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.
Oh I do. Science basics is fundamental observation and testing to show that the theory is supported. Evolution from a common ancestor is not observed and has never been tested.That would be pointless. You already demonstrated that you do not understand the basics of science.
All your branching tree stuff is assumption. You cannot branch tree backwards to a common ancestor because there never has been any observation of anything becoming something it was not originally.
Then how did linquists manage to construct this tree:
family tree of european languages - Google Search:
Scientists are not allowed to make assumptions, that is what creationists do.
I think that we need to go over the scientific method first.
"any things i could say to prove him wrong?"iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.
any things i could say to prove him wrong?
love
camila smith <3
Scientific Method:
Step 1 - Define the problem
Step 2 - Form a hypothesis (assumption)
Step 3 - Research and Collect Data
Step 4 - Experiment
Step 5 - Restate the hypothesis and provide experimental data
Neo-Darwinism just like old-Darwinism dies at Step 2. Using projected ignorance about something that's taught to everyone at a fifth grade level as your main argument is a lousy way to feign intellectual dominance. You can apply that to your theories about the formation of the universe and the Earth as well.
Scientific Method:
Step 2 - Form a hypothesis (assumption)
Neo-Darwinism just like old-Darwinism dies at Step 2.
Yes, answer those questions, or any of the other questions about genetic data that evolution answers.
No, I mean provide the explanation that creationists constantly claim they have for the real data from biology. I've listed a few areas of real data. So where's the explanation?
You're not going to evade the questions because answering them would be a waste of time; you're going to evade them because you are utterly incapable of answering them. I know you can't answer them. You know you can't answer them. Everyone reading this knows you can't answer them. Why not just say so?
The test -- the "proof", if you like -- of any model is how well it explains and predicts data. Evolution does that with the data from biology. As you've just demonstrated, you can't do that. So why are you wasting everyone's time?
All your branching tree stuff is assumption. You cannot branch tree backwards to a common ancestor because there never has been any observation of anything becoming something it was not originally. You assume a bird evolved from a lizard or whatever with out any observation or testable theory that can show it's possible. The branches are all assumed to branch the way evolution says. All you can really say is that somethings have some genes or genomes in common. You assume that means common ancestor. The truth is it doesn't mean any such thing. What it means is that some things have some genes in common. That's all.
And your formation idea further illustrates my point. We didn't see our solar system form. We can't verify what we think happened. So once again it's unverified assumptive theory.
Since you were forced to evade question on proof (no, your so called test is not proof, just because someone says it is.) of evolution, I suppose we are even.
Call it what you like but I'll not waste my time on nonsense, I want to see proof of evolution. I've played your way several times, and it produces nothing so I'll not keep doing the same thing and expectation a different outcome.
And BTW, evolution "does" nothing, people do.
Oh I do. Science basics is fundamental observation and testing to show that the theory is supported. Evolution from a common ancestor is not observed and has never been tested.
No, it's proof(*) because that's how evidence works. You test your theory -- "prove" means "test" -- with data. If common descent is true, we should see certain things in genetic data. We see those things. If creationism is true, we should see other things. We don't see those things. This means that evolution is very probably true and that creationism is very probably false.Since you were forced to evade question on proof (no, your so called test is not proof, just because someone says it is.)
Since you were forced to evade question on proof (no, your so called test is not proof, just because someone says it is.) of evolution, I suppose we are even.
Call it what you like but I'll not waste my time on nonsense, I want to see proof of evolution. I've played your way several times, and it produces nothing so I'll not keep doing the same thing and expectation a different outcome.
And BTW, evolution "does" nothing, people do.
No, it's proof(*) because that's how evidence works. You test your theory -- "prove" means "test" -- with data. If common descent is true, we should see certain things in genetic data. We see those things. If creationism is true, we should see other things. We don't see those things. This means that evolution is very probably true and that creationism is very probably false.
This situation is repeated over and over and over again with different kinds of data. Common descent keeps working, and creationism fails. Creationism fails every single time.
You have no response to that failure, no explanation for it and no way to deal with it. So you demand "proof" and when you are given exactly what you asked for, your only response is, "It's not proof just because you say it is."
(*) More accurately, it's strong evidence supporting common descent. But that's what most people actually mean by "proof" usually, so I'm okay with the word.
"Proof" has a clear meaning in math and in formal logic. The word has only various colloquial meanings when applied to science, and scientists usually (but not always) avoid it. They prefer to talk in terms of evidence, support, posterior probability and confidence.There are only 'proofs' in mathematics. In other scientific realms, Theory would be considered the highest level of probability.
Nope and you can't prove evolution from a common ancestor is either. So I guess we both have the same issue.
Someone correct me if I am wrong (like I need to ask!)
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?