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.
I would like to hear one say that ToE a fallible theory which has many problems. That's all i want. It would revive my respect for science.
When you get to the point of saying the odds are less than 1 in N (N being the number of atoms in the galaxy), you look for a different solution.
How did you determine how many atoms were in the galaxy?
There are no problems with ToE. It's as robust a theory as they come.I would like to hear one say that ToE a fallible theory which has many problems. That's all i want. It would revive my respect for science.
I would like to hear one say that ToE a fallible theory which has many problems. That's all i want. It would revive my respect for science.
Keep hoping. Scientists are not going to kowtow to you...if you have no respect for "science" at all, then maybe you'd prefer things like faith healing and old wives tales instead of scientific knowledge to cure illnesses.
The wheel did not change much from the beginning for almost 4,000 years. There was no slow gradual change over time. Then Harvey Firestone came along and he was riding on his tractor and he was not comfortable He ended up inventing the rubber pneumatic tire and than the wheel began to change in a hurry.View attachment 170111View attachment 170112
Wow, Cars evolved from Ferris wheels...... Had to have been this way. Look at all the similarities and you can follow the steps in it's evolution from Ferris wheel to dolly, to airplane to grocery buggy to child stroller to tank to car. It's amazing.
The ToE is not only fallible, but acknowledged to be so.
Its also falsifiable.
Until you can come up with a better explanation of why biological diversity exists though, complete with predictions that are falsifiable, it will remain the best explanation available to us and the prevailing scientific answer.
All science is tentative. All of it is there to be challenged. When you write a scientific paper, you are as much justifying why you are not wrong as much as why you are right. Its an experience that almost requires you to assume that you are wrong and then provide evidence to show that you're right about this one little thing.
Science works to a degree by being open to constant challenge. When better explanations of the evidence that make more accurate predictions come along, the old explanations are either modified or gotten rid of.
View attachment 170111View attachment 170112
Wow, Cars evolved from Ferris wheels...... Had to have been this way.
Wrong about what exactly? Man is an animal so if science wants to classify him an ape that fine with me. We must call him something i suppose.
Its not fallacy, its just opinion. Those mutations you mention dont cause people to turn into Apes, just for example.
You're arguing silly and obscure semantics that have no practical meaning, not concepts or understanding. Its a waste of time and unproductive.
See your post #271. You said;
As we already are apes, your post is simply wrong.
I think it's a very salient point. You say information conveys meaning, but that's dependent on our ability to decipher it.
All of the things you have mentioned can be the result of downward, or change in existing organisms (well formed features loosing function).
What I am talking about is the creation of new random features. And I am talking about randomness, evolution if by random mutation would litter the fossil record with bizarre features,
How is it that every feature that is show in animals had a purpose? Surely a truly random process could not develop bursts of amazing useful function.
Speaking of arrogance; Extraneous thinks ToE has been refuted, but science won't admit this.I believe its been refuted, however science wont admit it. Its mans arrogance which is at fault here. He thinks hes smarter than God. God will prove otherwise however.
I would like to hear one say that ToE a fallible theory which has many problems. That's all i want. It would revive my respect for science.
What did I say that you conclude I don't understand the difference? I think I have been illustrating the difference all along.
I will clarify - the first string of characters I listed are complex, BUT CONVEY NO INFORMATION.
The second string has the exact same likelihood of occurance, but differs in that it's complexity is SPECIFIED TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION.
Seriously, we can have a repetitive, tedious, totally boring discussion about the nature of information, but really it's just a red herring.
I would like to hear one say that ToE a fallible theory which has many problems. That's all i want. It would revive my respect for science.
And the theory of evolution will tell you that a population of people cannot evolve into a chimpanzee or into a gorilla, or that they could evolve into us. But we do share a common ancestor that was an ape. Evolution is a "one way street" there is no going back in evolution. And there are no goals in evolution. People were never a goal, they were simply a result. Flight for animals was never a goal, again it was just a result. We can reconstruct the pathway and as we find more and more fossils we can become even more sure of how flight evolved. We have dinosaurs with "half a wing". The "wings" at that point had a different function. But as they developed that function a new one, flight, arose and that is part of how birds evolved.Ok, allow me to rephrase, i meant a gorilla, chimpanzee or another kind of ape. I was simply wrong, as you pointed out.
There are no problems with ToE. It's as robust a theory as they come.
Thank you dogmahunter you want me to talk about dogs. Let's do it. According to evolution once there was a lizard that over millions of favourable mutations formed a wing.
Now back to dogs... Will it ever regrow a wing ... According to evolution.
You according to evolution have to say yes, why do I say that ...
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?