The origins of abiotic species

[gcthomas]

Meanwhile, the answers to OP go unchallenged.

6days's answers have been exposed as the quotemining pap he always produces, while you haven't answered the OP, preferring to troll the thread with meaningless 'Tripe as usual. :troll:

:idunno:

 

[Stripe]

6days's answers have been exposed as the quotemining pap he always produces.

Nope.

while you haven't answered the OP, preferring to troll the thread with meaningless 'Tripe as usual. :troll::idunno:

Evolutionists hate reading.

 

[gcthomas]

Nope.

<<'TripeBot auto-response #1>>

Evolutionists hate reading.

<<'TripeBot auto-response #2>>

 

[Stripe]

<<'TripeBot auto-response #1>><<'TripeBot auto-response #2>>

Nope. Substantive responses have been given to OP. You prefer to ignore them and spout nonsense.

Pretending that ignoring your nonsense eliminates the substantive responses does not work.

 

[Jose Fly]

This quote from a evolutionist is getting a bit tired, but its good because its an admission that evolutionism is religious in nature.

Really? That's what you think Lewontin was saying? Really?

"‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin, Geneticist

IOW, he's saying "We can't allow 'Godddit' as an answer to scientific questions", which is entirely true.

The question is, do you understand why?

 

[Jose Fly]

Remeber you were asked to try harder to make logical arguments? You need to keep trying. Like Stripe said evolutionists do anything to avoid the subject.
If you read the quote again, Lewontin is willing to accept absurd logic and 'just so' stories. He admits he is not willing to follow evidence that leads to the Creator.

Oh...well then...I guess that answers my question. You don't understand Lewontin's point.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[gcthomas]

Nope. Substantive responses have been given to OP.

<<'Tripe auto-response #1>>
<<'Tripe auto-response #3>>

Come on, Stripe. Try to offer something with some thought behind it. You can do it!

 

[Stripe]

Try to offer something with some thought behind it. You can do it!

Try to respond to the challenges issued. :up:

 

[6days]

IOW, he's saying "We can't allow 'Godddit' as an answer to scientific questions", which is entirely true.

You have a poor understanding of science. Science is knowledge. Science is the search for truth. What you are promoting is religion. You start with the conclusion and try and shoe horn the evidence to fit.

Your religion causes you to be a history denier. Modern science was largely founded by scientists who believed that God did it. IE. God created.They believed that science was possible because the God of the Bible had created in an orderly fashion, making science and discovery possible. *

 

[gcthomas]

You have a poor understanding of science. Science is knowledge. Science is the search for truth. What you are promoting is religion. You start with the conclusion and try and shoe horn the evidence to fit.

Your religion causes you to be a history denier. Modern science was largely founded by scientists who believed that God did it. IE. God created.They believed that science was possible because the God of the Bible had created in an orderly fashion, making science and discovery possible. *

Science has always been methodologically naturalistic, not philosophically atheistic. There is a difference. Neither philosophy allows divine interventions as explanations, but you are arguing against the latter, whereas we are arguing for the former. It is a false argument you are waging.

 

[Stripe]

Science has always been methodologically naturalistic, not philosophically atheistic. There is a difference. Neither philosophy allows divine interventions as explanations, but you are arguing against the latter, whereas we are arguing for the former. It is a false argument you are waging.

Meanwhile, the challenges to OP go ignored.

 

[gcthomas]

Meanwhile, the challenges to OP go ignored.

Have you contributed anything on this thread besides sniping from the side? :idunno:

having re-read the thread, it seems that there has been no challenge to the OP beyond assertions from you and 6d. "There is no such thing" or "the evidence proves god exists" doesn't really count as a challenge, does it?

 

[6days]

*Science is knowledge. Science is the search for truth .... Modern science was largely founded by scientists who believed that God did it. IE. God created.They believed that science was possible because the God of the Bible had created in an orderly fashion, making science and discovery possible.

Science has always been methodologically naturalistic, not philosophically atheistic. There is a difference. Neither philosophy allows divine interventions as explanations, but you are arguing against the latter, whereas we are arguing for the former. It is a false argument you are waging.

It would seem you agreed with my comments? Your somewhat false 'argument' *doesn't address my comments at all.*

 

[gcthomas]

It would seem you agreed with my comments? Your somewhat false 'argument' *doesn't address my comments at all.*

You keep claiming that 'evolutionists' reject god. Don't you? If not, what are you objecting to in the way evolution is studied?

 

[6days]

You keep claiming that 'evolutionists' reject god. Don't you? If not, what are you objecting to in the way evolution is studied?

Two....two fallacies.
You are making a strawman argument. (I never claimed that).
And...you are trying to move the goalposts.

I think Stripes comment is suitable.

 

[gcthomas]

Two....two fallacies.
You are making a strawman argument. (I never claimed that).
And...you are trying to move the goalposts.

I think Stripes comment is suitable.

Good to hear that you don't think 'evolutionists' are rejecting God. All those Christians who know the truth of the great age of the world will rest easy now. If any of them cared what you thought.

 

[Jose Fly]

You have a poor understanding of science.

I do? Let's see.....I am a scientist, and the position I'm advocating ("Goddidit" is not an acceptable scientific answer) is the position of the scientific community, and has been for at least a couple of centuries.

So basically your position is that pretty much the entire scientific community doesn't understand science, and that you are the one who does.

Nothing at all delusional about that! :chuckle:

Science is knowledge. Science is the search for truth.

Science is the application/implementation of the scientific method.

What you are promoting is religion. You start with the conclusion and try and shoe horn the evidence to fit.

How do you know what I do? How do you know my history and the ways in which I've reached conclusions?

Your religion causes you to be a history denier. Modern science was largely founded by scientists who believed that God did it. IE. God created.They believed that science was possible because the God of the Bible had created in an orderly fashion, making science and discovery possible. *

How am I denying that? I agree, and also would point out that the same holds true today. There are lots of scientists who are inspired by their beliefs in various gods to investigate the world. That's one of the great things about science; since it's merely the application of a method, anyone can do it for whatever reasons they may have....Christians, atheists, Satanists, Muslims....anyone.

But apparently you don't or can't understand the difference between "people who believe in gods can't do science" and "Goddidit is not an acceptable scientific answer".

Why are you unable to grasp this?

 

[ClimateSanity]

Have you contributed anything on this thread besides sniping from the side? :idunno:

having re-read the thread, it seems that there has been no challenge to the OP beyond assertions from you and 6d. "There is no such thing" or "the evidence proves god exists" doesn't really count as a challenge, does it?

Neither of them have a state funded laboratory. What do you expect them to present?

 

[ClimateSanity]

Good to hear that you don't think 'evolutionists' are rejecting God. All those Christians who know the truth of the great age of the world will rest easy now. If any of them cared what you thought.

Unnecessary sarcasm.

 

[ClimateSanity]

You have a poor understanding of science. Science is knowledge. Science is the search for truth. What you are promoting is religion. You start with the conclusion and try and shoe horn the evidence to fit.

Your religion causes you to be a history denier. Modern science was largely founded by scientists who believed that God did it. IE. God created.They believed that science was possible because the God of the Bible had created in an orderly fashion, making science and discovery possible. *

It all depends upon what you call an orderly fashion. He set the constants just the right amount for everything we see today to be possible. Just because he used a singularity , doesn't mean he didn't create. He put laws in place and set the constants at a certain value. That allowed the universe that we see today to exist.