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.
What part of change in allele frequency change over time is an insufficient fact for you?You don't have one fact to show the theory is right,
Actually, I've only been told once, but that's a great question. The reason why, is that there's a current thread asking for facts to disprove the TOE. I may be a simpleton, but I figure if something needs to be dis-proven, that must mean that it's proven. Like, I only need to unbutton a shirt when it's already buttoned. Kapeesh?You've been told time and again that science does not deal in proof but you keep repeating it. Why?
That's been explained to you on multiple occasions as well.Actually, I've only been told once, but that's a great question. The reason why, is that there's a current thread asking for facts to disprove the TOE. I may be a simpleton, but I figure if something needs to be dis-proven, that must mean that it's proven. Like, I only need to unbutton a shirt when it's already buttoned. Kapeesh?
You figure wrong. Something starts out as a hypothesis that is maybe right and maybe wrong. The evidence will either prove it wrong or support the accuracy of the hypothesis. The hypothesis will never be proved because new evidence may come forwards to prove it wrong and the scientific methodology takes this into account.but I figure if something needs to be dis-proven, that must mean that it's proven.
They are generally called hypotheses. To be called a theory it has to be reasonably well established.
What's a "law" then?
As in "law of gravity"?
A scientific theory is one that explains and draws together diverse fields of evidence, and it has been tested many times. Modifications can slowly be made to it as enough solid new evidences come about.
What if something is tested for efficacy -- say, for instance, a new drug -- and it passes with flying colors?
Thalidomide and the theory of evolution are not even anywhere close to being the same thing.
Stop being a vulture...
How about Vioxx then?
Or those Rely products that caused over 2000 cases of toxic shock syndrome?
As an aside:You figure wrong. Something starts out as a hypothesis that is maybe right and maybe wrong. The evidence will either prove it wrong or support the accuracy of the hypothesis. The hypothesis will never be proved because new evidence may come forwards to prove it wrong and the scientific methodology takes this into account.
So if I have a hypothesis that life only exists on Earth and nowhere else I could easily be proved wrong. But there is no way to every prove I'm right because there might always be a planet that we've not looked at yet.
So basically you can prove a hypothesis is false but you cannot prove it is true. There is always the off chance that new information will come up to prove it wrong.
Does that make sense?
Actually here in your thread page one youActually, I've only been told once, .
You could have a theory that crows can only be black.Actually, I've only been told once, but that's a great question. The reason why, is that there's a current thread asking for facts to disprove the TOE. I may be a simpleton, but I figure if something needs to be dis-proven, that must mean that it's proven. Like, I only need to unbutton a shirt when it's already buttoned. Kapeesh?
You could have a theory that crows can only be black.
Then you see a white one.
Theory disproved.
Sorry, but the patterns we see in comparative genetics are not expected from a common designer -- the differences show evidence of common descent as much as the similarities.If a God or an alien race intelligently designed life, you could just as likely expect to see the same similarities. It's not proof of anything Darwinian.
An actually intelligent- and non sadistic-Sorry, but the patterns we see in comparative genetics are not expected from a common designer -- the differences show evidence of common descent as much as the similarities.
I got about half way through, but Berlinsky is has no better critques than Kent Hovind, he just sounds more educated (because he is). The arrogance of the man oozes through in every minute. At his core, he seem to just believe he is smarter and therefore more informed than actual biologists.If you want more detail why I don't believe it you can listen to this:
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?