em·pir·i·cal (m-pîr -k l) adj. 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
em·piri·cal·ly adv."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
The Judaeo/Christian God is not verifiable by by means of observation or experiment, or at least never has been so verified, as far as I am aware after nearly ten years on this forum. And it certainly isn't a matter of any practical experience.
From the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:Given that Latimeria chalumnae was only discovered in 1938, I'm not sure how anyone could have thought it was extinct.
Any lobe-finned bony fish of the order Crossopterygii. Members of an extinct suborder are considered to have been the ancestors of land vertebrates. Modern coelacanths (genus Latimeria) are deep-sea fishes with hollow fin spines. They are powerful, heavy-bodied predators, with highly mobile, limblike fins. They average 5 ft (1.5 m) in length and weigh about 100 lbs (45 kg). Coelacanths appeared about 350 million years ago and were thought to have become extinct 80 million years ago until one was caught in 1938 near the southern coast of Africa in the Indian Ocean. A second species was discovered living near Indonesia in 1998.
From the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
Spoken like a true fundamentalist.Creationisms main appeal is that it is a shallow answer to comfort shallow thinkers. It reinforces comforting religious beliefs. The problem with creationism is that it just isnt true. It is a false explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.
Given that Latimeria chalumnae was only discovered in 1938, I'm not sure how anyone could have thought it was extinct.
Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that creationism's been thoroughly eviscerated over the last 200 years.
From the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
If you don't believe the Encyclopedia Britannica, here's Wikipedia:I recommend reading up on biological classifications (particularly the difference between orders and species) before claiming a specific species was thought to be extinct, when that particular species had never been discovered before.
The coelacanths, which are related to lungfishes and tetrapods, were believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period.
If you don't believe the Encyclopedia Britannica, here's Wikipedia:
If you don't believe the Encyclopedia Britannica, here's Wikipedia:
What's over my head?Forget it. This is clearly over your head.
What's over my head?
No, just spoken like someone who is aware of the facts. Creationism isnt true. It isnt in accordance with the actual state of affairs. Creationism is a false explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. It is inconsistent with the facts. The facts show that all life on life was not created fully formed in a few days about 6,000 years ago. There are no facts to show that your God created anything at all or that it even exists. In short, creationism is wrong. It is mistaken and incorrect. If you disagree then show us that creationism is the truth. Show us that the mistaken belief that your God created anything at all or that it even exists is the truth.Spoken like a true fundamentalist.
God says otherwise.Creationism isn’t true.
Like phlogiston and Pluto were at one time?It isn’t in accordance with the actual state of affairs.
So what?
I can demonstrate flat-earth to someone.
Then how do you overturn something that has been falsified, according to scientific doctrine?The problem is that it had clearly been falsified. Therefore, no amount of supporting evidence matters.
From the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
I recommend reading up on biological classifications (particularly the difference between orders and species) before claiming a specific species was thought to be extinct, when that particular species had never been discovered before.
If you don't believe the Encyclopedia Britannica, here's Wikipedia:
Forget it. This is clearly over your head.
What's over my head?
Coelacanth 1937 = extinct
Coelacanth 1938 = alive & well
Then how do you overturn something that has been falsified, according to scientific doctrine?
Like phlogiston and Pluto were at one time?
Your 'actual state of affairs' is weak and beggarly by comparison, and changes with the next clipboard to come out.
It is myopic and can take a hike.
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?