@vivify saidYou will find fault no matter what. Give the fallacies you claim he makes. He has a degree in Chemistry and builds things at the molecular level. I doubt you grasped what he was talking about.
Your question is unclear. Please clarify.
Also, the guy in your video makes logical fallacies. For example, he implies that because scientists haven't yet shown something, it's evidence it didn't happen. This is quite false.
Einstein General Relativity predicted gravitational waves back in 1916. This wasn't proven until almost 100 years later in 2015. By your guy's ...[text shortened]... tioned, his claim that we "don't have the starting materials" has been proven false, like in the OP.
@KellyJay saidI've lost count how many times you refuse to back up your claims.
What do you think needs proof, that it requires a mind to set up a sequential arrangement for informational instructions? Can you show anything whatsoever beyond a mind that can write instructions?
@KellyJay said"Predicting that you will spend more time talking about people instead of the content of the discussion."---Kelly Jay
You will find fault no matter what. Give the fallacies you claim he makes. He has a degree in Chemistry and builds things at the molecular level. I doubt you grasped what he was talking about.
You want me to address his content instead of talking about the person. So after addressing his content...you talk about the person?
Please explain why you're aren't a hypocrite.
Your chemist made claims that were logic fallacies and proven false by the OP. That's his fault, not mine.
1 edit
This 50-post thread in a Science Forum proves that there can be no meeting of minds, and this observer has learned nothing useful. This isn't a productive conversation.
Faith and science can and do coexist. Faith is emotional, science is intellectual. It's pointless to treat them as adversaries.
1 edit
@Kewpie saidThe sad thing is, some demand levels of explanation that they themselves either cannot or will not provide for their own points of view or counterpoints, then wrap themselves in their own little version of self-righteousness and storm off. All the while, not addressing the content of the conversation, but delivering cheap shots at who they were talking to.
This 50-post thread in a Science Forum proves that there can be no meeting of minds, and this observer has learned nothing useful. This isn't a productive conversation.
Faith and science can and do coexist. Faith is emotional, science is intellectual. It's pointless to treat them as adversaries.
Faith and science are both intellectual; they are not at odds with one another. Faith is simply putting your trust into something; the word comes from the Latin word "fides," meaning trust, belief, confidence, loyalty, or a promise of protection, this from off the Web. I would also point out that those who claim to represent science sometimes get emotional and rage. So you cannot say one represents the emotion, the other intellectual, that maybe the end result of someone’s reaction to a disagreement, but it can happen to those who promote either.
Faith that is blind is a faith without cause; one they cannot explain, they just hope the reasons for it are out there somewhere. It could be anything, whether it is scientific or religious. If they have nothing to show why, and cannot explain their position beyond maybe saying someone else believes this, then they have blind faith, not evidence to promote and defend their position. Religion alone or science alone is not what is at fault there; the lazy one who wants to push what they cannot show why is at fault.
- Joined
- 20 Oct 06
- Moves
- 10574
@KellyJay said
The sad thing is, some demand levels of explanation that they themselves either cannot or will not provide for their own points of view or counterpoints, then wrap themselves in their own little version of self-righteousness and storm off. All the while, not addressing the content of the conversation, but delivering cheap shots at who they were talking to.
Faith and scie ...[text shortened]... is not what is at fault there; the lazy one who wants to push what they cannot show why is at fault.
Faith and science are both intellectual; they are not at odds with one another.
Alas, you are the one insisting that they are at odds with each other.
- Joined
- 28 Jul 07
- Moves
- 172465
@KellyJay saidFaith isn't intellectual. "Simply putting your trust into something" doesn't require intelligence.
The sad thing is, some demand levels of explanation that they themselves either cannot or will not provide for their own points of view or counterpoints, then wrap themselves in their own little version of self-righteousness and storm off. All the while, not addressing the content of the conversation, but delivering cheap shots at who they were talking to.
Faith and scie ...[text shortened]... is not what is at fault there; the lazy one who wants to push what they cannot show why is at fault.
@fourfivesix saidIf you are going to put your faith into something, there better be a good reason, a good reason requires thought.
Faith isn't intellectual. "Simply putting your trust into something" doesn't require intelligence.
@wildgrass saidI’m insisting that people’s worldviews can be at odds with one another, not with science and faith. Many Nobel prize winners are people with religious faith and those who reject it; science doesn’t separate them, their worldviews do.Faith and science are both intellectual; they are not at odds with one another.
Alas, you are the one insisting that they are at odds with each other.
- Joined
- 20 Oct 06
- Moves
- 10574
@KellyJay saidYes of course you can be both an evolutionary biologist and a religious person. I even know a few. It's you who insists that the two are incompatible.
I’m insisting that people’s worldviews can be at odds with one another, not with science and faith. Many Nobel prize winners are people with religious faith and those who reject it; science doesn’t separate them, their worldviews do.
@wildgrass saidYou read a lot into my views that are not there. My complaint is against a undirected, mindless process up against a designed one.
Yes of course you can be both an evolutionary biologist and a religious person. I even know a few. It's you who insists that the two are incompatible.
- Joined
- 20 Oct 06
- Moves
- 10574
@KellyJay saidUp against? That's wrong.
You read a lot into my views that are not there. My complaint is against a undirected, mindless process up against a designed one.
How do you not see that as religion vs. science? There are plenty of scientists who can hold the two as compatible thoughts.