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.
But you won't ever find a person who agrees with common descent AND agrees with that premise. I don't see any jumping off point for a discussion.Depends on what the conversation is about.
What about miracles instead?Intelligent adults need to even stop trying to engage the petulant that endeavor to argue observed reality with magic and mythology.
No argument there.But you won't ever find a person who agrees with common descent AND agrees with that premise. I don't see any jumping off point for a discussion.
What about miracles instead?
For how long?I will certainly consider being wrong if presented with evidence.
Intelligent adults need to even stop trying to engage the petulant that endeavor to argue observed reality with magic and mythology. It is just silly. Steven Hawking couldn't convince someone that Dumbledore isn't real if they believed it.
What about miracles instead?
When Jesus put Caiphas' ear back on him, after Peter had cut it off, shouldn't that have stopped those who came to arrest Jesus in their tracks?Show me some amputated limbs that were regrown.
⁹The only theory in evolution is common descent. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis but not, technically a part of evolutionary theory, though creationists like to put it there.
Everything else - generally wrapped up in the term 'change in allele frequency over time' - is fact. This includes mutations, natural selection, and so on. You can only argue against it by denying one or more factual observations - often repeatable in a classroom lab.
There are some parts of the theory that are difficult to make sense of. Oddly, I've never met a creationist knowledgeable enough in the subject to point these out.
That is something few creationists understand.Are you aware of the following two facts:
- Science does not deal with "proof", it simply deals with evidence, which the theory of evolution has in abundance
- In science, a theory is the highest level an explanatory model can reach. You cannot get higher than a theory, and evolution is one of the best supported theories in science.
Oh dear.Sorry, this doesn't work on many levels. The first being that in origin theory, evidence is more in the eye of the beholder than it is "fact." In an experiment, the researcher must have a control to test against. The problem with a theory such as evolution, there is no control, just the idea of what should be the control. This, in turn, inhibits the ability of evolution to be truely testable. This leads to your assumption that evolution is one of the most best supported theories in science. This is a blatant error. Because of the lack of a control among other things, evolution is only supported by hypotheses and theories, something that does not make it well supported. Plus, one can look at the millions of scientific theories out there and see the vast majority to have much harder evidence then evolution. Science has an abundant amount of the theories that have books worth of testable evidence. Look at stem cell research, tumor serveillence theory, theories surrounding the effect of neurotransmitters on different areas of the body, theories of the effect of drugs on human fetuses, and the list goes on and on. Everyone of these theories has so much more support for them than does evolution. Another thing is that a Law is the highest level you can get to.
The only theory in evolution is common descent. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis but not, technically a part of evolutionary theory, though creationists like to put it there.
Everything else - generally wrapped up in the term 'change in allele frequency over time' - is fact. This includes mutations, natural selection, and so on. You can only argue against it by denying one or more factual observations - often repeatable in a classroom lab.
There are some parts of the theory that are difficult to make sense of. Oddly, I've never met a creationist knowledgeable enough in the subject to point these out.
Sorry, this doesn't work on many levels. The first being that in origin theory, evidence is more in the eye of the beholder than it is "fact." In an experiment, the researcher must have a control to test against. The problem with a theory such as evolution, there is no control, just the idea of what should be the control. This, in turn, inhibits the ability of evolution to be truely testable. This leads to your assumption that evolution is one of the most best supported theories in science. This is a blatant error. Because of the lack of a control among other things, evolution is only supported by hypotheses and theories, something that does not make it well supported. Plus, one can look at the millions of scientific theories out there and see the vast majority to have much harder evidence then evolution. Science has an abundant amount of the theories that have books worth of testable evidence. Look at stem cell research, tumor serveillence theory, theories surrounding the effect of neurotransmitters on different areas of the body, theories of the effect of drugs on human fetuses, and the list goes on and on. Everyone of these theories has so much more support for them than does evolution. Another thing is that a Law is the highest level you can get to.
Is anyone aware of a single "flaw" in the overall theory of evolution?
People change. Some here were not even born when this was posted.For six and a half years!
I'll read your reply in 2028.
Some posters may appear to have the intellectual maturity of a 6 year old, but I don't think there are actually any real 6 year olds posting in this forumPeople change. Some here were not even born when this was posted.
So they missed the discussion.
I think BEAMISHBOY is the youngest we've had.Some posters may appear to have the intellectual maturity of a 6 year old, but I don't think there are actually any real 6 year olds posting in this forum
At the level of chemistry & physics it's just a complex redox reaction sequence that extends the approach to thermal equilibrium by using low entropy energy sources.What is the function of Life? What does it accomplish?
Wow.At the level of chemistry & physics it's just a complex redox reaction sequence that extends the approach to thermal equilibrium by using low entropy energy sources.
(I've chided him for over a year to construct something.)Wow.
That's the most impressive academic definition of "life" I've ever read!
"
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?