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.
So just a cop-out then. Got it.It does answer your question. When I come to the conclusion that what someone told me was false; I don't feel the need to replace that falsehood with anything, but the simple truth that it is false.
It is cool how the "confident" creationists do anything they can to avoid having to support their beliefs.Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia
If macroevolution is true; prove it.
If the math works; prove it.
Start your own thread maybe? Stop polluting this guy's with your ducks and dodges?You're shifting the burden of proof. Prove that macroevolution is is mathematically possible.
Hark is right. Your assumption is unscientific. If a theory is falsified then it must be discarded. It doesn't matter at all whether there is an available alternative.
A real scientist would, upon discovering that macroevolution is false, discard it and reply to your question, "Nothing." Or maybe he would have a suggestion about how to unify the data that macroevolution attempts to unify. But there is no scientific onus on him to do so. In science, falsification of a theory does not presuppose replacement of that theory.
Fallacy of begging the question.Almost every part of your body has something in its design that 'considers/shares/takes in acccount' other parts of the body, almost like if someone intelligent made it or something... and then mix up the mind, how evolution could create appreciation for beauty, pondering about life and spiritual needs...
Argument from incredulity.How evolution managed to do that, considering our bodies are more advanced than anything humans can do and evolution is a process so weak as explained by evolutionists compared to what processes humans make, but what humans make produce a lot less expectacular results.
So you cannot support creationism, either.When evolutionist say some creationists go with the 'argument from incredulity' I say i don't believe an ant can't lift a boulder either.
Feynman explained in one of his lectures essentially what you have laid out - got to replace it with something that better explains the data. Because one has to understand that falsifying a THEORY is not as easy as they seem to believe, since a theory is built upon lots and lots of evidence/data. It explains the data. I suspect that the folks who think they can toss out a claim about math or whatever and have falsified a theory probably think the word means the same thing in science as it does on their favorite sitcom, and don't realize that theories in science are not going to be falling victim to some malcontents on the internet..Except that my assumption isn't unscientific. All scientific theories are replaceable by another if they are found to be false, and evolution is no different.
If macroevolution is found to be false, then something has to be replace it.
Wow... I suspect creationists and ID mathemagicians really need to hear that.It is perfectly possible to just admit that you don't know. Indeed, that is a much better initial way to proceed after a theory is falsified than to concoct newfangled explanations.
Indeed - Imre Lakatos covered falsification in considerable detail in 'The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes', particularly with respect to Popper's changing positions on it over time.Feynman explained in one of his lectures essentially what you have laid out - got to replace it with something that better explains the data. Because one has to understand that falsifying a THEORY is not as easy as they seem to believe, since a theory is built upon lots and lots of evidence/data. It explains the data. I suspect that the folks who think they can toss out a claim about math or whatever and have falsified a theory probably think the word means the same thing in science as it does on their favorite sitcom, and don't realize that theories in science are not going to be falling victim to some malcontents on the internet..
The relevance of Darwin's Finches to evolution is a historical one. They were important in helping Darwin to recognise the nature and mechanism of evolution. Today they represent less than 0.0000000001% of the evidence for evolution.The species of birds Darwin used that are called "Darwin's finches" were written about in the following way,
"These birds, although nearly identical in all other ways to mainland finches, had different beaks. Their beaks had adapted to the type of food they ate in order to fill different niches on the Galapagos Islands." These finches, because they had adaptations in their beaks helped pave the way for the theory of evolution, but the sad thing is they are just different sized beaks for different food sources, or an adaptation NOT an evolution of sorts
Your open refusal to explore the competing evidence and your application of the Informal Logical Fallacy of Begging the Question are examples of why @Warden_of_the_Storm thinks you are not arguing in Good Faith. I agree with him. Where he abd I may differ is that I do not think you are consciously aware of what you are doing and why it is considered unacceptable. I think your intentions are sincere, but they are misguided.The cool thing is I don't have to read your book to know it's wrong just like one doesn't have to study a fake bill to know what is true they just study the real currency.
DNA is 1000 times more complex than a simple rolex, the comparison is just to show that if a simple watch found in the woods is enough to point to a creator then DNA found in our bodies is enough to point to The Creator.
Bruh completely ignoring the Word of Truth does not constitute a lack of knowledge of how things were created rather than a complete inability to accept that The Bible specifically outlines who created what and how.That isn't how design is detected though.
We know that a watch found in the woods points to a creator because we have pre-existing knowledge of what watches are, who makes them, how they are made, etc.
We don't have any of that same information for living organisms in nature insofar as being created.
Bruh completely ignoring the Word of Truth does not constitute a lack of knowledge of how things were created rather than a complete inability to accept that The Bible specifically outlines who created what and how.
That'd be like if someone told you how to solve a math problem and then you ignored the method and claimed you didn't know how to solve the math problem.
My response was preaching just as much as your claims of evolution even being a thing is preaching. It's just your preaching something different, still preaching something that requires faith to accept, the only difference is evolution is a false idea that people try really hard to accept.This forum, and this thread, isn't for preaching.
My response was preaching just as much as your claims of evolution even being a thing is preaching. It's just your preaching something different, still preaching something that requires faith to accept, the only difference is evolution is a false idea that people try really hard to accept.
Bruh completely ignoring the Word of Truth does not constitute a lack of knowledge of how things were created rather than a complete inability to accept that The Bible specifically outlines who created what and how.
sci·enceNo it's not. It's... it's really not. How is preaching to talk about science IN THE SCIENCE FORUM?
sci·ence
/ˈsīəns/
noun
- the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Claiming that conversations about science according to this definition (the physical and natural world) regarding how the physical and natural world were created (in your opinion evolution, and in my opinion creationism) without including conversations of the Creator (in my opinion God and in your opinion a random explosion happening from nothing) is like saying we can talk about X topic but without any opinion other than my own, which is not how conversations are done.
Also keep in mind your post is in a Christian forum so why are you surprised a Christian is talking about Creationism and God lol
Here's just one verse on the creation of man:The Bible does not specifically outline the what and the how, though. In fact, it's quite light on those details. I've learned this from repeated discussions with creationists where when I press for said details, it quickly becomes apparent how limited Biblical scripture is.
In contrast if I wanted to learn all about watch manufacture, I could learn all the details right down to how the original ores are mined and smelted.
Not the equivalent scenario at all, I'm afraid.
Here's just one verse on the creation of man:
No it's widely understood that humans are capable of forming clay pots out of clay, we can just do it, and if we were as smart as God we would be able to understand it's possible for God to use dust to form man. As far as how they are alive it says God breathed the breath of life into man. Do you claim to know how complex the breath of life is?
Do you not believe only because you don't have God's blueprints?
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?