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.
It proves that you don't understand how science is done.
I'm guessing, until you finally figure out that in science, theories are never considered proven.
As people on this site have been explaining to you since 2016 now.
It proves that you don't understand how science is done.
When was that change made and who made it? I am not aware that the theory of evolution ever claimed "descent with modification within kinds." "Kinds" as creationists use it is not a scientific term and has no fixed definition so it would not ever have been part of a scientific theory.Right. Science gets to change the meanings of words to suit it's believers. A good example is the FACT that Godless scientists changed "descent with modification within kinds" into the filthy word "evolution". So kiddos, join in the name changing business and do it in the anything goes world of changeable Science. Amen?
So what part of evolutio do you want "proved?" The fact of evolution itself? Or the mechanism of evolution as outlined by the theory?And since we both agree that is the case, don't you think your time would be better spent on not theorizing, but on more proving, or did I indicate that already?
.
So what part of evolutio do you want "proved?" The fact of evolution itself? Or the mechanism of evolution as outlined by the theory?
Why? It's just a question. Can't you answer it?
Sorry, I must have missed it. Can you give me a post number? Even so, it's only an either/or question. You could answer it again in a few words. Do you desire proof of the fact of evolution, or of the mechanism proposed by the theory of evolution?Already did.
I'll accept that explanation when you can show where the protection was put on his hands. If you cannot then I'll know that you're wrong but won't admit it. I suspect you haven't even watched the video, so I'm looking forward to you pointing out at what stage the hand sanitizer is used as protection from itself!I kept expecting you to catch on but guess I'm going to have to explain directly, and exactly, something I should have picked up on right off the bat.
You are adding a protective coating, not part of my experiment.
If you are still in disbelief, stick your hand in fire without the sanitizer/any protection, then while you are waiting, dwell on how how you also missed the whole point that this was about science does prove things, and how you made my point just the same, and proved with protection you will not burn your hand, even though you got the experiment wrong, and were very very slow to catch on to what you were not seeing and never actually did, not on your own, even after several weeks or even months. But that's another area of science altogether.
I'll accept that explanation when you can show where the protection was put on his hands. If you cannot then I'll know that you're wrong but won't admit it. I suspect you haven't even watched the video, so I'm looking forward to you pointing out at what stage the hand sanitizer is used as protection from itself!
FYI I've performed the experiment. No protection is need.
No. It's not a belief. I still don't think you have the slightest idea how science works. This isn't a crapshoot where one guy throws out an idea and we all go, "sure, that sounds good." Thousands of fossils and skeletons have been studied. Certain things are identified. For instance, if an animal is alive another animal gave birth to it. So each fossil is part of a line of animals that had parents and children. One of two things happened. Either the line is still alive today or it's extinct. We look at the fossil and try to find out where it fits. Before genetics we only had the ability to study the structure of the bones to figure out where it fit. If you take a whale and you count all the bones in its skeleton then you take a fossilized whale and you count the bones in its skeleton you can identify that it MIGHT be a match. Then you start to look at the parts of the skeleton. Does it have teeth or baleen? Size. How prominent are the vestigial legs. As you go back in time the vestigial legs get more and more prominent. You are able to identify ancestors to whales all the way up to the land animals that once were the great, great, great, great, great... great grandparents of todays whales. It's not a belief. It's a well-educated, supported by the data theory.you are welcome to believe it but its only a belief.
Yes.Is that proof of evolution?
Nope. But you've shown your true colors. Facts don't matter to you. Integrity doesn't matter to you. Enjoy whatever it is you're doing here.Right. Science gets to change the meanings of words to suit it's believers. A good example is the FACT that Godless scientists changed "descent with modification within kinds" into the filthy word "evolution". So kiddos, join in the name changing business and do it in the anything goes world of changeable Science. Amen?
Yes.
No. It's not a belief. I still don't think you have the slightest idea how science works. This isn't a crapshoot where one guy throws out an idea and we all go, "sure, that sounds good.
Of course it is.
Started with a theory, people jumped on the bandwagon, and umpteen years later, still an unproven theory, and that's at best. I personally don't even give it theory status.
That's all you needed to say to make my point. Thank you.I can actually stick my hand in a fire for a short time and not burn it.
When was that change made and who made it? I am not aware that the theory of evolution ever claimed "descent with modification within kinds." "Kinds" as creationists use it is not a scientific term and has no fixed definition so it would not ever have been part of a scientific theory.
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?