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.
No. He was being polite. My "identifier" below my forum name is "recalcitrant procrastinating ape". (I think it's moderately accurate, if a little pretentious in its self deprecation.) You may not have noticed it. I think Ronald was simply amused by it and chose to highlight it in his reply - a reply that was a courteous withdrawal from the thread.You appear to be using the word "ape" as an insult. Technically it is not an insult since you are an ape. As is every other poster here. And I don't think you understand the word "recalcitrant" either.
How would you define the scientific method?When you use joke sites you only make a joke of yourself.
To even work at creation.com one must swear not to use the scientific method. That makes them all but worthless in a scientific debate.
I missed that and I am truly surprised that he could be polite.No. He was being polite. My "identifier" below my forum name is "recalcitrant procrastinating ape". (I think it's moderately accurate, if a little pretentious in its self deprecation.) You may not have noticed it. I think Ronald was simply amused by it and chose to highlight it in his reply - a reply that was a courteous withdrawal from the thread.
However defined, it does not include swearing that nothing which contradicts a literal reading of Genesis may be discovered or concluded.How would you define the scientific method?
I never thought it did.However defined, it does not include swearing that nothing which contradicts a literal reading of Genesis may be discovered or concluded.
How would you define the scientific method?
Good question. The scientific method is a problem solving mechanism that relies on forming testable hypotheses and then trying to disprove them. Here is a simplified flow chart, but there are reasonable alternatives:How would you define the scientific method?
I don't know any serious creationist that uses that argumentCreationists should just be happy that now that Elpistostege has filled the gap between Tiktaalik and Acanthostege, there are now two gaps on either side of it.
But I hope you do realize that one cannot claim that no matter what Genesis is correct and must be interpreted literally and at the same time claim to be doing "science" . Science does not rule out Genesis ahead of time, in fact it is still barely possible that evidence could be found for the stories in Genesis. Though that has not happened yet.I never thought it did.
Here's some more irony:The irony.
it has been a while, but it used to be a common tactic of theirs. But even creationists can learn sometimes.I don't know any serious creationist that uses that argument
Does a 'transitional form' replace one gap with two gaps? - creation.com
Anti-creationism illogic editorial - creation.comGood question. The scientific method is a problem solving mechanism that relies on forming testable hypotheses and then trying to disprove them. Here is a simplified flow chart, but there are reasonable alternatives:
Please note, one has to follow the evidence. One does not get to assume an answer and try to get the evidence to fit it.
A question that I like to ask is:
Based upon your idea's own merits what reasonable test could possibly refute it?
If one cannot answer that question one does not have a scientific concept and by definition cannot have any scientific evidence for it.
And what would that be? The main event in evolution is speciation, which has been demonstrated. Repeated speciation events account fully for the larger patterns of diversity which we observe.Anti-creationism illogic editorial - creation.com
How could you refute it? You could provide an example of evolution happening.
And what would that be? The main event in evolution is speciation, which has been demonstrated. Repeated speciation events account fully for the larger patterns of diversity which we observe.
The biggest problem I see in that article is the same one we have been dealing with in this thread for the past several days. Namely, the conflation of biblical-literalist creationism with Christianity, and the assumption that a rejection of that creationism is an attack on Christianity itself.
Not necessarily. That is a false dichotomy. And why do you keep linking to a site that is all but worthless? You have in effect admitted to no evidence for creationism.Anti-creationism illogic editorial - creation.com
How could you refute it? You could provide an example of evolution happening.
Darwin was confused
leaned on his own understanding, which was a stretch of his imagination.
Didn't he think a cell was just a jelly-like substance with little complexity.
All things are complex, even the Paremecium, it's flagella is more complex than the space shuttle.
^ This,
^ is directly contradicted by this.
If you are trying to claim that evolution says that a dog can evolve into a cat (both being extant species), then that demonstrates you don't understand evolution at all.
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?