Fed up of non believers

[SnailyBoy]

Really? That's strange, I make a statement whereby I clearly admit that I simply don't know, and am keeping an open mind on the subject and you interpret that as a logical fallacy?

 

Do you actually know what a logical fallacy is?

 

If so, please explain exactly what position I'm trying to persuade you to adopt?

 

Yes I know what a logical fallacy is (There's more than one), for you I chose 'Personal Incredulity'.

 

If you care to look it up you'll find it isn't about you persuading me to adopt a position.

 

In simple terms your logical fallacy is based on you finding something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, indicating it's probably not true.

 

As I understand it whilst such evidence exists in the animal world, as yet it hasn't been found in regard to humans, (neanderthals don't count by the way) I stand to be corrected however so fire away.

Edited February 26, 2014 by SnailyBoy

[mjw47]

What anomoly? Entropy only applies to a closed system - an organism respires, excretes, consume and reproduces - it's not a closed system at all.

 

So the original primordial chemical soup from which all life emerged wasn't a closed system?

 

From this liquid chemical pool such variance of life emerged as Elephants, Ants, Butterflies and Eagles.

 

Extraordinary!

 

---------- Post added 26-02-2014 at 18:12 ----------

 

Yes I know what a logical fallacy is (There's more than one), for you I chose 'Personal Incredulity'.

 

If you care to look it up you'll find it isn't about you persuading me to adopt a position.

 

In simple terms your logical fallacy is based on you finding something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, indicating it's probably not true.

 

So you actually do understand it all? Well there you are then, I had no idea I was conversing with a genius!

[SnailyBoy]

So the original primordial chemical soup from which all life emerged wasn't a closed system?

 

From this liquid chemical pool such variance of life emerged as Elephants, Ants, Butterflies and Eagles.

 

Extraordinary!

 

---------- Post added 26-02-2014 at 18:12 ----------

 

 

So you actually do understand it all? Well there you are then, I had no idea I was conversing with a genius!

 

Really, Is that it?

[Obelix]

So the original primordial chemical soup from which all life emerged wasn't a closed system?

 

Are we talking about evolution or abiogenesis here? They are quite different things.

 

From this liquid chemical pool such variance of life emerged as Elephants, Ants, Butterflies and Eagles.

 

No a self replicating peptide emerged. That's not the same thing.

 

Extraordinary!

 

---------- Post added 26-02-2014 at 18:12 ----------

 

 

So you actually do understand it all? Well there you are then, I had no idea I was conversing with a genius!

 

Are you wanting to debate or just be gratuitously abusive? I nor have others done anything to warrant such abuse so I must question you motives here. The science descibed above is nothing more advanced than A-level/first year degree stuff - it's hardly genius territory.

[Lockjaw]

So the original primordial chemical soup from which all life emerged wasn't a closed system?

 

The fact the first organisms photosynthesised is enough to show that to be the case.

[mjw47]

Really, Is that it?

 

No it isn't. Not being prepared to accept every theory put forward is a long way from not understanding what is being said.

 

Understanding the argument but not being prepared to accept it totally is a valid viewpoint yes?

[SnailyBoy]

No it isn't. Not being prepared to accept every theory put forward is a long way from not understanding what is being said.

 

Understanding the argument but not being prepared to accept it totally is a valid viewpoint yes?

 

You do understand what a scientific theory is, don't you?

[RootsBooster]

mjw47 almost makes Smiffy look good.

What do you think, Ivanava?

[milquetoast1]

No it isn't. Not being prepared to accept every theory put forward is a long way from not understanding what is being said.

 

Understanding the argument but not being prepared to accept it totally is a valid viewpoint yes?

 

Accept is not the same as dogmatically defend.

 

I accept the theory of evolution because of the weight of the evidence, but if somebody finds fossil rabbits in the Precambrian then I'll dismiss it.

 

It seems strange that you are trying to paint this as the closed-minded position, whilst applying equal doubt to scientific theories as supernatural beliefs.

 

You complained about me making assumptions about what you believe, but it's simply what you have written that I (and others) find odd. You claim open-mindedness, but your words indicate the opposite.

[janie48]

You do understand what a scientific theory is, don't you?

You don't have to be a science buff to understand that scientific theories have to be challenged.

If they hadn't been we would be still have a nation of smokers everywhere believing it wasn't harmful, or patients being prescribed antibiotics for a cold virus.

And it isn't only medical science I'm thinking of, I'm sure they're are other scientific theories that will have been disproven after further research.

 

But returning to the subject of evolution, I haven't seen anyone on here say they don't accept its validity, if so I must have missed something.