-
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.
- Status
Steve Petersen
Senior Veteran
Feel free to expound. You seem to think pretty highly of your analytic skills. Why not give us a little demo.
Upvote
0
AP26 said:
Why? You have openly announced you aren't here to learn. You have openly announced you've no science background. You have openly announced that your mind is already made up.
Learning science us hard work. You don't seem to be interested in doing that work.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,082
- 52,634
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
A
AP26
Guest
FrenchyBearpaw said:Now I'm sure!
That may have came off wrong
. I was just trying to make a point that homosexualty isnt a healthy life style....... like science has told us. I sympothize with everyone that is sick, but don't try to say its healthy to live that way.
C'mon science !!!!
Upvote
0
TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,322
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
That may have came off wrong
When and where did scientists say that homosexuality is "healthy"?
It happens in nature -- that's a fact.
Upvote
0
That may have came off wrong
I sympothize with everyone that is sick, but don't try to say its healthy to live that way.
C'mon science !!!!
Science is a process, not a sentient being. It does not say things, it is simply a tool for understanding the reality around us.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
That's heresy!
Actually I agree with you. Creationists love to use very poor odds arguments. Now that we have ERV's we can use odds arguments on them and they hate it.
Of course that is because it is a proper odds argument, it isn't one based on false suppositions.
Upvote
0
A
AP26
Guest
Quote
"Science can not know the origin of things. We know of the present existence of certain entities and phenomena, but the provenance of these things escapes us. The assumption that something was created or brought about to pass ex nihilo is an assertion which science is unable to comment. No observer of anything can tell us the origin of that thing solely on the basis of observation. Whether or not the universe was created out of nothing is a question that the scientist, as a scientist, has no more competence to answer then an ordinary man. When Darwin wrote Origin of Species he told us nothing about origin. Rather he only spoke on the processes through which he believed biological life replicated itself upward successive generations reproducing from the simple to the complex. But this theory was arbitrarily distilled from his observation of present life forms and residue. It was not based on an empirical observation
The scientist who says "this is the way it all began" is not speaking as a scientist, but rather as a speculator on a par with all others who speculate about beginning"
"Science can not know the origin of things. We know of the present existence of certain entities and phenomena, but the provenance of these things escapes us. The assumption that something was created or brought about to pass ex nihilo is an assertion which science is unable to comment. No observer of anything can tell us the origin of that thing solely on the basis of observation. Whether or not the universe was created out of nothing is a question that the scientist, as a scientist, has no more competence to answer then an ordinary man. When Darwin wrote Origin of Species he told us nothing about origin. Rather he only spoke on the processes through which he believed biological life replicated itself upward successive generations reproducing from the simple to the complex. But this theory was arbitrarily distilled from his observation of present life forms and residue. It was not based on an empirical observation
The scientist who says "this is the way it all began" is not speaking as a scientist, but rather as a speculator on a par with all others who speculate about beginning"
Upvote
0
46AND2
Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
- Sep 5, 2012
- 5,807
- 2,210
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Evolution is tested every time we find a fossil. Every time we analyze DNA. Every time we compare morphology. Every time we compare embryology. Every time we compare geographic diversity.
In addition to our own lab experiments (which are prolific), nature itself performed millions of experiments for which we can observe and interpret results.
Based on these tests we can make predictions for evolution. Such as where we might find a particular type of fossil...such as Tiktaalik where we predicted a specific geographic location, and a specific stratigraphic layer and found exactly what we were looking for. We can predict specific outcomes of genetic inheritance, such as ERVs forming nested hierarchies that agree with hierarchies already determined through other scientific disciplines.
Literally millions of opportunity for evolutionary falsification, and yet it has been passing those tests for 150 years. Evolution is the most robust scientific theory there is. It is more robust than the theory of gravity, more than germ theory, and it has been tested FAR more than any other theory in history.
You said yourself that you were unfamiliar with the natural sciences. How then can you determine what is or is not consistent with those scientific practices?
Upvote
0
What a complete load of nonsense. Science can and does know the origin of "things". We can deduce what happened in the past from our observations in the present. That is based on empirical observation. To say this:
"But this theory was arbitrarily distilled from his observation of present life forms and residue. It was not based on an empirical observation"
only indicates that the guy quoted (whoever he was, atribute your sources man) knows absolutely diddly squat about how science works.
To take an example: we know that all currently existing life is derived from a single ancestor, because that is the only explanation that explains the current patterns of a nested hierarchy we see in the genetics of all living organisms. No other explanation is as likely, and many more are impossible purely because of these patterns.
What happened in the past, leaves traces in the present. We can observe these traces, and deduce from them what happened in the past.
Upvote
0
A
AP26
Guest
46AND2 said:
So when you do your lab experiments you actual see evolution occurring infront of your eyes, let's say on a species of some sort?
I'm just curious.
Upvote
0
You already stated you agreed and thus presumably agreed. So why don't you do that?
Others have read this thread, read AP26's posts and quite correctly determined that he will not pay attention anyway, and therefore not bother. Given AP26's poosting history, can you really blame them?
And if you disagree, why don't you put in the effort? Why should other people do what you, according to your own posts, should be perfectly able to do if you disagree with their posting style?
Upvote
0
Yes.
We have seen multicellularity evolve, we have observed the occurrence of new species, both in the wild and in the lab, and we have observed the patterns of heridity that we expect to see if common descent is correct in the lab.
Together with that, evolution is invaluable as a tool for development, as well as understanding of, many biomedical processes and developments.
No you're not. You've made that abundantly clear in your previous posts.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
