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.
Since you linked to your own post and have not made a single attempt to try and address the OP, going off on tangents, then I'm calling it like I see it.
Excellent! I have this theory that my garbage man found a expired can of Campbell's Primordial Stew in my neighbor's trash; and that he traveled back in time in his Delorean, to spawn all life.
Prove me wrong.
If you want to call addressing some of your nonsensical statements as going off on tangents; should we just let the nonsense stand, to stay on topic?
Not how the burden of proof works.
5 going on 6 pages in with no attempt to answer the OP? Sounds about par for the course.
I addressed this question early on in the thread. Nothing needs to replace a failed hypothesis. If we don't have an answer to our question; it's better to keep searching for an answer, rather than providing another wrong answer to replace the first.
Okay, I'll give you that.
I am still right though. If you say that something is wrong, you should be expected to say that another thing is right, either a claim, an assessment or a theory.
Why does saying that something is wrong mean you have to say that something else is right? If I argue that Ptolemy's astrological system was wrong, why do I have to argue that a different astrological interpretation is right? If an atheist argues that Christianity is wrong, does he have to argue that some other religion is right?
Skeptics are annoying, but they aren't logically inconsistent.
Right, there is no answer because your position is incorrect.
No, I've just realised that you're not even really going to make an attempt to even try and answer the OP so you might as well just leave the thread.
You didn't say that. You made a snarky comment about the Tooth Fairy.
Evolution is far from a hypothesis your asking to ignore all evidence found in the natural world for an idea that dosn't answer why we find all this evidence to begin with. If it was some small idea I could understand searching for more info but were talking something that spans multiple sciences and forms the back bone for one.I addressed this question early on in the thread. Nothing needs to replace a failed hypothesis. If we don't have an answer to our question; it's better to keep searching for an answer, rather than providing another wrong answer to replace the first.
No, I have explained in excruciating detail why your OP commits a logical fallacy, and you have no answer. You are unable to admit you are wrong. You just think anyone who disagrees with you ought to leave the thread. But that's not how forums work.
You are incorrect. I was hoping that you would have deduced your fallacy by the Tooth Fairy comment. When you failed to; I provided an explanation in Post #37.
Evolution is far from a hypothesis your asking to ignore all evidence found in the natural world for an idea that dosn't answer why we find all this evidence to begin with. If it was some small idea I could understand searching for more info but were talking something that spans multiple sciences and forms the back bone for one.
You seem to be of the understanding that dismissing a theory as false, is dependent on it being replaced.
Science isn't like the purchase of a new home being contingent of the sale of the old home.
We dismiss that which is false; and if another hypothesis comes along; we test it.
I understand the OP split it up this way more for the benefit of creationists but micro and macro work with the exact same mechanism evidence for one is evidence for the other my statement stands.This thread addresses, more specifically, macroevolution.
You might want to read the the thread referenced in the OP, for more information on this subject.
5 going on 6 pages in with no attempt to answer the OP?
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?