Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 18, 2020 1:39:18 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [full text here]
< clips >
- ID arguments don't count as "empirical evidence".
- Should they also give up on trying to cure cancer while they're at it too?
- naturalism has actually been demonstrated to exist
- meandering gibberish that doesn't really address what I actually said
- Try to answer without petty insults
- Why not? Did you vote them out? There's no voting in science.
- I wouldn't go so far as to say that. I would note though that there haven't been any remarkable breakthroughs in 25 years.
- That's just your blinkered world view again.
- It addresses what you did not and cannot say.
- I have to use facts, and the facts don't paint a flattering picture of you. I'm sorry you will have to accept that.
You're making this more difficult than it has to be. It is really easy to understand.
- A very, very long time ago when the periodic chart of the elements was just a theory, and not yet filled in, and microscopes only had 150 magnification, and people believed in "animalcules" that appeared to be no more than a droplet of translucent jelly, it seemed to some otherwise reasonably intelligent people that the origin of life might be explained by ordinary lifeless nature.
- That was very exciting "science" and a "majority" opinion developed that it would happen any day soon.
- Science advanced, the periodic chart got filled in, microscopes showed the droplets of jelly were more complicated than automobiles, and the chance of life being assembled by ordinary lifeless nature was gone forever.
- Yet the "majority" opinion remained as before despite it being proved wrong. That's the problem, how to convince the majority it is wrong? You keep trying to use your "vote" here to deny the obvious reality. Science doesn't depend on votes, rather it depends on facts and logic. You imagine you have facts and logic but you don't. You just have an old, outdated majority vote. Anyone, even retarded people, can vote, and that is the problem.
The national debt was spiraling out of control long before the pandemic and it will continue long after unless the "majority" opinions change drastically in both parties. The people who can "vote" no matter how unqualified they are need to let go of science and religion and let qualified people handle those.
B. So you admit this a bad argument to apply to medical science? Then why is this a perfectly valid argument for abiogensis?
C. Supernaturalism has never been demonstrated, deal with it. If it could be demonstrated someone would have passed the James Randi challenge by now.
D. Another goofy pivot that has nothing to do with anything.
E. As I predicted, your not gonna answer the question, more intellectual cowardness.
"You're making this more difficult than it has to be.''
You mean refuting your cripingly stupid arguments? Yeah I figured you would dislike that.
"Science advanced, the periodic chart got filled in, microscopes showed the droplets of jelly were more complicated than automobiles, and the chance of life being assembled by ordinary lifeless nature was gone forever."
No credible scientist will attest to this.
"You keep trying to use your "vote" here to deny the obvious reality. Science doesn't depend on votes, rather it depends on facts and logic"
You haven't given either facts or logic, you've given half assed, recycled ID arguments ("Lifeforms are complicated so they needs a creator!"). At best that's just a hypothesis, you don't have a shred of empirical evidence that proves this.
"The national debt was spiraling out of control long before the pandemic and it will continue long after unless the "majority" opinions change drastically in both parties. The people who can "vote" no matter how unqualified they are need to let go of science and religion and let qualified people handle those."
And another one of you weird pivots that has nothing to do with anything.