Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Upvote
0
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.
No, the Big Bang theory made several testable predictions. Those predictions were confirmed.Just as worthless as quantum physics explanations for fluctuations in quantum matter that
could result in a matter antimatter imbalance resulting in the formation of something from nothing?
A "big-Bang" so to speak....(in silent space.)
After how many tries?No, the Big Bang theory made several testable predictions. Those predictions were confirmed.
After how many tries?
-_- by that logic, people should have to define every single word they use, just to clarify which definition they are using. Unless a person is knowingly using a deviant definition of a word, they don't have to define it. And if a person is using a personal definition, then they are using the word incorrectly and just fostering confusion.Yea actually you do, definitions are part of the process we call scientific methodology. Refusal to do so is called begging the question of proof.
-_- I only define evolution if I actually see someone using it incorrectly. I don't legitimize their errors by asking them to define what they view evolution to be, and debating with that incorrect definition in mind. As far as I am concerned, there is only 1 definition of evolution relevant to this debate subforum; the scientific one I posted.Which is why you define your terms.
-_- you can disagree with the theory and its implications on natural history all you like, but you don't get to redefine evolution to make it more palatable.My definition and it it doesn't account for giant leaps in evolution as natural history.
I only gave you a definition so you wouldn't be able to use "unwillingness to comply with a reasonable request" as an argument against me in debates. It's simple pragmatism to assume that I am referring to the theory in biology when I use the term "evolution". People should only have to clarify if they aren't using it for that. Though, other than using it as a generic term for any "change/development over time", I don't think there are any other recognized uses for the word.Yes I know, welcome to the discussion.
So what? Science only knows what it knows. Why does that get up your nose?Not exactly what some would have you to believe. Some words bolded for emphasis.
[The big bang theory describes the development of the universe from the time just after it came into existence up to today. It's one of several scientific models that attempts to explain why the universe is the way it is. The theory makes several predictions, many of which have been proven through observational data. As a result, it's the most popular and accepted theory regarding our universe's development.]
"One of several...attempts to explain" notice it is "why" not where, when and how. "many" have been proven but not all, "most popular" but not the only one. And you can take that to the bank, at least according to some.
No, the Big Bang theory made several testable predictions. Those predictions were confirmed.
I guess? There are a few religions in which people were venerated as gods.They do, but many are later innovations. The biggest difference between Christianity and any other religion is that Jesus claimed to be God.
-_- by that logic, people should have to define every single word they use, just to clarify which definition they are using. Unless a person is knowingly using a deviant definition of a word, they don't have to define it. And if a person is using a personal definition, then they are using the word incorrectly and just fostering confusion.
-_- I only define evolution if I actually see someone using it incorrectly. I don't legitimize their errors by asking them to define what they view evolution to be, and debating with that incorrect definition in mind. As far as I am concerned, there is only 1 definition of evolution relevant to this debate subforum; the scientific one I posted.
-_- you can disagree with the theory and its implications on natural history all you like, but you don't get to redefine evolution to make it more palatable.
I only gave you a definition so you wouldn't be able to use "unwillingness to comply with a reasonable request" as an argument against me in debates. It's simple pragmatism to assume that I am referring to the theory in biology when I use the term "evolution". People should only have to clarify if they aren't using it for that. Though, other than using it as a generic term for any "change/development over time", I don't think there are any other recognized uses for the word.
Several is very few. If you are referring to background radiation, I lived through those
years. It was a a total failure fraught with lies about the results.
Here is a map of the radiation.
There is not one but two definitions.
Clarification is only necessary in the presence of misunderstanding. Otherwise, it is both a waste of time and makes people think you are patronizing.Defining your terms is not confusion, it's clarification.
A reference to a prior discussion in which I mentioned that people often interchange using evolution to label the scientific theory and the actual observations said theory attempts to explain? Recall how I also said this was a problematic behavior that was a source of confusion; it's swapping between the two different definitions of evolution without there necessarily being cues for which use of the word people are using. However, statements such as "evolution has never been observed" are obvious in their meaning. A theory never being observed is a nonsense statement, so it must mean that they are stating that the "changes in populations over time have never been observed".Actually you talked in circles around it.
Yes, the theory in biology, and as a generic term for change/development over time.There is not one but two definitions.
-_- I literally gave you the definition I use for it. Do I need to give it to you again? I'll post it as many times as you request until you are satisfied.You don't have one, that much is obvious.
Yes, but which one(s) leader claimed himself to be God Himself?I guess? There are a few religions in which people were venerated as gods.
When the assertions it makes tell us whether or not life could come into being, that outweighs whether the ocean is blue or brown, generally. Nothing of the Big Bang Theory has yet to be disproven, to my knowledge. That's why it's the most popular.Not exactly what some would have you to believe. Some words bolded for emphasis.
[The big bang theory describes the development of the universe from the time just after it came into existence up to today. It's one of several scientific models that attempts to explain why the universe is the way it is. The theory makes several predictions, many of which have been proven through observational data. As a result, it's the most popular and accepted theory regarding our universe's development.]
"One of several...attempts to explain" notice it is "why" not where, when and how. "many" have been proven but not all, "most popular" but not the only one. And you can take that to the bank, at least according to some.
Clarification is only necessary in the presence of misunderstanding. Otherwise, it is both a waste of time and makes people think you are patronizing.
A reference to a prior discussion in which I mentioned that people often interchange using evolution to label the scientific theory and the actual observations said theory attempts to explain? Recall how I also said this was a problematic behavior that was a source of confusion; it's swapping between the two different definitions of evolution without there necessarily being cues for which use of the word people are using. However, statements such as "evolution has never been observed" are obvious in their meaning. A theory never being observed is a nonsense statement, so it must mean that they are stating that the "changes in populations over time have never been observed".
There are times when this is a source of confusion... briefly. It never lasts for long. Annoying, certainly, but as misunderstandings are unavoidable in life, you gotta live with it. The only time it becomes a persistent problem is when people use terms like "cosmic evolution" and mistakenly think it is in any way relevant to the theory of evolution.
Yes, the theory in biology, and as a generic term for change/development over time.
-_- I literally gave you the definition I use for it. Do I need to give it to you again? I'll post it as many times as you request until you are satisfied.
The lack of clarification is the essence of misunderstanding. You have a responsibility. My conscience is clear, I've defined my terms.
There is not one but two definitions here, being equivocated. Evolution as a phenomenon in nature and a philosophy of history.
Thanks for admitting the obvious.
My experience, no you won't.
Let him have it. We all know by now that when Mark says "Darwinism" he means metaphysical materialism.
In the Ancient Egyptian religion and modern North Korea, to name two.Yes, but which one(s) leader claimed himself to be God Himself?
Right. Let that be his worry. "Darwinism" as a term describing evolution has already been co-opted and corrupted by Creationists anyway.And we also know that nobody but mark appears to subscribe to that definition.
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?