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.
um, I did.
What part of 'Only something eternal can solve infinite regression.' do you not understand?
Also it was used to point out the fallacy of your, "SHow me something becoming something else." Even if you saw every single offspring through a female line from dinosaur to chicken, you wouldn't see at any single spot looking 10 up and 10 down something becoming another species. If you looked every 100 you would see change. THis is the point were making, if a cat became something completly different in the same way a reptile over time became a cat, then you would have to jump far down the line, not look at 1000 years of cats. You might notice big differences if you lined up 1000 years of your house cat back down it's line to a ancestral cat, but outside of breeding the differences wouldn't be that noticable over short times, and certainly not 150 years since Origin of species.
ad hominem
That is simple to understand but it isn't evidence of anything let, so while you may of "solved" the infinite regression you have no reason to solve it in the first place let alone in this way.
Oh, wait, you want empirical evidence of a eternal form solving infinite regression?! LOL! Well if you look outside your window... LOL!
It is common sense, if something has no beginning or end, then it could start a chain of infinite regression.
In fact, only a eternal form can start a chain of infinite regression.
Since we are 'inside' a chain of infinite regression, the the origin can be only 1 thing, a eternal form.
Now if you know another way, do share?
Look, I have a degree in evolutionary biology from one of the top UK universities
In what way? Are you arguing that the necessary time wasn't available? (in which case I'm happy to argue that it was) Or are you arguing that so much time is not necessary?
it's still not fast enough to make cats out of dogs in an observable period.
I ask again: under evolutionary assumptions, why should we expect anything to turn into a "completely different" species in front of our eyes?
Um, subtle terminological distinctions notwithstanding, evolution is still one of the best supported ideas in science. Call it what you want, it doesn't change that fact.
What level of certainty constitutes "knowing"?
Illustrating something doesn't equal demonstrating that it happens.
But an eternal form does not answer anything, all it does it change the question. If you are happy to answer that infinite regression is solved by an eternal form, you have to state why such an eternal form exists since you replaced infinite with eternal.
The truth can hurt sometimes, so ad hominem or not you can't just make it go away.
And you were told the answer. What's funny about it?
A insult is not truth.
Truth is not subjective to a viewpoint.
Let me put it like this:
If I say 2+2=4.
And you say I am a dolt idiot who does not understand evolution or science.
It does not confront or even address the statement. It is simply a fallacy.
Well it takes a long time for you guys to catch up.
Any kind of intelligent person will conclude with a eternal form, be it a static eternal universe, or one that expands and contracts, yet always existed.
I recently heard that some believe matter can be created as long as gravity exists... which, of course, makes no sense, because gravity comes from the existing matter...
Still, something eternal exists.
So the next question to ask, in trying to discover 'which eternal form' exists, is do you believe the eternal form has life and consciousness?
That methodologyis what underpins the method and that is the method used for the discoveries that enrich out lives.
No one believes that all life came from a rock.
A insult is not truth.
Truth is not subjective to a viewpoint.
Let me put it like this:
If I say 2+2=4.
And you say I am a dolt idiot who does not understand evolution or science.
It does not confront or even address the statement. It is simply a fallacy.
The methodology is a philosophy.
Abiogenesis does.
You made the assumption that what you said was correct. But if you state a correct fact, it does mean you still don't understand evolution or science.
Abiogenesis says no such thing.
So you are saying that at no point of the process of Abiogenesis is ROCK not involved? lol
How about Space Sugar, lol, is Space Sugar involved in Abiogenesis?
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?