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.
Why?
They got what they wanted,* didn't they?
* The chance to celebrate; 15 minutes of fame; their names in print; whatever.
Amen. They link to imaginary things. Things that they need to explain away what we see as either created, or evolved from created life.mmm
I believed in evolution for a while...
then I started noticing how often an article would pop up saying "MISSING LINK DISCOVERED!!!" and there'd be a large fuss over it, but it was just something tiny and insignificant, and then I started looking at how LARGE these "links" were, and to follow the path of evolution takes a lot more blind faith than following the path of creation and God.
Longest run-on sentence ever...
They share ninety percent DNA.
They also share many similiar features such as tusks(they're small on the hyrax), padded feet, and jaw structures.
Some believe that sirenians(manatees, dugongs and sea cows) are closer in lineage, however. But this lends to the idea that animals dot need to look entirely like their relatives.
It's all avaliable on wikipedia. You're a big boy; you can look this info up for yourself, and it's actually from credible sources, unlike this dodwell joker.
Are you under the impression that the fossil record is the only evidecne for common descent? You would be mistaken.Perhaps all of these potential links discovered from "lemurs or other primates" are too questionable to consider evidence at all.
Tell us then what these authors actually did conclude.I mean, the last article I remember reading was about a few bones from a foot or a hand. Exactly how much are you able to tell with that? You can't determine spine curvature, or skull structure, or the intelligence of the species. Sure you might be able to determine how tall it was or its approximate weight.
All the physical evidence infers common descent. Whether it is the fossil record, anatomy, biochemistry, genetics, embryology, biogeography, development, etc. Where is "the guesswork?" Also, how is it damning that you admit common descent is more logical and probable than creationism?But I think a lot of this evidence is mostly guesswork and followers easily buy into it because there seems to be more logic and possibility in it than creation.
I love the standard of proof you guys demand... only 100%, huh? Can anything be proven 100%?Just because you can't see the possibility doesn't make it impossible.
I just don't agree with some of what is said by some of these authors.
Not saying it isn't true, but it really can never be proven to a 100% extent.
For someone who aspires to be a physicist you have a poor understanding of basic terms used in science. A theory is an explanation for an array of empirical phenomena that intergrates supported hypotheses, laws, and data and that makes testable predictions. Theories are not "assumptions" (you keep using that term) and are not based on "guesswork." There is nothing more informative in science than theories.And the guesswork is tucked away in the fact that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is, and always will be, a theory. And theories are just a series of unprovable, logical assumptions.
Exactly, which is why debates such as this will always be in existance.I love the standard of proof you guys demand... only 100%, huh? Can anything be proven 100%?
Sorry I'm only an ADHD Highschool Senior that only has school for three hours a day.For someone who aspires to be a physicist you have a poor understanding of basic terms used in science. A theory is an explanation for an array of empirical phenomena that intergrates supported hypotheses, laws, and data and that makes testable predictions. Theories are not "assumptions" (you keep using that term) and are not based on "guesswork." There is nothing more informative in science than theories.
Care to provide an example?Just because you can't see the possibility doesn't make it impossible.
I just don't agree with some of what is said by some of these authors.
Nothing in science can be. If you plan on being a physicist, this is an important concept to grasp, particularly if you are dealing in a field that is as theory heavy as nuclear physics.Not saying it isn't true, but it really can never be proven to a 100% extent.
Would you care to provide us with some examples of these unprovable logical assumptions you think science rests upon? Perhaps an example from nuclear physics?And the guesswork is tucked away in the fact that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is, and always will be, a theory. And theories are just a series of unprovable, logical assumptions.
I don't believe that every species living today has evolved from single celled organisms. I don't believe we (every living species) all came from the same original species.Care to provide an example?
The theory stated above, can not be proven.Would you care to provide us with some examples of these unprovable logical assumptions you think science rests upon? Perhaps an example from nuclear physics?
And the guesswork is tucked away in the fact that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is, and always will be, a theory. And theories are just a series of unprovable, logical assumptions.
Like I said, I'm not even out of highschool yet, and I am very hesitant on settling on a career now.If someone is going to be a physicist they should know what a theory is...well if they want to get paid that is...
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?