Falsifiability

[TBDude65]

That is contrary to what you answered earlier.

Contrary to what you think I said earlier for whatever reason because I didn't say it in a way with which you agreed.

 

[Sanoy]

Contrary to what you think I said earlier for whatever reason because I didn't say it in a way with which you agreed.

Can you refine this statement? I don't understand what you are saying here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

but this is what you said here: "Ten million years is not much in the evolutionary time scale"

so if we can push back human by 10 my why we cant push it by 30?

Yes, but one has to apply that in context.

Just give up. Until you learn the basics of science any explanation will be beyond you.

 

[Kylie]

A common ancestor is one possibility, so is a common creator. At this point, it's impossible to prove one or the other.

I understand the difference between observation and conclusion. My point is always the same; evolution is a belief. The distinctive tenets of evolution such as abiogenesis and common ancestor have not been observed anywhere, at any time, by anyone. Yet it is believed. That's OK, believe if you want. And as a belief, it is nearly unfalsifiable.

So we must ask ourselves a question: What would we see in a world where life has a common designer that we would NOT see in a world where life has a common ancestor?

And we can ask the reverse too: What would we see in a world where life has a common ancestor that we would NOT see in a world where life has a common designer?

I'd really like to know your answer to one or both of these questions. Because it is only by getting those answers that we can begin to figure out which of those worlds we live in.

Likewise, Atheism is the mirror image of Theism. Both are believers.

Not the same kind of belief though.

Although I am once again mystified by people who seek to discredit atheism by claiming that it's just another religious belief, as though the person making the comparison thinks religious belief is supposed to be bad or something.

 

[Kylie]

But that is circular Kylie. The evidence in the world tells you the world is real. And why think that world would have given you the noetic faculties to accomplish a correct conclusion on this.

No, the evidence I have available to me suggests that the world is real. I never said that it was definitely evidence from the world. It is the evidence detected by my brain.

If I was saying, "All the evidence from the real world suggests that it is coming from the real world," you'd be correct.

But I'm not saying that. I'm saying, "All the evidence available to me suggests it is from a world external to myself." And that is an important difference, since it is NOT claiming that such evidence is coming from the real world. It claims that such information is made available to me, regardless of its source.

 

[TBDude65]

Can you refine this statement? I don't understand what you are saying here.

Physics and chemistry describe facts about reality

 

[Sanoy]

No, the evidence I have available to me suggests that the world is real. I never said that it was definitely evidence from the world. It is the evidence detected by my brain.

If I was saying, "All the evidence from the real world suggests that it is coming from the real world," you'd be correct.

But I'm not saying that. I'm saying, "All the evidence available to me suggests it is from a world external to myself." And that is an important difference, since it is NOT claiming that such evidence is coming from the real world. It claims that such information is made available to me, regardless of its source.

All evidence of the external world comes through sensory devices that are external to your brain, that is essentially the problem. If you had said mind that would be different. Even your own knowledge of what a brain is comes from those external sensors, making even that term circular. I can't perceive any meaningful distinction here so you will have to explain it for me. What evidence are you referring to, and why does it suggest it is from a world external to you?

 

[Sanoy]

Physics and chemistry describe facts about reality

That is contrary to what you answered earlier.

 

[TBDude65]

That is contrary to what you answered earlier.

Again, it is contrary to what you think I said earlier. I do not care about your incorrect interpretation/assumption as I am giving you a definitive and clarifying statement to remove confusion.

 

[Sanoy]

Again, it is contrary to what you think I said earlier. I do not care about your incorrect interpretation/assumption as I am giving you a definitive and clarifying statement to remove confusion.

I asked you if you believe that the analytic facts described by physics and chemistry are also synthetic facts? You replied no avoiding the second question. I'd like to know why you have come to change your statement. And I'd like you to answer the second question, If yes, what premise do you use, in respect to the thought experiment, to acquire that conclusion?"

 

[TBDude65]

I asked you if you believe that the analytic facts described by physics and chemistry are also synthetic facts? You replied no avoiding the second question. I'd like to know why you have come to change your statement. And I'd like you to answer the second question, If yes, what premise do you use, in respect to the thought experiment, to acquire that conclusion?"

Again, I don't agree with your attempt to arbitrarily separate them. Which is why I indicated that you didn't like the way I have said that physics and chemistry describe reality. You draw a boundary that somehow justifies (in your thought process) avoiding knowing you possess a body, lol

 

[Sanoy]

Again, I don't agree with your attempt to arbitrarily separate them. Which is why I indicated that you didn't like the way I have said that physics and chemistry describe reality. You draw a boundary that somehow justifies (in your thought process) avoiding knowing you possess a body, lol

My question is identical to asking if physics and chemistry describe reality, IE synthetic. If you are now claiming it does then you need to explain why you believed your prior answer reflected your beliefs, and also answer the second question.

 

[xianghua]

Yes, but one has to apply that in context.

so we can push back human by 10 my or not?

Just give up.

why? so far you are the one who evade the question.

 

[pitabread]

why? so far you are the one who evade the question.

People have answered your questions on this forum ad nauseam. The fact you appear to neither remember past discussions nor learn anything from there is why people are losing patience with you.

 

[Kylie]

All evidence of the external world comes through sensory devices that are external to your brain, that is essentially the problem. If you had said mind that would be different. Even your own knowledge of what a brain is comes from those external sensors, making even that term circular. I can't perceive any meaningful distinction here so you will have to explain it for me. What evidence are you referring to, and why does it suggest it is from a world external to you?

My nerves are part of my nervous system, and that includes my brain.

In any case, you seem to just be arguing that we can't know anything now. And despite that being something I have actually agreed with you in this thread, I can't help but feel that you are just trolling now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so we can push back human by 10 my or not?



why? so far you are the one who evade the question.

Because of your failure to listen. The question was answered a long time ago. You ignored the answer.

 

[Sanoy]

My nerves are part of my nervous system, and that includes my brain.

In any case, you seem to just be arguing that we can't know anything now. And despite that being something I have actually agreed with you in this thread, I can't help but feel that you are just trolling now.

I agree that your nerves are part of your nervous system which encompass your body, and you know this because you learned it from someone who told you it was, and they learned it from using their eyes. As I suspected this is evidence from the external world that the external world exists.

I think you can know things about reality if you use a premise from which the conclusion follows that the perceived world is reality. If you don't use a premise you can't. You seem to be using a premise from which you can't make truth claims in regards to reality. I want to offer you a world view in which you can Kylie.

 

[xianghua]

People have answered your questions on this forum ad nauseam. The fact you appear to neither remember past discussions nor learn anything from there is why people are losing patience with you.

actually Subduction Zone said that we cant push back human to the dinos age. i showed him that its actually possible. do you agree with his notion or not?

 

[xianghua]

Because of your failure to listen. The question was answered a long time ago. You ignored the answer.

you said that we cant push back human to say 40-50 my because its too far. but i just showed that scientists already pushed back creatures in a similar amount of time. so you are clearly wrong about that. can you amdit now that evolution is wrong according to your own criteria or are you still believe in evolution even when your argument have been refuted? i want to see if evolution is religion or science.

 

[Speedwell]

I agree that your nerves are part of your nervous system which encompass your body, and you know this because you learned it from someone who told you it was, and they learned it from using their eyes. As I suspected this is evidence from the external world that the external world exists.

I think you can know things about reality if you use a premise from which the conclusion follows that the perceived world is reality. If you don't use a premise you can't. You seem to be using a premise from which you can't make truth claims in regards to reality. I want to offer you a world view in which you can Kylie.

Why does that conclusion have to be reached by deductive logic?