"Consensus" is NOT "a truth." The "consensus" was that Hillary The Crook Clinton would be elected president. The "consensus" is that homosexuality is respectable, even honorable. It is neither. It is wickedness. Why did you switch from the Dawkins Saw equating evolution with "gravity"? Not one physicist in the universe has ever stated that "gravity is as overwhelmingly true as Neo-Darwinism." They never will either.
Errr Chem... it may have escaped your notice but you started this thread in a Science Forum. What did you think we were all going to discuss here, needlepoint? So yes here and now, in this thread me and my 'atheist' friends (Again NOT AN ATHEIST) are sort of 'hung up' as you put it on the topic of science. So if I may politely make a suggestion if you are as interested in religion as you seem to be you should start thread in the Religion Forum and anyone who is interested (including me - sometimes) will get 'hung' up on that. And again I don't have any problem with equating God with Love - that is after all as it should be, not so sure though about equating Atheists (again because I really want you to be clear on this point - NOT AN ATHEIST) with hate. As individuals yes of course individual atheists can be hateful, as a concept atheism can perhaps be regarded as hateful (by creationists at least) but I'm not sure you can state that all atheists 'hate' creationists. As groups you fundamentally disagree. Whether that disagreement is 'hateful' ???? Oh and now you have 'come out' so to speak as a creationist my basic objection to that position is spelt out in Post 148. I won't bother to repeat it here.
The subject is "Fallacies of Evolution." I won't bother to read Post 148 because like so many who worship at the Altar of Darwin, you are hung up on Dawkins Talking Points. Stop obsessing on "creationism" when the subject is "Fallacies of Evolution." No "alternative" is needed to point out when supposedly scientific theories fail miserably. STOP. Nothing beyond this.
Which is a pity because at least I do the you the courtesy of reading yours. PS I see someone has redacted the picture of the two naked (gay) bums you posted earlier. I think perhaps Reason, like Elvis may have left the building - at least temporarily. Perhaps it time for you to take a time out..
"Courtesy"? You speak of your own "courtesy" when in fact you fabricate and put your words into my mouth? This is just ONE of your posts: "I'm not an atheist. [You fooled many people. If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck...] The problem as I stated with creationism in the form of a fully developed 6000 year old universe [YOUR words, not mine] is simply that it is impossible to refute or confirm using science and is therefore does NOT fall within the remit of science." THE SUBJECT is "fallacies of evolution," so of course you bring up "a fully developed 6000 year old universe" and march on from there, then invoke Elvis and others' lack of "Reason" (sic). Bye, Monash. I'm giving you a permanent time out. That's how it's done, the Iggy Button.
At last I'm free......... Oh and everyone else please note - no denial re; being responsible for the naked gay bum post - in a science thread of all things. If nothing else that that will (for me at least) sum up Chem in a nutshell. End of thread anyone??
The consensus of a flat earth, the 4 humors, spontaneous generation, and leeches to draw out 'bad blood' did not make these true. Neither does the consensus of universal common ancestry, 13.77 billion years, uniformitarianism, big bang, inflation, or any number of hare brained 'theories' out there that try to answer the PHILOSOPHICAL question: Why (and how) are we here? Pretending that belief in atheistic naturalism is 'science!', and belief in a Creator is 'religion!' is just religious bigotry, and outs you as a progressive indoctrinee. We only have models: Intelligent Design Atheistic naturalism We can only plug the facts into each model, and see if they hold water. Empirical facts do not 'Prove!' either model. They can only suggest possibility and plausibility. Science is a tool, to test theories, and fit the results into the models. IMO, the 'theory' of universal common ancestry is full of holes, requires suspension of skepticism, is contrary to observable reality, and requires too much blind faith. It sucks as a scientific theory of origins. 1. Ancient dates are contrived, to mask the impotence of the physical evidence; of which there is none. 2. Fossils appear fully formed in various strata, with no uniformity. Cherry picked speculation is used to declare fossils as 'proof of common ancestry!' They do not even suggest that. 3. Strata is theorized as having been lain down over billions of years, uniformly and constantly. This is not observable reality. Catastrophism is a better model for the formation of geological strata, and ancient dates are not required. Multiple layers can be laid down (which has been observed) in a short time. 4. There are NO TRANSITIONAL ORGANISMS. Every living thing descended from it's phylogenetic type, with only micro, or horizontal variability. They were not 'something else!', in the past, nor are they becoming something else. Common descent is a religious fantasy. It has NEVER been observed, has no mechanism for 'creating' complexity, and cannot be tested or repeated. These are just a few problems with the 'theory' of universal common ancestry, aka, macro evolution. Facts and science are NOT used, to support this theory, but fallacies. Outrage, ad hominem, arguments of authority, incredulity, plausibility, equivocation, and assertion, are the usual 'evidences' given by the True Believers in common ancestry. They do not have facts or real evidence for this belief, because none exists. So they lash out in frustration at anyone who dares to question the sacred tenets of their faith. Atheistic naturalism vs creationism is BOTH a scientific and religious debate. It is only the phony narrative, from religious bigots, who try to portray it as 'Atheism is science, creationism is religion!'
The tactic of ignoring and/or censorship is increasingly used, in the debate over origins. The atheistic naturalists want to portray their beliefs as 'settled science!', and belief in a Creator as 'religion!' So they ban or censor any alternate perspectives, and use ridicule and mocking to caricaturize the competition. Atheistic naturalism has hijacked 'science!', as a label that ALWAYS and UNIFORMLY rubber stamps their beliefs, but that is a MISUSE of science.. it is anti-science, or pseudoscience, and does violence to true scientific methodology. Closing this thread will not make it go away. You cannot evade your Creator so easily..
Which was the nub of my point. I have no problem with literally any theory regarding the nature and structure of the physical universe as we perceive it being tested. By all means test, pull apart, de-construct and refute any currently widely accepted scientific theory as you deem fit. In fact I love to see this happen - if nothing is ever challenged, nothing would ever be learned. I have no problem with that. The problem is how do you test theories like Creationism
..the same way you 'test' for atheistic naturalism. We cannot REPEAT, our origins.. either from a Creator, or from some unknown natural process. Repeating a creation event should be obvious.. it cannot be done, in a lab. It was an historical event, and is not subject to repeatable science. That is the nature of the event, if we posit a Creator. Repeating natural processes should be easy. We do that all the time. But why can we NOT repeat and observe this mysterious natural process of abiogenesis, or common ascent, if it is a 'natural process!'? It is shrouded in unrepeatable, undefinable mystery as much as any Creator act. So, since we cannot observe or repeat EITHER model of origins, BOTH are hypothetical possibilities, and we can only plug the data into models, to see which seems most likely. Atheistic naturalism is no more 'science!', and creationism 'religion!' than the inverse. We can only use science, reason, and facts to fill the models, and make our best guess. That is not satisfying for dogmatic man, who wants neat formulas and tidy philosophical beliefs. So imagination is used to contrive speculative fantasies, to lull us into acquiescence and trust in the elites. Any quest for knowledge and understanding requires careful search, skepticism of the status quo, and critical thinking. That is not encouraged in Progresso World. Trusting the elites is the preferred method of discovery.
Oh and before I head off to sleep. Despite what Chem seemed to think I don't like Richard Dawkins writings. I prefer my science without any emotion other than (perhaps) wonder. Dawkins just comes across as angry, self opinionated and bitter. I have a mother-in-law for that, who needs a double serving.
You can't because there is NOTHING remotely scientific about the "creationism". It is a BELIEF system invented to subvert the teaching of Science in schools.
I am aware you scientifically test for historical events be it the creation of life on Earth or for that matter the Battle of Hastings. However testing or modeling is only half of the scientific method. There is also direct observation and measurement of the physical universe. I can't scientifically 'test' the existence of a Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy in a laboratory. I can however conduct observations and measurements of the center of our galaxy and derive proof of its existence from those measurements and observations. Creationism as a 'proposed' scientific theory doesn't let me do that either. There is literally no way for me to prove its validity by either test or observation.
Yes, but I'm not the one who needs to be convinced. Its people like naked bum guy who don't get that point.
Then repeat and test atheistic naturalism, if it is more 'scientific!', than creationism.. A simple test of abiogenesis, and increased complexity at the genetic level will suffice.. But.. if you cannot demonstrate this simple thing that allegedly happens all the time, HOW do you propose, 'it happened!' at some time in the past? What mechanism do you have for abiogenesis and increasing complexity in living things? What evidence do you have that, 'it happened!', other than speculation? Can you use these mysterious mechanisms to repeat and observe your hypothetical beliefs? No, you just believe in atheistic naturalism, without any evidence. It is a religious opinion, not science.
There might be a small handful of people who believe in creationism with a mind open enough to accept the evidence that exposes it as bunkum.
Of course it does. The evidence either supports a Creator model, or it supports an atheistic naturalism model, or sometimes both (or neither!). If this event took place, and we are here, evidencing that it did, what hypothetical model fits the data better? The premise of an Intelligent Designer, as the first Cause, has plenty of circumstantial evidence, even if it cannot be repeated. The premise of atheistic naturalism has more problems, since it proposes abiogenesis and increasing complexity in living things, as well as tremendous negative odds for a planet that supports life. It should be easy to demonstrate, if that is what happened. So why can we NOT create life under rigorous laboratory conditions, if this happens spontaneously in a cold, dead, lifeless universe? Why can we not observe transitional forms, and easy movement between haplogroups within a phylogenetic structure? It is because the EVIDENCE for atheistic naturalism is flawed and nonexistent. It is a religious belief, nothing more. And the bully pulpit that militant atheists use, who attack God and the theory of Creation is just religious bigotry.
Ah, the bandwagon fallacy! Good to illustrate the premise of the OP! ..not true, anyway, but since all you have are fallacies, and no scientific evidence, that's what you use!
Thank you for establishing that you are unable to defend the creationism bovine excrement. If you want to attack any specific aspect of science then I recommend that you find the particular Scientific paper describing the hypothesis and provide a link to where it is published and then state your arguments as to why the findings are invalid. At least that way you don't open yourself up to derailing thread violations.
i attack pseudoscience and religious bigotry. No science has even been presented, here.. The OP is 'fallacies of evolution', which i pointed out, with your bandwagon fallacy. How is that a derail? By accusation? By decree, like progressive science? ..only in Progresso World.. Believe whatever you want. I don't care. Everybody has to do 2 things alone: Their own believing Their own dying
You given the opportunity to follow established Scientific Method Protocols. By your own admission above you can't! Ergo you are just TROLLING!
So where is your peer reviewed evidence that the universe is not billions of years old? Where is your peer reviewed evidence that evolution is wrong, and the entire field of biology? Why do you think making bald assertions, and saying “Nuh uh” is a rebuttal to peer reviewed evidence?
You are becoming a waste of time. I did not say consensus is a truth. I said nothing about Clinton or homosexuality. I did not equate evolution with gravity. Complete waste of time. bye.
You said: "But consensus is a stronger truth than the lack of one. The consensus for evolution is just as overwhelming as the consensus for relativity." It surely is a waste of your time to meet someone who does not fall for your repeated errors, which you try to cover up very unsuccessfully. Here I try to help you learn and you don't want to. What a shame. You equated it with relativity, instead of the usual Darwinian Pablum of "gravity." My Ignore List just grew by you. ciao
