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.
Ok sorry. I should have said:Evolution isn't a theory, it's a natural phenomenon. It covers adaptations after life begins, that includes fully formed living creatures. There is no theory of evolution, it either happens or it doesn't but it certainly doesn't include everything, that's an assumption.
Evolution isn't a theory, it's a natural phenomenon. It covers adaptations after life begins, that includes fully formed living creatures. There is no theory of evolution, it either happens or it doesn't but it certainly doesn't include everything, that's an assumption.
I know what you meant and that's not evolution, that's the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic means. Evolution is a phenomenon, not a blanket assumption for everything in natural history.Ok sorry. I should have said:
The fact of evolution covers changes in life over time not the origin of life.
I suppose you could view common ancestry as an a priori assumption, particularly if you ignore all evidenceI know what you meant and that's not evolution, that's the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic means. Evolution is a phenomenon, not a blanket assumption for everything in natural history.
Assumptions of the sort that you are speaking of are not allowed in the world of science, and neither Darwin nor modern scientists make any such assumptions. They drew extremely well supported conclusions based upon evidence. To call those "assumptions" is the worst sort of personal attack against them. Do you have any valid evidence to support your beliefs at all or are you bearing false witness against your neighbor? Now you could have stated that you do not believe them, but when you go so far as to attack them you put the burden of proof upon yourself. Not just in a debate, but according to the Ninth Commandment as well.I know what you meant and that's not evolution, that's the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic means. Evolution is a phenomenon, not a blanket assumption for everything in natural history.
I've never ignored the evidence, I've been studying it for years. You on the other hand are impervious to evidence, it's always fascinated me how all you have to do is criticize creationists and your an instant expert, no reading required. There is no way you come to the conclusion of chimp/human common ancestry based on fossil or genomic evidence.I suppose you could view common ancestry as an a priori assumption, particularly if you ignore all evidence
It does not matter if one has studied the evidence for years. When one keeps repeating the same errors countless times even after being corrected by many people then that person should be the last to make any claims.I've never ignored the evidence, I've been studying it for years. You on the other hand are impervious to evidence, it's always fascinated me how all you have to do is criticize creationists and your an instant expert, no reading required. There is no way you come to the conclusion of chimp/human common ancestry based on fossil or genomic evidence.
I was kind of trying to make the point that I don't think you really know what the term a priori means. It is one thing to argue that belief in common ancestry comes from a misinterpretation of evidence, but it's completely absurd to say it is an a priori assumption.I've never ignored the evidence, I've been studying it for years. You on the other hand are impervious to evidence, it's always fascinated me how all you have to do is criticize creationists and your an instant expert, no reading required. There is no way you come to the conclusion of chimp/human common ancestry based on fossil or genomic evidence.
But I thought evolution was just a theory??? I'm totally confused now. How can it be just a theory and not a theory at the same time?
Macroevolultion is.But I thought evolution was just a theory???
Microevolution is the term that applies to adaptation.Everybodyknows said:I'm totally confused now.
When it's science.Everybodyknows said:How can it be just a theory and not a theory at the same time?
And what about the spoon?Macroevolultion is.Microevolution is the term that applies to adaptation.
When it's science.
It would be nice if you would explain what the affirmation of God as creator in the Nicene Creed has to do with universal common ancestry.We believe in one God,Notice God as Creator tops the list, then the incarnation, then another confession of God as Creator. It is definitely essential doctrine and why would I believe the promise of eternal life if I didn't believe God created life in the first place?
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made. (Nicene Creed)
Macroevolultion is.Microevolution is the term that applies to adaptation.
When it's science.
A spoon is a microshovel.
Which term(s) in particular did I show an astounding lack of understanding in?I think I like this post best because it shows an astounding lack of understanding of basic scientific terms and it uses that astounding lack of understanding to attack science.
I do know what it means, without prior, empirical evidence would be apostori. A dead give away is the way you say all the evidence yet present none. That means prior to the evidence common ancestry is uniformly assumed bad creation categorically rejected. By the way if evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life that means creation can never contradict TOE and vise versaI was kind of trying to make the point that I don't think you really know what the term a priori means. It is one thing to argue that belief in common ancestry comes from a misinterpretation of evidence, but it's completely absurd to say it is an a priori assumption.
In this case, a priori would mean that the idea of universal common ancestry was accepted before enough was known about the process of evolution to suggest it as a reasonable inference. Can you show that this is what happened?I do know what it means, without prior, empirical evidence would be apostori. A dead give away is the way you say all the evidence yet present none. That means prior to the evidence common ancestry is uniformly assumed bad creation categorically rejected. By the way if evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life that means creation can never contradict TOE and vise versa
Which term(s) in particular did I show an astounding lack of understanding in?
- microevolution
- macroevolution
- adaptation
- science
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?