Do you feel superior to young-earth creationists?

PostmodernProphet said:
I am not required to provide you with a replacement "workable model" when you haven't demonstrated there's a workable model in the first place......that is why you haven't yet begun the debate.......do your job, Ringer.....
Click to expand...
Well yes, yes you do. A workable model has been provided to you. One that has and does make all sorts of testable predictions that have been independently verified by science. It's factual basis is accepted by consensus and is not really debated but since all scientific knowledge in tentative we are open minded to alternative explanations if they are superior scientific explanations. So, on that point you are in fact wrong. We have this working explanation (common decent). It explains a lot and is very useful to biologist.

Now, that being the case, if you believe it is not valid, it is incumbant upon you and not I or the scientific community to provide an alternative explanation for why these phylogenetic homologies exist. So explain away. Convince us we are wrong by providing us with a superior scientific explanation.

So, for the 9th (or is it 10th?) time, please quit running and answer this question. If common descent is not a valid explanation then can you please provide me with an alternative explanation that meets the tenets of the scientific method?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
A workable model has been provided to you. One that has and does make all sorts of testable predictions that have been independently verified by science.
Click to expand...

no it hasn't....and if you don't know enough about biology to be able to state an argument in support of it, just admit......Ringer......

is not really debated
Click to expand...

certainly not here....

now state your fucking argument and stop wasting time.....
 
I've been here for more than two years or more.......you've avoided every argument with me using the same tactic "everybody knows.....so prove it wrong"........never once have you demonstrated you know........you never get to that point.....you just run.........I think you know how to fill petri dishes but you've never actually had to debate an issue......you're afraid of losing so you never start.......Ringer......
 
Psychological projection and circular arguments PiMP. The only person you're fooling is your self.

I've been very fair to you. The fact that you're hanging yourself is your problem.

So you've now ran from the question 10 times. This debate has boiled down to this. Provide a scientific alternative explanation and you win. As simple as that. Keep playing sophistry, word games, circular arguments, empty rhetoric, lies, and projecting your own short comings onto others all you want and unless you can do that, you lose.

So for the 11th time. If common descent is wrong, then please provide me with an alternative explanation for phylogenetic homologies that meets the tenets of the scientific method?

Let me know when you're ready to quit running. I'm not wasting anymore time with your endless evasion or running. Make an honest answer or the game is over cause unless you can provide me with a tool that works, I'm going to continue to use the one that does and I don't give a rats ass what you have to say about that.

Of course we all know the reason you're playing your little game and running from this question is because you don't have a scientific alternative explanation and you're not honest enough to admit that. The only person you're fooling PiMP is yourself.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Psychological projection and circular arguments PiMP. The only person you're fooling is your self.

I've been very fair to you. The fact that you're hanging yourself is your problem.

So you've now ran from the question 10 times. This debate has boiled down to this. Provide a scientific alternative explanation and you win. As simple as that. Keep playing sophistry, word games, circular arguments, empty rhetoric, lies, and projecting your own short comings onto others all you want and unless you can do that, you lose.

So for the 11th time. If common descent is wrong, then please provide me with an alternative explanation for phylogenetic homologies that meets the tenets of the scientific method?

Let me know when you're ready to quit running. I'm not wasting anymore time with your endless evasion or running. Make an honest answer or the game is over cause unless you can provide me with a tool that works, I'm going to continue to use the one that does and I don't give a rats ass what you have to say about that.

Of course we all know the reason you're playing your little game and running from this question is because you don't have a scientific alternative explanation and you're not honest enough to admit that. The only person you're fooling PiMP is yourself.
Click to expand...

I saw a documentary once about young college kids who were struggling with their fundamentalism after attending college. In some respects it was heartbreaking seeing them come to the realization that most things they had been taught through their religion was conflicting. It was also heartbreaking to see how their new found knowledge was rejected by their families.
 
still a fucking coward, I see.....how did you ever get a reputation for knowing anything?......run, Little Ringer, run......two years and counting and you're still afraid to debate me.....
 
#12 and you're still running away. If common descent is wrong, then can you please provide me with an alternative explanation for phylogenetic homologies that meets the tenets of the scientific method?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
#12 and you're still running away. If common descent is wrong, then can you please provide me with an alternative explanation for phylogenetic homologies that meets the tenets of the scientific method?
Click to expand...

not until you show me why you think homologies meet the tenets of the scientific method.....quite frankly, I suspect you aren't quite certain what the scientific method actually is, since you're unable to articulate your own argument.....

that's 12 times you've dodged stating your own argument by pretending it's my obligation......run way little biologist, run away.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
then you should be able to prove it, thus destroying all possibility of a creating God......give it a go.....and please don't run away again.....

here's your topic.....Do anatomical homologies require a conclusion of common descent?......
Click to expand...

since you're apparently lost, lets start over again at the beginning......or you could make it a baker's dozen and run again........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
neither is abiogenisis but as I recall you're afraid to have that debate.....
Click to expand...

There is no theory of abiogenisis that has been specifically proven, but that doesn't make it "not science". Most theories are a serious attempt to model the world given naturalistic explanations. Scientists don't claim that it's necessarily true, but they are trying to find evidence for one proposition or the other. General relativity also wasn't proven when Einstein first postulated it, but you wouldn't say that it's "not science".

Creationism, on the other hand, relies on inherently supernatural explanations. Even by the theist defense of religion that claims that religion is outside of the realm of science (an argument I consider little more than sophistry), you clearly put yourselves out of science. No one is conducting experiments to see if life could've really been created by theist means, and no one would ever expect such a thing to be known. Science can't rely on supernatural explanations. The supernatural is beneath the realm of science.
 
When creationists attack abiogenisis as "unscientific", they're doing little more the equivocating. There was a kind of abiogenisis that people used to believe existed. They thought that flies came from rotten meat, for instance. Scientists did experiments that disproved this superstitious form of abiogenisis. However, when scientists propose theories of abiogenisis in the early Earth, in a search for naturalistic ways in which life could've come into existence, they are obviously referring to something completely different than the first thing I mentioned. When creationists say "Abiogenisis was proven unscientific!", they are taking the unscientific nature of one thing and using it to attack an unrelated thing simply because the same word can be used to describe both. Classic equivocation.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
thank you for conceding the point, admittedly that's preferable to you running away, though not as much fun as an actual debate....




so does intelligent design.....thank you for playing.....
Click to expand...

"Intelligent design" and evolution aren't incompatible.

Anyway, just because you can come up with a just-so story that could possibly explain the evidence doesn't mean it should be elevated to the same level as a scientific explanation that fits the evidence.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no, you haven't....in fact you've simply stated the name of the theory......do you know what the theory is?......can you state it in your own words?......do you know anything about it........now, no cut and pastes......state your position and tell us why it causes us to conclude there must be common descent......certainly you can take the time out from filling petri dishes to actually debate instead of spending all this time pretending you don't need to.....

and please, make it "is testable, can be independently verified and is, in principle, falsifiable"......
Click to expand...

https://www.google.com/search?ix=sea&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=biology#ix=sea&q=biology&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=shop&source=og&sa=N&tab=wf&ei=pOg3T5uAKcOJtweR7O2kAg&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=a62d35e1f967cc73&biw=1366&bih=667&ix=sea

Just like in the debate with Dixie, I am not required to educate you if you refuse to educate yourself.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no it hasn't....and if you don't know enough about biology to be able to state an argument in support of it, just admit......Ringer......



certainly not here....

now state your fucking argument and stop wasting time.....
Click to expand...

If no one here knows enough about biology to state an argument in support of it, that is our failing, not the failing of biology. There was no responsibility on our part to defend it anyway, since we are not experts in the subject, and can't speak in its name, only in its defense.
 
General Sherman said:
If no one here knows enough about biology to state an argument in support of it, that is our failing, not the failing of biology. There was no responsibility on our part to defend it anyway, since we are not experts in the subject, and can't speak in its name, only in its defense.
Click to expand...
Actually I am and I could have but he was evading the question set before him so I saw no point. It was a tremendous waste of my time. Why should I go to the effort to provide an accurate explanation that he'd reject out of hand with one of his fallacious circular arguments? I will admit that I did want to see how many times he'd dance on the head of a pin. 13 was enough for me.

You are right though. We are under no obligation to disprove anything. If he wants to do that, then the burden of proof is his. My point is, he can't debunk or disprove anything in science unless he can provide an alternative scientific explanation that is the best fit or provides the best explanation.

His question was a straw man and another attempt at sophistry. Homologies don't "prove" common decent, as PiMP phrased it, but rather common decent easily explains why these homologies exist. If PiMP doesn't like that explanation well then I'm open minded to any alternative scientific explanation that works better.

For some reason he doesn't want to provide one. I wonder why that is?
 
Last edited:
General Sherman said:
When creationists attack abiogenisis as "unscientific", they're doing little more the equivocating. There was a kind of abiogenisis that people used to believe existed. They thought that flies came from rotten meat, for instance. Scientists did experiments that disproved this superstitious form of abiogenisis. However, when scientists propose theories of abiogenisis in the early Earth, in a search for naturalistic ways in which life could've come into existence, they are obviously referring to something completely different than the first thing I mentioned. When creationists say "Abiogenisis was proven unscientific!", they are taking the unscientific nature of one thing and using it to attack an unrelated thing simply because the same word can be used to describe both. Classic equivocation.
Click to expand...

there's a significant difference.....scientific experiments can be designed to prove or disprove the theory that flies come from rotten meat.......the same is not true for the theory that life comes from inert organic chemicals......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top