42
This actually is news to me.
I've never heard a person say that before.
Intriguing, to say the least.
Of course, some atheists don't really like being called "atheist", either.
What is a 'theistic evolutionist', in your opinion?
Biological Evolution:
The one that says the Plant Kingdom appeared before the Animal Kingdom.
Cosmic Evolution:
The one that claims...
Gen 1:1
Genesis 1: The Theistic Evolutionary Creation
Gen 1:2
Genesis 1:2
Gen 1:3
Genesis 1:3
Gen 1:4
The uncanny Bible accuracy regarding light...
Gen 1:5
Gen 1:5
Gen 1:6-7
Genesis 1:6-7... with a number of other "sevens"...
Gen 1:8 explains the sub-eras
Gen 1:8
Gen 1:9-10
Genesis 1:9-10... the uncanny Geological and Geographical accuracy
Gen 1:11-13
Genesis 1:11-13
Gen 1:14
Gen 1:14, the Solar Clock and the rise of Circadian Rhytym
Just how long have these theories been 'falsifiable'?While I find the subject of interest, it does not matter to my outlook on life how the moon got to where it is.
What is important is that the process of discovery uses the scientific process, and the resulting hypotheses are parsimonious and falsifiable.
Capable of being falsified?What does falsifiable mean AV?
For the love of flying purple ribosomes, don't take your science from Kent Hovind. What he terms "organic evolution" isn't called evolution by anyone else, for starters. (It is abiogenesis.) And the rest have nothing to do with the theory of evolution, but others have told you that already.Once again, did you read the question?
It is evolution -- planetary evolution; that's why I put this poll in C&E and not P&LS.
When Internet evolutionists start yakking about evolution, they usually only yak about two kinds of evolution (out of six): [5.] macroevolution and [6.] microevolution.
But in so-doing, they skip over billions of years of:
A real evolutionist would understand this -- in my opinion; but an Internet evolutionist takes 1-5 above on faith, and 6 on observation.
- Cosmic Evolution -- the origin of time, space and matter
- Chemical Evolution -- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
- Stellar & Planetary Evolution -- the origin of stars and planets.
- Organic Evolution -- the origin of life from non-living material.
On the other hand, if I claim I'm a biologist, not having a pet hypothesis for the origin of the moon does exactly diddlysquat to my credibilityIt's not if you don't pick one -- it's if you haven't picked one.
I can claim I'm an International Chess Master, but if asked what my favorite opening is, and I claim I don't have one, my credentials are questionable.
I think it is actually used among biologists to refer to someone who studies evolution. Not very often, to be sure.Who the heck calls them self an evolutionist?
This sentence indicates that you do not know what 'science' is. All of that ranting, all of those years of posting here at this site, you have been aiming at strawman targets.Just how long have these theories been 'falsifiable'?
What does falsifiable mean, in your own words?I get the impression that they are falsifiable in name only.
After all, if they're 'falsifiable', then falsify them.
That wouldn't work.Got any rabbits from the Precambrian?
heck just finding a bunny skeleton in the wrong order of rock layers might be enough.
Nope.Rabbits are mammals. From the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is doubtful whether the genuine discovery of mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly, although, if authentic, such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process.SOURCE
With science there is a hypothesis that best fits what is currently known. It may be a nice game to look at all the different theorys over the years, but in the real world you got to go with the best one that fits the information we have. ESP now we have mirrors on the moon and we can follow the path that the moon is taking away from the Earth. So we can run computer models to see what best fits the math that is currently available to us.On the other hand, if I claim I'm a biologist, not having a pet hypothesis for the origin of the moon does exactly diddlysquat to my credibility
How so? I told you, I told everyone, I'm a biologist. I'm not qualified to judge most hypotheses outside my field. The only way I can have an opinion is by listening to the experts who are qualified.With science there is a hypothesis that best fits what is currently known. It may be a nice game to look at all the different theorys over the years, but in the real world you got to go with the best one that fits the information we have. ESP now we have mirrors on the moon and we can follow the path that the moon is taking away from the Earth. So we can run computer models to see what best fits the math that is currently available to us.
You are doing a VERY good job of helping AV1611VET to prove his point that science is a lot of nonsense a lot of the time.
Really you know nothing about the scientific method and how science works? In Biology do they promote the theory that does the worst job of explaining what is currently known. Or do they give more preference to the theory that does the best job of explaining what is currently know about the topic or subject?I'm not qualified to judge most hypotheses outside my field.
I know plenty. But I don't have the specialist knowledge that is required to evaluate a hypothesis in astrophysics.Really you know nothing about the scientific method and how science works?
But you have the knowledge to evaluate the people that specialize in that area. For example: "Astronomers believe that the Moon was formed when a Mars-sized body smashed into the Earth, ejecting matter into orbit and lengthening our day to its present value of 24 hours." Where did the Moon come from? - physicsworld.comI know plenty. But I don't have the specialist knowledge that is required to evaluate a hypothesis in astrophysics.
Then don't expect us to evaluate it, either.But I don't have the specialist knowledge that is required to evaluate a hypothesis in astrophysics.
The thing is, you do this already for tons of other fields. How many types of engineers are there, and how many types of architecture? Yet, if you want to build a building, do you ask a computer engineer what type of architecture is best? Or do you ask an architectural engineer? And do you disregard what the architectural engineer says because the computer engineer didn't know?Then don't expect us to evaluate it, either.
If you, who are already a scientist, are telling us you cannot make a decision because that's not your thing, we laypersons will pass as well.
Evidently these theories aren't convincing enough.