Purpose of Mosquitos and other pests

[Astrid]

Doesn't seem so safe to me. Could be the evidence we already have has been mistakenly interpreted/applied. Nevertheless, I don't see a contradiction; your evidence, even if it has been correctly used, doesn't show, (to my mind, granted), young earth wrong, and certainly doesn't show the cosmological argument wrong.



I expect you mean 'random' to describe OUR view of it, not the facts? Every effect has a cause.

(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!)

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.



I'm not the one claiming it. I heard it on this site. No, I don't remember from whom or on what thread, but it was an evolutionist. Darwin, it was said, had several things wrong, but they don't destroy his main thesis, since more evidence has been found since then. Or something like that.

Those were quotes from an article to which I was directed. Not my many words. But, "yeah, evolution's different."



(You do make me smile. You are too kind, too polite, not disparaging enough. I like you. You actually do argue, engage. Thank you.) Sadly, I can't figure out what this was about. I tried following the thread, but got lost. If I remember, I will try again later. Remind me, if it matters.

So you don't see how polar ice shows yec is disproved.
That takes a lot of not seeing.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you don't see how polar I've shown yec is disproved.
That takes a lot of not seeing.

Science is myopic.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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).

If there is a creator, the 'creator' explanation wasn't devised.

 

[Astrid]

If there is a creator, the 'creator' explanation wasn't devised.

It's devised even if true as there is zero evidence of it's existence.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Special pleading because you are saying there's an exception for evolution, but you don't give a good reason why.

Help me out. I'm lost. Exception for evolution as to what? Evolution's different from Gravity in that Gravity is a known and agreed-upon immediate force, that is not scope-dependent for meaning. Evolution isn't, in the scope that the so-called evolutionary theory gives it. I'm not sure how 'special pleading' fits into that claim.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That tells us nothing of value.

Evolution can be used to make predictions about what will happen in certain cases. Please show me how that can be done with creationism.

Why would you expect creationism should? I guess, I mean, why do you go there? Creationism isn't about predictions. If I was to make a prediction from Creationism, I suppose I would say that human DNA will always be human DNA. Is that the sort of thing you're looking for?

 

[Astrid]

Help me out. I'm lost. Exception for evolution as to what? Evolution's different from Gravity in that Gravity is a known and agreed-upon immediate force, that is not scope-dependent for meaning. Evolution isn't, in the scope that the so-called evolutionary theory gives it. I'm not sure how 'special pleading' fits into that claim.

You is even more lost than you realize.
Among Signs of same is you didn't even notice polar ice.

 

[Astrid]

Why would you expect creationism should? I guess, I mean, why do you go there? Creationism isn't about predictions. If I was to make a prediction from Creationism, I suppose I would say that human DNA will always be human DNA. Is that the sort of thing you're looking for?

One prediction would be that fossils of all living thingsthat ever existed should bevariously found together.
Many a creo even claims they are.
Another would be that all other relevant evidence would backtheir version of creation.
Oddly, it never does.

Like polar ice disproving yec

 

[Mark Quayle]

So you don't see how polar ice shows yec is disproved.
That takes a lot of not seeing.

No. It doesn't prove it; not even if it proves that old earth is true. The law of non-contradiction does not apply where different points of view of time passage produce different counts.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You is even more lost than you realize.
Among Signs of same is you didn't even notice polar ice.

Speak plainly, sis! I gave up trying to decipher riddles when I gave up my wife.

 

[Astrid]

No. It doesn't prove it; not even if it proves that old earth is true. The law of non-contradiction does not apply where different points of view of time passage produce different counts.

You would sound more intellectualer if you ever manage
to understand that science does not do proof.

Disproving yec with examples like polar ice is like
disproving a legal theory of guilt by demonstrating
the accused was in a coma in Paris with his legs
amputated when he was supposedly running
from the scene in Bangkok.

Are you simply incapable of grasping that yec is
shown impossible, utterly false, by the great age of polar ice?
Not even by dint of your law of non contradiction?

Maybe so, if you still don't know science does not prove
theories, laws, or anything else.

Speak plainly, sis! I gave up trying to decipher riddles when I gave up my wife.

Polar ice is no riddle. You say you dont know ( notice)
any reason to doubt yec.

That's a sign you ain't much of a noticer.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In such a case, the information we have now is likely to provide results that do not match reality, and we'd be able to see that inconsistency.

How do results NOT match reality? Do you mean, 'conclusions' or something?

I meant "random" as in "unpredictable". Yeah, I figured. Just pickin'. One of my soapbox subjects.

If I give you the specific arrangement of the kernels in the box and tell you exactly what movements I'm going to make, could you predict the finishing location of a specific kernal?

No way. I'm too stupid and too ignorant and too lazy and too old for kernal knowledge.

How obvious something is has no influence on its validity.

The validity of Gravity, or of Evolution, is irrelevant to the point. The accepted range of meaning/use, or 'scope', is more to the point.

And evolution is understood well enough to be able to make predictions.

Sure. Not sure why you bring it up. Are we arguing validity? I must've lost track. Sorry.

 

[RileyG]

What do you mean? No offense, but that's like asking why God created predatory animals.

A random question that crossed my mind. That's all.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You would sound more intellectualer if you ever manage
to understand that science does not do proof.

Are you desperate for a response or just antagonistic? I never said, nor thought, that science proves anything.

Disproving yec with examples like polar ice is like
disproving a legal theory of guilt by demonstrating
the accused was in a coma in Paris with his legs
amputated when he was supposedly running
from the scene in Bangkok.

What polar ice? I haven't been saying anything about polar ice disproving anything or proving anything. I didn't bring up polar ice. Only time I mentioned it was in response to someone (probably you) talking caustically about the subject.

Disproving yec with examples like polar ice is like
disproving a legal theory of guilt by demonstrating
the accused was in a coma in Paris with his legs
amputated when he was supposedly running
from the scene in Bangkok.

Are you simply incapable of grasping that yec is
shown impossible, utterly false, by the great age of polar ice?
Not even by dint of your law of non contradiction?

Maybe so, if you still don't know science does not prove
theories, laws, or anything else.

see above

I'm guessing you have me mistaken for someone else, otherwise, your criticism sounds kind of incoherent.

Polar ice is no riddle. You say you dont know ( notice)
any reason to doubt yec.

That's a sign you ain't much of a noticer.

If you think I depend on polar ice, you aren't much of a noticer.

 

[Astrid]

Are you desperate for a response or just antagonistic? I never said, nor thought, that science proves anything.



What polar ice? I haven't been saying anything about polar ice disproving anything or proving anything. I didn't bring up polar ice. Only time I mentioned it was in response to someone (probably you) talking caustically about the subject.



see above

I'm guessing you have me mistaken for someone else, otherwise, your criticism sounds kind of incoherent.



If you think I depend on polar ice, you aren't much of a noticer.

Good reminders of why I left you on ig for so long.

 

[AV1611VET]

What polar ice? I haven't been saying anything about polar ice disproving anything or proving anything. I didn't bring up polar ice. Only time I mentioned it was in response to someone (probably you) talking caustically about the subject.

I think she has you mixed up with me, since I've used Kent Hovind's polar ice arguments here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good reminders of why I left you on ig for so long.

You don't like your beliefs challenged, do you?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Good reminders of why I left you on ig for so long.

Sorry I didn't notice. Would perhaps have been remarkable.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

Gravity may be immediately obvious, but some of its consequences need detailed analysis. For example, analysis of the gravitational dynamics of star clusters implies that the lifetime of open clusters (such as the Pleiades, Praesepe and M67) is about 3000 million years, and that the lifetime of globular clusters (such as omega Centauri and M13) is about ten billion years. These ages confirm those obtained for the Earth from radiometric dating and for the universe from the observed rate of expansion.

 

[Kylie]

Help me out. I'm lost. Exception for evolution as to what? Evolution's different from Gravity in that Gravity is a known and agreed-upon immediate force, that is not scope-dependent for meaning. Evolution isn't, in the scope that the so-called evolutionary theory gives it. I'm not sure how 'special pleading' fits into that claim.

Yes, evolution is a well understood force. Yes, it's not a fundamental force, but let's face it, there are only four of those, and we've got equations that cover several of them together. So unless you are saying that we should have at most four theories (one for each of the fundamental forces), then what you're saying here is just wrong.