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.
Are you saying a Human being is not a higher species than a Worm? Complexity alone would made people a higher species.
I do not remember who posted the link that contains,
"
Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.
As a clear example of an untestable, unscientific, hypothesis that is perfectly consistent with empirical observations, consider solipsism. The so-called hypothesis of solipsism holds that all of reality is the product of your mind. What experiments could be performed, what observations could be made, that could demonstrate that solipsism is wrong? Even though it is logically consistent with the data, solipsism cannot be tested by independent researchers. Any and all evidence is consistent with solipsism. Solipsism is unscientific precisely because no possible evidence could stand in contradiction to its predictions. For those interested, a brief explication of the scientific method and scientific philosophy has been included, such as what is meant by "scientific evidence", "falsification", and "testability"."
I read many of those books and even had personal discussions with the authors before they were published. None of them prove my understanding of higher species. I guess you can say I am defining higher species based on complexity. If you speak with the common person on the street, I am sure they would consider people as a higher species than worms just as Theists consider God to be higher than people.
Trees are higher than man by your definition. Some trees have twice the number of genes than humans.Are you saying a Human being is not a higher species than a Worm? Complexity alone would made people a higher species.
I do not remember who posted the link that contains,
"
Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.
As a clear example of an untestable, unscientific, hypothesis that is perfectly consistent with empirical observations, consider solipsism. The so-called hypothesis of solipsism holds that all of reality is the product of your mind. What experiments could be performed, what observations could be made, that could demonstrate that solipsism is wrong? Even though it is logically consistent with the data, solipsism cannot be tested by independent researchers. Any and all evidence is consistent with solipsism. Solipsism is unscientific precisely because no possible evidence could stand in contradiction to its predictions. For those interested, a brief explication of the scientific method and scientific philosophy has been included, such as what is meant by "scientific evidence", "falsification", and "testability"."
I read many of those books and even had personal discussions with the authors before they were published. None of them prove my understanding of higher species. I guess you can say I am defining higher species based on complexity. If you speak with the common person on the street, I am sure they would consider people as a higher species than worms just as Theists consider God to be higher than people.
I do not have answers, I am looking for books with proof that can be examined.Even when given the evidence you ask for you still refuse to accept it.
I do not have answers, I am looking for books with proof that can be examined.
But, Evolution as I was taught by Evolutionist in University requires lower species becoming higher species.
If you do not have that, then Evolution is just another Scientific Theory. What I know for sure is the Earth was here before I was born.
What I know for sure is the Earth was here before I was born.
Trees do not have eyes which alone are more complex than a tree. And, to my knowledge a Tree never even communicates with others, nor do they build things. Yes, I think animals can communicate and some may even use tools. But, what non-primates make tools?
I did. Didn't you see them?maybe pictures of both in real life should be posted. thanks
I agree completely. The average person on the street is an ignorant, superstitious, uninformed, narcissistic fool. And these are their strong points.If I were a betting person, I think the average person on the street would view humans as higher than most creatures.
That's a nice non sequitur you got going there.
I did. Didn't you see them?
You know there are rule about going off topic. If you want to start your own topic please do.
No, its possible one of the computer settings in my browser is wrong. I will check the settings after printing out links given in this thread.
Are there any good books that refutes the claim that man lived with dinosaurs?
Are you saying a Human being is not a higher species than a Worm?
Complexity alone would made people a higher species.
I read many of those books and even had personal discussions with the authors before they were published. None of them prove my understanding of higher species.
Trees are higher than man by your definition. Some trees have twice the number of genes than humans.
Are there any good books that refutes the claim that man lived with dinosaurs?
If I were a betting person, I think the average person on the street would view humans as higher than most creatures.
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?