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.
It sure goes beyond what our friend so grosslyWhat explanation, other than descent with modification (evolution), can you offer for the observed facts of anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, biogeography, and palaeontology? So far as I know, the only naturalistic explanation for these facts that does not postulate some form of evolution is spontaneous generation, and that was conclusively disproved more than a hundred years ago.
Many do that.
Do you believe that if some of the evidence is not available to our minds, so that we are not able to fully describe, that the claim is false? Or is merely unsupported from our human empirical viewpoint?
I expect you merely misspoke, here, to make your point, because "highly ordered and specific results" always result from cause. —In the case of the popcorn, several causes, every last one of which is very specific, and all but one of which is itself a result of other causes.
It also delineates its SCOPE. There's the difference. The theory of gravity does not attempt to describe a debatable range of inclusion.
If I remember correctly, my objection was not only that Darwin's data was incomplete, but faulty. But being ignorant, I suppose I should not point out the likelihood that that is still going on today, since we are at the apparent pinnacle of knowledge.
Those were quotes from an article to which I was directed. Not my many words. But, "yeah, evolution's different."
The act of modification, is still theoretically consistent with 'the facts of anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, biogeography, and palaeontology', once one accepts the evidence that defines 'what a belief is'.Descent by modification.
What do you mean? No offense, but that's like asking why God created predatory animals.Why did God create them? I often ponder this question
[serious question]
We started out perfect.The act of modification, is still theoretically consistent with 'the facts of anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, biogeography, and palaeontology', once one accepts the evidence that defines 'what a belief is'.
No it wasntWhat explanation, other than descent with modification (evolution), can you offer for the observed facts of anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, biogeography, and palaeontology? So far as I know, the only naturalistic explanation for these facts that does not postulate some form of evolution is spontaneous generation, and that was conclusively disproved more than a hundred years ago.
So there is a "Law of cause and effect" except when
there isnt.
Thats quite a law!
And you speak of "holes" in a theory.
Honestly, people in America.
Don't even know that no theory could ever be
based on a complete data set.
What was the reason for it then? If you mean, the reason for saying "Gravity is ONLY a theory", that is —I don't want to assume that is what you are referring to. If not, please enlighten the clueless.You do depend so on strawmen. I didnt claim you did, with or without the scrambled phrasing of it being
"not only a theory".
Do you mean it's more than a theory?
Do explain.
And of course, ignoring or not even comprehending why words like " merely" or "only" applying so poorly to scientific theories that people saying those just reveal how clueless they are.
Which is why gravity was mentioned.
You clearly did not understand the reason for it.
Yes, it is quite a law. The only thing it doesn't govern, as far as I can tell, is ITS cause. No holes there. Just the beginning, or cause, of a principle.
Creation.What explanation, other than descent with modification (evolution), can you offer for the observed facts of anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, biogeography, and palaeontology? So far as I know, the only naturalistic explanation for these facts that does not postulate some form of evolution is spontaneous generation, and that was conclusively disproved more than a hundred years ago.
However, if the evidence required to support the claim would necessarily contradict evidence we already have, then it's safe to say that the claim must be false.
My point with the popcorn example was that we can get highly ordered results (specifically, the kernels being sorted by size, with the largest at the top and the smallest at the bottom) comes about because of completely random causes (specifically, the random jostling that the box experiences).
(Aw, c'mon, you can hurt me more than that! I can take it! You're not reading the whole thread! Learn, by example, how to defend your thesis with ad hom and scathing rebuke! If I didn't know better, I'd think you were giving me a complement!)Care to translate this out of technobabble?
What do you think Darwin's idea was, and what part of that idea do you claim is faulty?
Therefore, special pleading.
Therefore, special pleading.
God made it that way. Pretty cool, huh?And how, exactly, does "creation" explain the observed facts of anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, biogeography, and palaeontology?
The explanation is insufficient for gaining the necessary understanding in the respective areas. (Eg: unlike the medical sciences, the 'Creator' explanation hasn't saved millions from certain death and suffering since it was devised).God made it that way. Pretty cool, huh?
Occam's razor and all...
Doesn't seem so safe to me. Could be the evidence we already have has been mistakenly interpreted/applied.
I expect you mean 'random' to describe OUR view of it, not the facts? Every effect has a cause.
Certainly I care to. Let me try this: Gravity is immediately obvious. Evolution is not. Everyone agrees we have gravity. Not everyone agrees we have evolution, at least, not on the scale that Darwin proposes. The theory of gravity does not attempt to show the range of gravity's influence. It is meant to describe why or how it happens, what causes it, even what it is. The theory of evolution must support a thesis that is not obvious. It has to present the range of steps from first to last, and how and why it happens.
Ok, I found it:
MQ: But, evolution is not the same. Everyone pretty much agrees with what Gravity is, or at least what effects we can see from it. Not everyone pretty much agrees that Evolution has the breadth of effects (change) that apparently most of the scientific community claims it has, from somewhere after a pre-life chance complex molecule, to modern life-forms to include human.
MQ: Those were quotes from an article to which I was directed. Not my many words. But, "yeah, evolution's different."
Now, I'm confused. What was the special pleading there?
God made it that way. Pretty cool, huh?
Occam's razor and all...
Your statement is extremely vague so I can't really comment on it's detail. But your question is trivially explained by the theory.Those are not —to me, anyhow— typical of the arguments against modern Darwinian evolution. (Not at all saying those don't happen all the time, but...) Just for one: Reasoning of what "might be", (or from your point of view, "probably is"), is substituted for the many missing links in the progression of evolution, is it not? When I brought that up in arguing with one evolutionist, he said something to the effect of, "Well, from time to time, evolution takes a huge leap forward." I asked, "Where is the evidence of that?" He said that it was in the fossil record. Really?
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?