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, ridiculous.You name one proof of evolution, then I would give you a number of related questions abut evolution which you would not be able to answer. Then let's count the ratio of answered/unanswered questions about evolution.
Fair game?
Of course you could. I could ask you where every single pebble in my backyard came from and how it got there. That's many thousands of questions, and you couldn't answer a single one of them. Where did you get the idea that this was a way to judge scientific theories?To compare, one can not get a similar result in other better supported scientific theories.
No, you're not making deductions. You're drawing inferences. Said inferences are not supported by the article in question. The data are not sufficient to support your inferences. You may be right. You may be wrong.No, I am making reasonable deductions based upon what I know of bacteria and what the article says.
Big difference.
Random responses to recent posts:
1) Evolution as a theory is underdetermined. Of course it is. All scientific theories are underdetermined -- as are all nonscientific theories. That's just the reality of living in an uncertain world. That's why science is always open in principle to a new theory that will explain the data better. Unless you have a better (or even comparable) theory to offer, however, pointing out underdetermination is not contributing anything of value.
If natural selection describes the behavior of some genetic systems some of the time, then you are saying that it does not correctly describe the behavior of all genetic systems all of the time. If so, you are saying that the theory has been experimentally falsified.3) Natural selection is not a tautology. It's a description of the behavior of some genetic systems some of the time.
If natural selection describes the behavior of some genetic systems some of the time, then you are saying that it does not correctly describe the behavior of all genetic systems all of the time. If so, you are saying that the theory has been experimentally falsified.
I don't care what your position is. You've still failed to introduce anything new by pointing out that theories are underdetermined.Since my position is agnosticism, I disagree with your argument.
I would classify your understanding of logical fallacies as imperfect at best.In fact, I classify your argument as an argument from ignorance, which is a formal logical fallacy.
I agree, the theory that all genetic systems are always correctly described by natural selection is experimentally falsified. Why you would want to falsify a theory that no one is proposing I don't know, nor why you're introducing this novel theory into a discussion of evolutionary biology, but to each his own.If natural selection describes the behavior of some genetic systems some of the time, then you are saying that it does not correctly describe the behavior of all genetic systems all of the time. If so, you are saying that the theory has been experimentally falsified.
Once again, I did not base my inferences upon the only the article. My inferences do not need to be totally based upon the article.No, you're not making deductions. You're drawing inferences. Said inferences are not supported by the article in question. The data are not sufficient to support your inferences. You may be right. You may be wrong.
Yes, it's part of the creationist model too, so on that we can agree.Natural selection is not a theory. It's an observable fact.
Oh. Okay. So you're lying about the theory of evolution to make it sound bad? Isn't there a commandment about that?
No, ridiculous.
Of course you could. I could ask you where every single pebble in my backyard came from and how it got there. That's many thousands of questions, and you couldn't answer a single one of them. Where did you get the idea that this was a way to judge scientific theories?
Here's a better game, an actual scientific game: give me a theory that predicts genetic data better than evolution. Until you do that, there's no point in playing.
Great, then where'd you get that figure?
I can write a research paper based on that question.
You are not fair. I do not know genetics. You do. But I certainly can ask layman questions about genetics. And I estimate that you can not answer most of them. You can do the similar to me by asking me any geology questions and see how would I respond.
What would your methods and materials section look like?
What about the questions we do have answers for?
...Yeah, you know what? What's it gonna take to make you want an apology from me?
Can't answer my questions?You owe me an apology. Before that happen, no discussion to you.
It also accounts for the cosmic abundances of deuterium, helium-3 and helium-4, and lithium. The big bang theory was used (in 1948) to predict the existence of the cosmic microwave background, which was discovered in 1965.The big bang theory is the most popular origination of the universe by those who believe in evolution. However, the BBT only accounts for the origination of light and space time.
Where did you get this from?However it gives no explanation for 3 dimensional space and time prior to the existence of light!
Can you give a direct quote or a link, please?According to Hawking 3D space always was and always will be (kinda sounds like God to me).
That assertion makes zero sense.
That happens a lot when you chop off half the explanation.
A. Please provide us with a definition of "kind" that has both explanatory and predictive power.
B. Please provide us with evidence of this supposed barrier.
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?