al-Haytham) emphasis on experimental data and reproducibility of results, he is often referred to as the "world's first true scientist".

By the way, it would appear that there are scientist who like me, do not understand science, nor the scientific method. How cute is that... One being discussed on this thread.
What a strange concept.

Perhaps if Ibn al-Haytham were alive today, he would be on Tour's side... and not because of being Muslim.
Ibn al-Haytham: The Muslim Scientist Who Birthed the Scientific Method

If they do not understand the scientific method they are not scientists but failures.

Modern science would not be science without the scientific method.
Definition : a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

There are many scientists who helped form the scientific method, dating back to ancient greek and egyptian times, it is a fascinating history of how it developed and how much knowledge was almost lost in the the dark ages of catholic domination.

 

[nPeace]

What exactly did he say that you responded to? I lost track.

As usual SZ... as usual.
Why did you respond then?
Was it just because I said something, but you wanted to challenge me, not on anything I said, but just something you had in mind?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As usual SZ... as usual.
Why did you respond then?
Was it just because I said something, but you wanted to challenge me, not on anything I said, but just something you had in mind?

Or maybe you lost track as well. Why not simply answer the question?

 

[nPeace]

What are you looking for? I may be able to find the sources that can answer some of your questions for you.

You just asked me if I know how they test Abiogenesis.
That's not something I need help with. I read it before. It's not something I store in my head though, so I will have to look at it again.
Are you looking for an answer, or were you being rhetorical?

 

[nPeace]

Or maybe you lost track as well. Why not simply answer the question?

I answered the question. Apparently it wasn't the answer you were looking for.
Are you asking nicely? T doesn't seem that way to me...but you seem to be trying, so...
Here.