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.
That last would be swell.
I made a polite request that you adhere to forum rules.
Here it is again.
Please follow the rules.
There is never a compelling reason to stick to any particular belief.Did it occur to you that if the facts that are being requested in the OP did indeed exist, there would be no need for further belief in the theory of evolution?
You pose a hypothetical .. a circular one at that .. which starts out believing that some fact exists which 'pwns the theory', (whatever that latter phrase is supposed to mean in this discussion).If facts existed that indeed did pwn said theory, said theory would be obligated to take a hike, would it not?
Well then just say there ain't none ... (then go away).Your OP is flawed.
It is flawed because it wants observable, testable, tangible facts that pwn evolution.
Rubbish.And you're not going to get it without a time machine, which would show a series of miracles; not natural processes.
There is never a compelling reason to stick to any particular belief.
Its a choice made by the individual .. but it starts out by recognising that its a belief in the first place.
Facts are mutally exclusive from beliefs.
You pose a hypothetical .. a circular one at that .. which starts out believing that some fact exists which 'pwns the theory', (whatever that latter phrase is supposed to mean in this discussion).
And then you expect a serious answer to such a nonsensical question?
Well then just say there ain't none ... (then go away).
There's a future ahead in scientific thinking ...
Selective breeding as practiced for centuries informed him in his studies. But selective breeding is not the same as natural selection. Darwin was just the first to put the matter into an organized fashion and he had the good luck to be the first to publish what other scientists were also working on. You really ought to read his book instead of just making things up about it.His understanding of natural selection was already understood by every uneducated farmer and rancher for a few thousand years. His great "insight" that a monkey could become a man has never been shown to be anything other speculative fiction, not unlike the work of Sigmund Freud and L. Ron Hubbard.
It certainly would. But creationism would not be the fallback position. That took a hike years ago.Did it occur to you that if the facts that are being requested in the OP did indeed exist, there would be no need for further belief in the theory of evolution?
If facts existed that indeed did pwn said theory, said theory would be obligated to take a hike, would it not?
It certainly would. But creationism would not be the fallback position. That took a hike years ago.
Selective breeding and natural selection are exactly the same thing, except that the former is directed by human intelligence.Selective breeding as practiced for centuries informed him in his studies. But selective breeding is not the same as natural selection. Darwin was just the first to put the matter into an organized fashion and he had the good luck to be the first to publish what other scientists were also working on. You really ought to read his book instead of just making things up about it.
What are you rabbiting on about?The question in the OP goes like this:
What sort of facts could disprove it?
If "sort of facts" A disprove it, then it's disproved.
If "sort of facts" A doesn't disprove it, then it's not disproved.
What's the deal here?
Exactly? It appears you don't know much about either.Selective breeding and natural selection are exactly the same thing, except that the former is directed by human intelligence.
What are you rabbiting on about?
Science isn't based on absolutism .. nor does it need it .. so there's no need for me to tell you that (underlined).Tell us there isn't a single fact that can disprove evolution.
Yes .. yet in almost 20 years, I'll bet you've never once accepted the responsibility for your not making an attempt at understanding a useful philosophy of science, which doesn't force you into these types of self made crushes .. between rocks and hard places.Something I've been saying here for almost twenty years now.
Falsifiability is part of the adoption of philosophical Realism, which is an individual's choice , which I do not so choose .. namely because it attempts to force-fit untestable tenets into the scientific method.And while you're at it, tell is how falsifiability is supposed to be factored into the scientific mindset.
Science isn't based on absolutism .. nor does it need it .. so there's no need for me to tell you that (underlined).
Yes .. yet in almost 20 years, I'll bet you've never once accepted the responsibility for your not making an attempt at understanding a useful philosophy of science, which doesn't force you into these types of self made crushes .. between rocks and hard places.
Falsifiability is part of the adoption of philosophical Realism, which is an individual's choice , which I do not so choose .. namely because it attempts to force-fit untestable tenets into the scientific method.
Figure it out for yourself .. Its too far OT to explain it to you.Then tell the OP.
Here's what I hold myself responsible to:
1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.
-- What?
.. and so you double down on your demonstrations of a lack of knowledge and understanding of the scientific process.
Can you ask anything relevant, or produce the facts requested in the OP?
I've thought about it some and am inclined toExactly? It appears you don't know much about either.
Aquatic animals breathe oxygen. What did you think they use for metabolism?I'm just wondering how it's possible for aquatic lifeforms to evolve into oxygen breathing animals?
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?