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.
the skull for instance.
true. if so its just a belief.
Its not something that we can prove.
My favorite falsification of YECism specifically is the existence of Egypt. Per YECist timelines, the Flood would have taken place during Egypt's 6th Dynasty. Yet the Egyptians apparently failed to notice their entire civilization was underwater...
so how you can distinguish between an anaog trait and homologous one?
in any case we assume evolution is true in both cases.
the echidna is also very hedgeog-like:
one of the The most important pieces of evidence of creation is the eclipse miracle---please watch this short video for familes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)according to this definition homologous traits do need a commondescent assumption:
Most simply:
homologous - has the same internal structure as well as superficial similarity and the same gene pathways.
analogous - not the same internal structure and gene pathways with only superficial similarity.
Nothing is ever proven in science
how do you know what gene pathways exist in Ichthyosaurs? if you dont know (and we dont know) then we cant conclude that his traits was analogous to the dolphin one.
so those are anologous structures?:
Darwin's God: A Salamander Two-fer: Non Homologous Development and an ORFan
Now that was just a dumb comment from you. Mathematics deals with proof, science deals with evidence.so you dont know if the earth is round?
what about "shared ancestry" part?
so you dont know if the earth is round?
so you are not sure if the earth is round? ok. i have nothing to add.
so you are not sure if the earth is round?
i have nothing to add.
fact isnt a proof?
I just LOVE this. It is so convenient for evolution not to have to prove anything and yet call it a fact. Not having to prove your theory and yet say it is a fact is having your cake and getting to eat it too. Is it because science is often wrong about something? I'm wondering if that's the reason why they don't have to prove anything. Or is it that they can't prove it so let's just say we don't have to. Then we can say whatever we want and when someone says "prove it" then we just get to say we don't have to cause it's science. Like I said, very convenient.Wrong. A scientific theory is not the same as a belief. I realize English is not your native tongue, but you equivocate like some of the most masterfully dishonest Creationists I've ever encountered.
Nothing is ever proven in science and the fact that you, and others, continue use "prove", "proof", "proven", etc. in a scientific context tells us you don't know as much about the subject as you think you do.
------------------------------------------
No such thing as scientific proof.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
Dr. Jay Wile, Creationist
Science Can’t Prove Anything – Proslogion
After all, science has proven all sorts of things, hasn’t it?
Of course it hasn’t. In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.
Dr. Douglas Theobald, not a Creationist
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method
What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.
I just LOVE this. It is so convenient for evolution not to have to prove anything and yet call it a fact. Not having to prove your theory and yet say it is a fact is having your cake and getting to eat it too. Is it because science is often wrong about something? I'm wondering if that's the reason why they don't have to prove anything. Or is it that they can't prove it so let's just say we don't have to. Then we can say whatever we want and when someone says "prove it" then we just get to say we don't have to cause it's science. Like I said, very convenient.
Science doesn't use the term proof, only mathematicians and brewers. You're arguing the use of the laymen's definition of proof.
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?