First born

[Subduction Zone]

Tit for tat in that situation is, what you require of others is also required of you.
With what measure you judge, you also shall be judged.

And you did not do that.

Sure you were.

Of course I was. Just as much as you are now, perhaps even more so. By the way, it is against the rules to try to claim that I wasn't here.


.

You said you gave facts which were easily confirmed, where and what are these so called facts?

Oh my! If you can't pay attention there is no need for me to help you. The posts are still there, if you have any questions I will gladly answer them.

 

[JIMINZ]

And you did not do that.



Of course I was. Just as much as you are now, perhaps even more so. By the way, it is against the rules to try to claim that I wasn't here.


.

Oh my! If you can't pay attention there is no need for me to help you. The posts are still there, if you have any questions I will gladly answer them.

Do you mean the kaleidoscopes which were posted, they didn't prove anything except they were in harmony....Nice job by the way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you mean the kaleidoscopes which were posted, they didn't prove anything except they were in harmony....Nice job by the way.

There was no "kaleidoscope". Again, if you can't pay attention and follow a conversation don't blame me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

.
It's just with all of your Charts, Graphs and cunningly devised explanations, you still have no Proof, and everything everyone of you says remains a THEORY.

We have not been getting anywhere here. It is quite apparent that you have no science education at all.

In the world of science a theory is as good as it gets. Theories, if anything, outrank laws. You tried to put down the theory of evolution by pointing out that it was a still a theory. That is the same as pointing out that it is still a fact. In other words, you shot yourself in the foot.

 

[pitabread]

Theories, if anything, outrank laws.

I'd caution that there's no real 'ranking' of these things. Theories, laws, hypotheses, and models are all different things in science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd caution that there's no real 'ranking' of these things. Theories, laws, hypotheses, and models are all different things in science.

I know that there is no official ranking. But for people that are so ignorant to ask why it is still a theory one needs to explain in simple terms first.

A theory is similar to a law in that it "is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe."

Scientific law - Wikipedia

It is superior to a law in that it has an explanation for why those repeated experimental observations are made. In other words a scientific theory is basically a law with explanations.

 

[JIMINZ]

And three times and you are out.

By your standards the theory of evolution is "proven". But then you don't even know what a theory is.

.
By your falling to your death from 30,000 feet, without a parachute proves the Theory of Evolution, that's a new one, can you verify that?

We have not been getting anywhere here. It is quite apparent that you have no science education at all.

In the world of science a theory is as good as it gets. Theories, if anything, outrank laws. You tried to put down the theory of evolution by pointing out that it was a still a theory. That is the same as pointing out that it is still a fact. In other words, you shot yourself in the foot.

.
Not at all both of my feet are perfectly fine thank you.

While your theory of Evolution on the other hand needs some help.

THEORY:
A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Synonyms:
idea, notion hypothesis, postulate, contemplation, speculation, conjecture, or guess.

Synonym Study
In technical or scientific use, Theory, principle, and law represent established, evidence-based explanations
accounting for currently known facts or phenomena or for historically verified experience: the theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the law of supply and demand, the principle of conservation of energy.

Often the word law is used in reference to scientific facts that can be reduced to a mathematical formula: Newton's laws of motion.In these contexts the terms theory and law often appear in well-established,fixed phrases and are not interchangeable. In both technical and non technical contexts, theory can also be synonymous with hypothesis, a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations,serving as a basis for thoughtful discussion and subsequent collection of data or engagement in scientific experimentation in order to rule out alternative explanations and reach the truth.

In these contexts of early speculation, the words theory and hypothesis are often substitutable for one another: Remember, this idea is only a theory/hypothesis; Pasteur's experiments helped prove the theory/hypothesis that germs cause disease. Obviously, certain theories that start out as hypothetical eventually receive enough supportive data and scientific findings to become established, verified explanations. Although they retain the term theory in their names, they have evolved from mere conjecture to scientifically accepted fact.

 

[tevans9129]

By your falling to your death from 30,000 feet, without a parachute proves the Theory of Evolution, that's a new one, can you verify that?

May I watch, that would be some evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

.
By your falling to your death from 30,000 feet, without a parachute proves the Theory of Evolution, that's a new one, can you verify that?

Not what I said or implied. You as much as admitted that evolution is proven by your standards. Sadly you do not realize how you did so.

.

Not at all both of my feet are perfectly fine thank you.

And full of holes.

While your theory of Evolution on the other hand needs some help.

Really? How so?

THEORY:
A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Bogus definitions from an uncited source are worthless. That is not the definition of a scientific theory. You just shot yourself in the foot again.

Synonyms:
idea, notion hypothesis, postulate, contemplation, speculation, conjecture, or guess.

Synonym Study
In technical or scientific use, Theory, principle, and law represent established, evidence-based explanations
accounting for currently known facts or phenomena or for historically verified experience: the theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the law of supply and demand, the principle of conservation of energy.

Hey look! You put a much better definition of theory out there this time. Here is a challenge for you. See if you can shoot your little toe next time.

Often the word law is used in reference to scientific facts that can be reduced to a mathematical formula: Newton's laws of motion.In these contexts the terms theory and law often appear in well-established,fixed phrases and are not interchangeable. In both technical and non technical contexts, theory can also be synonymous with hypothesis, a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations,serving as a basis for thoughtful discussion and subsequent collection of data or engagement in scientific experimentation in order to rule out alternative explanations and reach the truth.

Oh my! He did it! He mentioned some "laws" that were shown to be wrong, at least they are not true in all circumstances, and that have been replaced by a theory. Newton's Laws have been superseded by Einstein's Theories. Newton is still incredibly accurate. His work was good enough to get us to the Moon and back, but not good enough for GPS.

In these contexts of early speculation, the words theory and hypothesis are often substitutable for one another: Remember, this idea is only a theory/hypothesis; Pasteur's experiments helped prove the theory/hypothesis that germs cause disease. Obviously, certain theories that start out as hypothetical eventually receive enough supportive data and scientific findings to become established, verified explanations. Although they retain the term theory in their names, they have evolved from mere conjecture to scientifically accepted fact.

And excellent, I could not have said it better myself. The theory of evolution has been tested and confirmed many thousands upon thousands of times and is now regarded as scientific fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

May I watch, that would be some evidence?

Sadly neither of you understand the concept of evidence.

 

[tevans9129]

When is attempting to discuss or even ask questions about a scientific topic, there comes with that a certain responsibility on the individual to have a baseline understanding of said scientific topic. If one doesn't have a good conceptual grasp on the subject and if one is asking questions accordingly, then one is not likely receive good answers.

Then why not ignore my questions? A number of my questions have nothing to do with science but are asked in response to something that was written, why are those not answered? What excuses are there for not answering them? Why is it that I am willing to answer every question the educated, scientific folks ask me but they will not reciprocate in like manner? And no, I feel no obligation to answer any question if mine are not answered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why not ignore my questions? A number of my questions have nothing to do with science but are asked in response to something that was written, why are those not answered? What excuses are there for not answering them? Why is it that I am willing to answer every question the educated, scientific folks ask me but they will not reciprocate in like manner? And no, I feel no obligation to answer any question if mine are not answered.

No one has ignored your questions. People have tried to answer them, even though they are poorly formed or told you that they were poorly formed, and that is an answer.

And when have you answered the questions of others? Once again it is your time to answer a few.

 

[pitabread]

Then why not ignore my questions? A number of my questions have nothing to do with science but are asked in response to something that was written, why are those not answered? What excuses are there for not answering them?

First, this is a discussion board, so ignoring questions doesn't seem terribly fruitful.

Second, as I already replied to you if a question seems ill-framed or rhetorical I'll sometimes ignore it. Or in the case of ill-framed questions, respond in a way to clarify the meaning of the question or point out that the context of the question may not be entirely valid.

Why is it that I am willing to answer every question the educated, scientific folks ask me but they will not reciprocate in like manner? And no, I feel no obligation to answer any question if mine are not answered.

I previously asked you about your conceptual understanding of evolutionary processes and how it works with respect to populations. I asked because it seemed the way you were asking questions seemed like it was based on a shaky conceptual foundation. But you declined to answer that.

 

[JIMINZ]

Not what I said or implied. You as much as admitted that evolution is proven by your standards. Sadly you do not realize how you did so.

.

And full of holes.



Really? How so?



Bogus definitions from an uncited source are worthless. That is not the definition of a scientific theory. You just shot yourself in the foot again.




Hey look! You put a much better definition of theory out there this time. Here is a challenge for you. See if you can shoot your little toe next time.



Oh my! He did it! He mentioned some "laws" that were shown to be wrong, at least they are not true in all circumstances, and that have been replaced by a theory. Newton's Laws have been superseded by Einstein's Theories. Newton is still incredibly accurate. His work was good enough to get us to the Moon and back, but not good enough for GPS.



And excellent, I could not have said it better myself. The theory of evolution has been tested and confirmed many thousands upon thousands of times and is now regarded as scientific fact.

Only in the Scientific community, which isn't saying much.

2 Cor. 10:12
But they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

 

[pitabread]

Only in the Scientific community, which isn't saying much.

Wow. The contempt some have for science is amazing.

Though I doubt you'd trade in all the technological benefits you enjoy as a result of scientific knowledge and advancement.

 

[JIMINZ]

Wow. The contempt some have for science is amazing.

Though I doubt you'd trade in all the technological benefits you enjoy as a result of scientific knowledge and advancement.

.
No contempt for Science, just The Theory of Evolution

Don't even try to place The Theory of Evolution in the same light as Scientific advancement, and Technological benefits, the Theory of Evolution has no purpose, but the vacuum tube does.

 

[pitabread]

.
No contempt for Science, just The Theory of Evolution

Don't even try to place The Theory of Evolution in the same light as Scientific advancement, and Technological benefits, the Theory of Evolution has no purpose, but the vacuum tube does.

You do know that the theory of evolution has practical application, yes?

 

[JIMINZ]

You do know that the theory of evolution has practical application, yes?

.
You do know that a Bore Hog cannot suckle it's offspring?
That makes them even then.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Another one with no answer, it seems to be an epidemic.

Your question has a faulty assumption--there is no definitive "first mammal"; if we were able to go back in time and observe the most recent common ancestor of all living mammals today, it wouldn't be the only thing like itself around--there would be other things very similar to it, but their lineages ultimately didn't survive until the present, while ours did.

So your question has a faulty assumption to begin with, and ultimately what your argument is trying to be is that if we can't identify the first mammal then there's no evidence of our common descent--and that is a broken argument, which is why I gave the answer I did: Name your most direct ancestor from your mother's side from the 14th century BC. Your implied argument is that since we don't know the most recent common ancestor then it doesn't exist; which is like me saying since you don't know who your maternal ancestor that lived in the 14th century BC is that they didn't exist either. Obviously you did have a direct ancestor alive over 3,000 years ago, because you're here; but there's almost no way to know who they were.

And if you don't understand this, then you are beyond your pay grade here and you need to actually bother to understand the concepts you are trying to debate.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JIMINZ]

Your question has a faulty assumption--there is no definitive "first mammal"; if we were able to go back in time and observe the most recent common ancestor of all living mammals today, it wouldn't be the only thing like itself around--there would be other things very similar to it, but their lineages ultimately didn't survive until the present, while ours did.

So your question has a faulty assumption to begin with, and ultimately what your argument is trying to be is that if we can't identify the first mammal then there's no evidence of our common descent--and that is a broken argument, which is why I gave the answer I did: Name your most direct ancestor from your mother's side from the 14th century BC. Your implied argument is that since we don't know the most recent common ancestor then it doesn't exist; which is like me saying since you don't know who your maternal ancestor that lived in the 14th century BC is that they didn't exist either. Obviously you did have a direct ancestor alive over 3,000 years ago, because you're here; but there's almost no way to know who they were.

And if you don't understand this, then you are beyond your pay grade here and you need to actually bother to understand the concepts you are trying to debate.

-CryptoLutheran

.
Is it your contention.
1) Cain was not the first born mammal?
2) Adam and Eve were not Cains parents?
3) Cain was not of the Human species?

Cain is the only mammal which we are able to document, if there was some other mammal born before Cain, it was not recorded.