Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
we don't support peer reviews, none of us are qualified to support peer reviews, they support us.Which in turn invited my response to your response, spiraling into this discussion involving me trying to prod you into supporting an article you linked and you doing everything in your power to avoid doing so.
I mean, really, this whole thing could have been avoided if you'd admitted it's a crap article from the get-go.
all I was saying was that your comment was an appeal to authority. and it was. Can we move on?But you have no evidence. You do not even understand the concept.
So forget conflicting authorities, that is miles beyond your pay grade.
Nope, I guess that we can add the fact you do not understand that not only does the meaning of words change over the years, so does the meaning and usage of terms.all I was saying was that your comment was an appeal to authority. and it was. Can we move on?
you got it, specified complexity, mentioned a few times, even once is evidence of it existing.
we don't support peer reviews, none of us are qualified to support peer reviews, they support us.
Do they need it when arguing against evolution?Even in their own terms, YECs are not known for their philosophical astuteness.
you do not have authority to redefine vocabulary when defeated in debate.Nope, I guess that we can add the fact you do not understand that not only does the meaning of words change over the years, so does the meaning and usage of terms.
Try rereading it slower this timeAn assertion is not evidence.
This statement makes no sense.
It is a good thing that you were the one that lost then.you do not have authority to redefine vocabulary when defeated in debate.
So then you must take each occasion of specifies complexity in the peer review and prove it false, but even then, you are not a PhD scientist, so really you cannot refute a word I say .An assertion is not evidence.
This statement makes no sense.
Try rereading it slower this time
are you my judge? I though only God can judge others. for in what manner ye judge others, by that manner shall ye also be judged.It is a good thing that you were the one that lost then.
By the way, have you kept your word yet?
So then you must take each occasion of specifies complexity in the peer review and prove it false
, but even then, you are not a PhD scientist, so really you cannot refute a word I say .
bye byeI'm not responsible for your inability to clearly communicate.
At any rate, since you obviously have no inclination to discuss the articles you link, we're done here. Better luck next time.
Not proving it negative and not proving a negative, simply just responding to the peer review I already posted, which none can refute. design found in feathersHi! I just stumbled in here without a lot of background on what is being discussed, but this phrase caught my attention: it is never the job of anyone to prove a negative. It is, in fact, the job of those proving a positive claim to support that claim.
Usually the null hypothesis is "there is no...X..." and testing against that.
Now, granted, it may be an interesting exercise to find cases where a given claim is clearly false, but I am unaware of cases where someone must go through literature and prove every instance of a particular case false.
Does one need to be a PhD scientist to refute your claims? What is your PhD in? Just curious in the event that one day I am your interlocutor.
Not proving it negative and not proving a negative, simply just responding to the peer review I already posted, which none can refute. design found in feathers
Bye bye, but anytime you are willing to actually post on topic and debate evolution, I will be here.I'm not responsible for your inability to clearly communicate.
At any rate, since you obviously have no inclination to discuss the articles you link, we're done here. Better luck next time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?