Subduction Zone
Regular Member
That is only because they too had seen the Moon. What if they hadn't? You would lose to the Big Bang theory.
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.
That is only because they too had seen the Moon. What if they hadn't? You would lose to the Big Bang theory.Subduction Zone, I strongly believe that in a court of law a jury would be persuaded with the big bang evidence. But think about how quickly the decision would be made for the existence of the moon! Why? Better evidence. You'll never beat the evidence of seeing with your own eyes
I reported events I personally experienced. I'll be sure to video tape my entire life from now on. In fact I'm buying a body cam right now because I care that much about your doubt.
-sigh-. It is hard when one tries to speak honestly about science.
I will repeat for what is likely the billionth time: science is ALWAYS going with the most likely explanation. There is no 100% perfect proof in science.
If you thought there was it is you who fail to understand science.
I really do feel sad that so many people never take science classes after high school because they would learn so much more about science.
(You would do well to dial back your "pridefulness" on this topic considering that you seem to be woefully uneducated in how science actually works.)
Probably? Such harsh accusations! I am wounded and offended.
You can assume what you want you want to believe, and I'll believe what I experienced.I don't want to falsely accuse someone of lying. I know that unless you had the absolute worst book textbook in the history of education that your claims are simply wrong. Rather than screaming "liar" it is much better to assume that someone made a mistake.
How would you characterize someone who believes the earth is flat? Would it not be appropriate to suggest they shouldn't hold a position teaching geology or planetary science?
It is one thing to allow for skeptical voices, it is quite another to simply assume that because someone can say something it deserves equal respect to actual science.
Yeah but you're denying that there are levels of likelyhoods. You're basically saying it's either likely or not. How can you not agree that an observable event has more going for it then a forensic type theory of an event a million years ago?I will repeat for what is likely the billionth time: science is ALWAYS going with the most likely explanation. There is no 100% perfect proof in science.
I already went over this in the thread.
Factors other than predation have often been argued to play a substantial role in the rise and subsequent post-industrial fall of melanism in Biston. Nonetheless, with this new evidence added to the existing data, it is virtually impossible to escape the previously accepted conclusion that visual predation by birds is the major cause of rapid changes in frequency of melanic peppered moths. These new data answer criticisms of earlier work and validate the methodology employed in many previous predation experiments that used tree trunks as resting sites. The new data, coupled with the weight of previously existing data convincingly show that ‘industrial melanism in the peppered moth is still one of the clearest and most easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action’.
Yeah but you're denying that there are levels of likelyhoods.
You're basically saying it's either likely or not.
How can you not agree that an observable event has more going for it then a forensic type theory of an event a million years ago?
You can assume what you want you want to believe, and I'll believe what I experienced.
I am referring to the fake embryo chart that is supposed to show a particular similarity to other species of embryo during development. He deliberately exaggerated the drawings to give the ostensible appearance of evolution. It's a fake.I'm not sure what "stages of birth" is referring to.
Peppered moths as evidence of natural selection, however, have never been false, deliberate forgeries, or hoaxes:
Oh no, things just went up a notch from "probably wrong" to you know I'm wrong. It's getting intense!! What ever will I do? Your baseless accusation is just so compelling I am left with no other choice but to imagine I hallucinated it all.Once again, since I understand this topic far better than you I know that you are wrong.
You are assuming that there is a creative intelligence behind evolution when you ask "why hasn't evolution". There is no driving intelligence. Evolution is simply a reaction to changing environments. Your sort of evolution would actually refute the theory of evolution if it occurred.Should I switch gears and throw another curveball into this war lol? One of the hardest things for me to grasp about evolution being true (I feel like I gotta qualify the word Evolution but I won't) is the monopoly that humans have on creative intelligence. How long did it take for the peppered moth to change color to save itself from getting completely dominated? Pretty quickly, as well as the beaks of Darwin's finches, they adjusted pretty quickly. So, how many species have gone extinct thanks to the disruptive nature of humans? We've completely dominated so many species with our ways...yet ZERO evolution to compete against us! Why doesn't a single species EVOLVE their creative intelligence in order to defend against us? We literally can now end the world with a nuclear holocaust...well some things like cockroaches would survive. But why is there no evolution going on to rival the specie that is now one nuclear war away from ending SO MANY other species?
Why would we have evolved at all? Why would mother nature give rise to a specie that does nothing but destroy mother nature? Why would mother nature basically create a psychopath specie? And why are we the only species on Earth that wreaks havoc like this? So #1, humans have a monopoly on creative intelligence, and #2 humans have a monopoly on destroying the planet that gave rise to them...all other species work within the confines of nature, they OBEY nature if that's a good way to put it. Humans even ruin the world by relocating species to their unnatural habitats, we are a mess. Why is their only one species out of the millions that break the mold so distinctively? It makes no evolutionary sense.
In the two examples that you mentioned you were shown to be wrong. The peppered moths were never a fake. You relied on a lying source for that claim.Oh no, things just went up a notch from "probably wrong" to you know I'm wrong. It's getting intense!! What ever will I do? Your baseless accusation is just so compelling I am left with no other choice but to imagine I hallucinated it all.
Like I said I ordered a body cam just for you, so this never happens again. Because I value your doubt, deeply.
Your own apologists are saying Haeckle is a fraud.In the two examples that you mentioned you were shown to be wrong. The peppered moths were never a fake. You relied on a lying source for that claim.
Haeckle was never convicted of being a fraud. That is another unsupported claim of creationists. Worse yet what he supported was not Darwinian evolution, but a similar concept. He was shown to be wrong, yet embryology is still used today to support evolution. But today pictures are used rather than drawings.
You are 0 for 2 on your claims. You were wrong. You found a lying source, and I am sorry to have to tell you this, but since these creationist claims have been refuted countless times they have to know that they are wrong by now, yet they persist in those claims. That takes them from merely being wrong to being liars.
You are assuming that there is a creative intelligence behind evolution when you ask "why hasn't evolution". There is no driving intelligence. Evolution is simply a reaction to changing environments. Your sort of evolution would actually refute the theory of evolution if it occurred.
I am referring to the fake embryo chart that is supposed to show a particular similarity to other species of embryo during development. He deliberately exaggerated the drawings to give the ostensible appearance of evolution. It's a fake.
The peppered moths in the photograph are dead moths. They had to put dead ones because the live ones had no inclination to rest there. They had to place them onto tree trunks just to get the birds to eat them.
Nope, that is not the case. Here you go:Your own apologists are saying Haeckle is a fraud.
The Peppered moths in that photo are dead.
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?