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.
So you're playing the 'Deep Time' card here.
I had a look at the reference and it's from a court case in 1982... it even in that case it was not used as a definition of the Theory of Evolution, but instead as a description of a catchall term called "Evolution-science".They were addressing point #1 in the Scopes trial (I think). They state early that they don't disagree with all scientific processes.
Well, a thesis involves personal research, so you're going to get different flavors on any subject.
No different from the impression many creationists get with all the 'maybe, possibly, and could haves' in many evolutionist papers.
True, but you have to admit a lot of scientific papers draw conclusions from conditions in deep time.There is no evidence that whatever hypothetical processes that might lead to abiogenesis are known, likely or easily reproducible in a modern lab, let alone one from the 60's.
Thank youI had a look at the reference and it's from a court case in 1982
Yes. Deep time is the result of multiple independent fields of scientific research.True, but you have to admit a lot of scientific papers draw conclusions from conditions in deep time.
Like I said before, as far as I'm concerned they could have stopped at #14 or #17, but all in all a pretty good quasi-scientific attempt (?), making some good points, from the creationist (supernatural) bleachers.No, it's literally false statements.
You can honestly disagree about whether evolution occurs or not, but if you misrepresent someone else's position you are lying. Also referred to as bearing false witness.
Conviction against reason, evidence or justification are not generally respected in any area outside spirituality.
It's still extremely flawed logic.Like I said before, as far as I'm concerned they could have stopped at #14 or #17, but all in all a pretty good quasi-scientific attempt (?), making some good points, from the creationist (superatural) bleachers.
Evolution clearly happens, so I really do not know why any rational adult rejects the concept fully, that said nothing can not evolve, and the simplest organism has thousands of genes that could not form from nothing. That being true even the simplest organism was logically and scientifically created. If this organism had and or still has the ability to morph itself into star hopping humans over time then God could recreate himself on any planet that could be habitable to a microbe that would evolve into massive ecosystems. Simplified evolution is proof of GodI found the thesis pretty interesting myself. What in particular strikes a sour note with you?
I found the thesis pretty interesting myself. What in particular strikes a sour note with you?
That is true of anything that anyone says on the topic of God, creation or evolution because no one knows fullyA number of the statements in that list are false, misleading or subjecive.
Actually the public school system does allow for supernatural explanations because they endorse and teach about Darwins magical DNA writing pondI have issues with numbers five and six:
5. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
6. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
In the first place, the American public school system has no authority to originate a definition of science. Further, science by any definition does not exclude supernatural explanations a priori. It accepts any explanation for which there is evidence. Finally, the scientific method is not used to determine "truth" in an absolute sense but to discover the most likely explanation for natural phenomenon.
These two theses smell rather like the creationist whine, "They're teaching my kiddies that evolution is absolute truth and that there is no God." In other words, political propaganda.
Unless you're a right-wing fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant and what you say is based on a literal reading of the King James Bible. Then whatever you say on the topic of God, creation or evolution is absolute truth.That is true of anything that anyone says on the topic of God, creation or evolution because no one knows fully
What in the world is Darwin's magical DNA writing pond? Where do you people get this crap?Actually the public school system does allow for supernatural explanations because they endorse and teach about Darwins magical DNA writing pond
That is true of anything that anyone says on the topic of God, creation or evolution because no one knows fully
16 is actually true because a theory that can not be disproven or proven remains a theory until one of those two things occurs
Same for 17. God is also a theory, but since we know that DNA is informational code and that code does not write itself God is more plausible according to Ockham's razor
Scientific theories are explanations for natural phenomena which have been confirmed by repeated testing. They are never "proven" but merely confirmed provisionally pending further evidence. They can, however, by disproven by conflicting evidence.16 is actually true because a theory that can not be disproven or proven remains a theory until one of those two things occurs.
The existence of God is not a theory, it is an unfalsifiable proposition.Same for 17. God is also a theory, but since we know that DNA is informational code and that code does not write itself God is more plausible according to Ockham's razor
Again a theory is a theory until proven or disproven, at such time the theory simultaneously vanishes
So both God and evolution are theory's
The definition of theory is as follows.
a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
The problem is not the definition but the human reading it as some people find it plausible that the most complicated code in the known universe wrote itself one day because nothing got bored doing nothing and decided to write code, and that other people know that the only thing that nothing produces is more nothing
while you think that you are arguing with me, you are actually arguing with known human history as Darwins pond is part of this. So your rejection of history as recorded and accepted indicates a delusional
Darwins letter is the basis of evolutionary theory, the concept was even scientifically tested and proved a failure.I'm agreeing with Speedwell here. In Darwin's letter to hooker there is nothing about DNA or magic. So your characterization of Darwin's words as such is just editorial parody on your part.
So what's your point? Darwin was wrong, so we have to abandon all scientific advancements made in biology since his time?Darwins letter is the basis of evolutionary theory, the concept was even scientifically tested and proved a failure.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Darwin's warm pond idea is tested
Darwin's Warm Little Pond: Searching for the Chemical Origins of Life | Bioinformatics Graduate Program at Georgia Tech (gatech.edu)
So you are arguing with known and accepted history.
Odd, but the desperation of fools never ends
Darwins letter is the basis of evolutionary theory,
I have issues with numbers five and six:
5. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
6. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
In the first place, the American public school system has no authority to originate a definition of science. Further, science by any definition does not exclude supernatural explanations a priori. It accepts any explanation for which there is evidence. Finally, the scientific method is not used to determine "truth" in an absolute sense but to discover the most likely explanation for natural phenomenon.
These two theses smell rather like the creationist whine, "They're teaching my kiddies that evolution is absolute truth and that there is no God." In other words, political propaganda.
But, how would you answer #5 and #6 on a True & False test?I have issues with numbers five and six:
5. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
6. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
In the first place, the American public school system has no authority to originate a definition of science. Further, science by any definition does not exclude supernatural explanations a priori. It accepts any explanation for which there is evidence. Finally, the scientific method is not used to determine "truth" in an absolute sense but to discover the most likely explanation for natural phenomenon.
These two theses smell rather like the creationist whine, "They're teaching my kiddies that evolution is absolute truth and that there is no God." In other words, political propaganda.
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?