Ad hominem attacks mean that instead of supplying good arguments and evidence that person instead attacks the other debater personally. I don't believe I did that. Can you give an example?
And you are mistaken on what the appeal to authority fallacy means. Saying that 99.9 % of experts agree on something in their field of study isn't an appeal to authority. Saying something like "My dentist says evolution is wrong. Since he is a doctor he must be right". That's a fallacy. Saying "99% of dentists say you should floss" is not a fallacy.
By stating something is a scientific theory means by definition that an overwhelming amount of evidence supports it. Some theories have more evidence than others of course but evolution and the Big Bang have so much evidence that it would turn the scientific community on its head if they were proven wrong.
Carbon dating has never been proven unreliable when used properly. If carbon dating has so many flaws then why do scientists use it? Why don't you have a Nobel prize for your discovery. Carbon dating isn't the only thing scientists use for dating anyways. And it's also not the way they calculate the age of the earth.
The "God Particle" has already been found. And it's not what you think it is. It is a subatomic particle that scientists theorized must exist. And it has nothing to do with God. It's just a nickname.
The science of non living things becoming living things is abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution starts after the first reproducing cell.
And evolution is a fact. It's demonstrable. Don't take my word for it though. Just ask any of the 99.9% of the experts ( people that actually have degrees in the subject)
And with entropy. You are talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That only applies to things in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. We get energy for the sun of course. Any other questions guys? I'm here all night.
And you are mistaken on what the appeal to authority fallacy means. Saying that 99.9 % of experts agree on something in their field of study isn't an appeal to authority. Saying something like "My dentist says evolution is wrong. Since he is a doctor he must be right". That's a fallacy. Saying "99% of dentists say you should floss" is not a fallacy.
By stating something is a scientific theory means by definition that an overwhelming amount of evidence supports it. Some theories have more evidence than others of course but evolution and the Big Bang have so much evidence that it would turn the scientific community on its head if they were proven wrong.
Carbon dating has never been proven unreliable when used properly. If carbon dating has so many flaws then why do scientists use it? Why don't you have a Nobel prize for your discovery. Carbon dating isn't the only thing scientists use for dating anyways. And it's also not the way they calculate the age of the earth.
The "God Particle" has already been found. And it's not what you think it is. It is a subatomic particle that scientists theorized must exist. And it has nothing to do with God. It's just a nickname.
The science of non living things becoming living things is abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution starts after the first reproducing cell.
And evolution is a fact. It's demonstrable. Don't take my word for it though. Just ask any of the 99.9% of the experts ( people that actually have degrees in the subject)
And with entropy. You are talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That only applies to things in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. We get energy for the sun of course. Any other questions guys? I'm here all night.
Last edited:
