Ok, we’re just using the terms to mean opposite things.
The dilemma is obvious. Creating powered aircraft was impossible at some point, but quite feasible.
There’s life to go on. We know what life is made of and that it’s possible for life to exist, the challenge is figuring out how that arrangement originated.
They had a lot to work with, you see. Wind, gravity, aerodynamics, thrust, etc. Al those things can be tinkered with, and we saw that birds can do it. It isn't feasible to create life from non-life because there is nothing to go on. It's never been observed. Cloning at one point was impossible, but feasible because we observe that life does indeed come from life, and there are tangible things to work with such as DNA and reproductive systems.[/font][/color]
How does one prove a supernatural origin of life through repeatable experiments?
The furtherment of science is based on many things, and speculation certainly has its place. Speculation is fine, only it's then that the theories proposed have to be put to the test. Observing a phenomenon and saying "this is how it must have happened" is no good unless it is proven through repeatable experiments that it is indeed how it happened. Using this method, we have unraveled many great mysteries. Like gravity.
Enoch was disproven to the satisfaction of pretty much everyone but Enoch, which is my point. He was a dissenter, but his dissent wasn’t based on anything that had actual scientific merit. He just didn’t know what he was talking about, which led him to be convinced by the arguments of other people who didn’t know what they were talking about.
Science should be objective, and shouldn't care at all what anyone else thinks or why they think it. Objections should be welcome, and if the theory being defended is sound, should be able to disprove the opposition with ease, as was done in the case of Enoch.
The idea that an incorrect idea can be easily disproven to the satisfaction of the person with the idea is hilariously incorrect. Convincing someone who has misinterpreted some evidence with other evidence is difficult because if they were able to correctly interpret evidence they probably would have done it right the first time. It’s gets more difficult the more domain-specific knowledge is required to understand the evidence in the first place because that Dunning-Kruger gulf of “I think I know what I’m talking about but I actually don’t” gets wider.
For me, the speechlessness is usually more “this post(er) isn’t worth the headache of replying to” than lack of an opposing argument.
However, so many topics and questions here leave the evolutionists speechless.
Of course it means something to you. There’s absolutely no way you’ve independently verified even a microscopic fraction of the scientific findings you rely on to get through life. At some point, it’s unavoidable you’re going to have to accept the expert judgment of some scientists. I would hope when you have to do that you don’t pick the first source you see and hope it’s correct.
If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. "Vast majority of scientists" means absolutely nothing to me, nor should it mean anything to anyone.
Going to guess it’s less than the 97% for climate change or 95-98% for evolution and also that when those ideas were supplanted by new ones it was because new evidence indicated a different conclusion, not because the minority successfully filibustered on the existing evidence.
Can you guess the percentage of scientists that all agreed that Neanderthal was our ancestor? How about that vast majority of scientists that agreed that Piltdown man was? How about the overwhelming consensus that we had knuckle-walkers in our ancestry? Or the consensus of eugenics and the ensuing tragedy caused by political action based on it?
So why are you suggesting scientists conclude a thing is impossible after 50 years?
Science is a continual process which is rarely conclusive. I thought people understood that.