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.
It appears that I must spell everything out for you.
You asked whether I would object to being injected with the HIV virus. I would not object.
I would gladly take that bet because:
A) There is little reason to believe that HIV causes AIDS.
Then why call it a theory?Saying "Evolution is just a theory" is sort of like saying "This is just a check for winning the powerball lottery" or "He's just got AIDS and brain cancer".
Then why call it a theory?
Why not call it the Law of Evolution?
For the same reason we don't call it the pumpkin of evolution, or the twinge of evolution. A law is not a theory that's been proved. A law a simple relationship between observable things -- and it's usually a simple relationship that was named a long time ago, since scientists mostly don't call things "laws" nowadays. Most named laws are known to be just approximations, while theories that have no known exceptions (like Special Relativity, say) are not called laws.Then why call it a theory?
Why not call it the Law of Evolution?
If that were true, then selenium deficiency would not be a predictor of HIV-related mortality independent of CD4.Do you think the correlation between HIV and AIDS is just a statistical fluke?
Proliferation of active HIV causes the destruction and lysis of important immune cells. Lack of these immune cells correlates with the severity of AIDS. That seems like a really good reason to me.
If that were true, then selenium deficiency would not be a predictor of HIV-related mortality independent of CD4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9481135
Go back and read my post.What the study shows is that boosting the immune system can make up the difference caused by the damage that HIV causes. Nowhere does it say that selenium defeciency is the cause of AIDS independently of HIV.
Go back and read my post.
1. There is little reason to believe that HIV causes AIDS.
2. To the extent that HIV causes problems, it can be managed with nutrition (aka selenium).
3. A cost-effective method exists to restore normal immune system function.
"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."
Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sanger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemistry, Munchen.
Which is more appropriate?For the same reason we don't call it the pumpkin of evolution, or the twinge of evolution. A law is not a theory that's been proved. A law a simple relationship between observable things -- and it's usually a simple relationship that was named a long time ago, since scientists mostly don't call things "laws" nowadays. Most named laws are known to be just approximations, while theories that have no known exceptions (like Special Relativity, say) are not called laws.
In modern terms what Newton provided was a theory not a mere law. Laws are very often simply observations without a mechanism or explanation. Newton explains why the force of gravity is higher on the surface of the Earth than on the surface of the Moon. His theory was incomplete, as most theories are. That does not mean they are not useful. Newton's theory got us to the Moon and back. I don't think that relativity is used in space exploration, but I could be wrong.Which is more appropriate?
- The Law of Gravity
- The Theory of Gravity
Looks like she's been yakking about science for a LONG time.
In modern terms what Newton provided was a theory not a mere law. Laws are very often simply observations without a mechanism or explanation. Newton explains why the force of gravity is higher on the surface of the Earth than on the surface of the Moon. His theory was incomplete, as most theories are. That does not mean they are not useful. Newton's theory got us to the Moon and back. I don't think that relativity is used in space exploration, but I could be wrong.
Unless you are a Flat Earther, then other explanations must be cobbled up. Especially since there are no such things as satellites.For aiming rockets, its Newton all the way. For timing GPS signals from GPS satellites, Relativity is essential.
Really... whether or not "natural selection did it" is being tested? Now that's rich.... I wonder what your falsification criteria is for that one.
I already told you my conclusions. That Evolution theory makes no substantial predictions about the fossil record. If you find a fossil 20,30,40.. +?? million years out of stratigraphic sequence then it can be accommodated with "niches".
Thus your previous claim that "if the fossil is in the wrong strata" then Evolution theory will be falsified... is clearly very wrong.
Predictable. Whenever evolutionists are shown the flimsiness of their own theory they immediately try and deflect focus off of the theory.
Exactly. You make no real predictions about the fossil record while making vast accommodations for fossils that appear far outside of a conventional linear stratigraphic progression.
Yes. Limits on convergent similarities. That's a simple concept, isn't it? So what are they?
No, I understand them perfectly. I also understand that germ theory has been accepted even though it did not pass Koch's postulates.
Except that evolution is not linear.
You missed the point of the example entirely. We're looking for creatures completely out of order in the strata. For example, we know that the Homo genus is relatively recent. Everything we know about the fossil record and the tree of life indicates that we should not find anything from the Homo genus before, say, the cretaceous - there simply was nothing like us back then.
Looks like she's been yakking about science for a LONG time.
Look at the audience behind her.
Maybe you can answer a simple question then. Why do evolutionists so frequently present the linearity of stratigraphic progression + morphology as confirming evidence for "transitional" sequence? Why are they constantly focusing on the specific stratigraphic order, if, (as you yourself admit), the fossils could also be completely disordered and it would make no difference?
example: "whale evolution"
You've already conceded that if we found, say, a fully aquatic whale fossil earlier than the first Pakicetus fossil, then evolutionists would simply say it is because of "niches". That scenario would essentially be no different than the tetrapod one.
In fact, your theory predicts such fossil disorder is just as likely as fossil order.
How awkward.
LOL, that actually made me laugh out loud at work.
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?