{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/18/2015 1:20:45 PM
1
Im not the one making any claims. It is his article were discussing - that makes his credentials relevant.
English
-
I agree with the article and with the information that it states. From your previous reply, are you saying that this article needs to involve his credentials? Why his and not yours if you intend to counter it? And you stated two replies beforehand that what I did (unknown to me) beforehand was dishonest (which was?).
-
I don't need to counter it. Thousands of scientists with the proper credentials have stated things that directly contradict many of the points made in this article. This is one of a handful of individuals that won't accept the general consensus, and he's not even qualified in the field.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/18/2015 11:54:04 PMPlease provide an article that is not [b]speculated[/b] and is provided by one's credentials that you trust.
-
Find one yourself, try looking on a proper scientific website instead of your usual highly dubious sources.
-
I thought you said there were thousands of scientists that disagree with his statement. It shouldn't be difficult for you to find at least one. You stated the fact.
-
Edited by Stickman Al: 5/18/2015 7:47:02 PMThen it would be equally easy for you to find them too! I am not here to spoon feed you. Try any proper scientific website. Try peer reviewed papers. [i]Please provide an article that is not speculated and is provided by one one's credentials that you trust.[/i] This is your thread, and the original post does not fit the criteria you are now asking for. It is speculated with no evidence as back up, and put forward by someone who has no qualifications in the relevant field. The irony of now requesting that from me to refute an unsupported claim in the first place should not be lost on anyone. But anyway, this is all an aside. I began this thread by pointing out that evolution and abiogenesis are two different subjects. To quote the original article; "Evolution is a fact only at a very small scale. It is fantasy when it is used to explain how plants and animals came into existence..." No-one is claiming that evolution gives an answer to how life began. He [i]must[/i] know that if he has done any reading. It therefore cannot be a considered a problem with the theory of evolution, as evolution has nothing to say on the matter. The question of how life began, abiogenesis, is unanswered so far by science. We simply do not now yet. To even claim that the fact that we can't yet explain abiogenesis has any impact on evolution is incredibly dishonest or hugely ignorant. So within the first two lines of the article, the author is either lying or showing that he doesn't understand the subject he sees fit to talk about, it really is that simple.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/19/2015 5:19:50 AM[quote]Then it would be equally easy for you to find them too![/quote]Why should I find evidence to debunk what I am advocating? Seriously, do you not understand how debates work? You say something with a support, then I attempt to counter that by saying something with a support, and we repeat until we are at a conclusion.[quote]I am not here to spoon feed you.[/quote]You stated what I was thinking.[quote]Try any proper scientific website.[/quote]"Right. Wikipedia here I come!"[quote]Try peer reviewed papers.[/quote]Are you recommending I google that? I'll try it anyway and let you know what I come up with later.[quote]This is your thread, and the original post does not fit the criteria you are now asking for.[/quote]How? And then again... Whatever you say, I can respond with the counter that you admitted, "This is a thread."[quote]It is speculated with no evidence as back up...[/quote]Replier hasn't read the OP.[quote]...and put forward by someone who has no qualifications in the relevant field.[/quote]Is it correct for me to assume that we are to only trust people that have good credentials related to the topic that they are talking about in order for us to regard whatever they say as something true? Answer carefully.[spoiler]...but my prediction is you won't answer the question.[/spoiler][quote]The irony of now requesting that from me to refute an unsupported claim in the first place should not be lost on anyone.[/quote]Are we now at that point in a conversation in which we trust the person that has appropriate credentials related to the topic in order for everyone to assume he's correct? If so, everyone should say, "Look! A scientist! Trust all his statements cause' he did study 'dis stuff. Let's not treat each other 'zif we were dirt."[quote]No one is claiming that evolution gives an answer to how life began.[/quote]Finally! Replier stated what I was thinking.[quote]He must know that if he has done any reading. It therefore cannot be a considered a problem with the theory of evolution, as evolution has nothing to say on the matter.[/quote]Repeating statement, "...evolution has nothing to say on the matter."[quote]The question of how life began, abiogenesis, is unanswered so far by science.[/quote]Finally, some reasoning. I whole-heartedly agree with this.[quote]We simply do not now yet.[/quote]Oh no. Another statement about the fact that we have no explanation as to one of evolution's fundamentally building blocks; and so, as an atheist, we believe it to be true by faith, and then proven somehow by some scientist with some credentials with some evidence that we have no idea how to obtain or explain.[quote]To even claim that the fact that we can't yet explain abiogenesis has any impact on evolution is incredibly dishonest or hugely ignorant.[/quote]What?[quote]So within the first two lines of the article, the author is either lying or showing that he doesn't understand the subject he sees fit to talk about, it really is that simple.[/quote]The Replier shows that he hasn't gone farther than two sentences in the OP.
