True Scotsman
Objectivist
Whether it is his religious belief or not is irrelevant. He's wrong.
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.
People who get on Gottservant's case about "individuals don't evolve, populations do" are just showing their ignorance about religious beliefs.
Something I've learned to expect around here.
People who get on Gottservant's case about "individuals don't evolve, populations do" are just showing their ignorance about religious beliefs.
Something I've learned to expect around here.
Sorry, AV1611VET, but evolution is that populations evolve so Gottservant's display of ignorance about evolution in thread title is a fact.People who get on Gottservant's case about "individuals don't evolve, populations do" are just showing their ignorance about religious beliefs.
But he frames them as questions.I have to disagree with you there. Gottservant has had plenty of opportunity to voice his religious beliefs in his many threads. When Gott comes on here and talks about evolution, we assume he's talking about the actual science. You can't blame us for talking about the science if the conversation is, unknown to us, actually about an obscure religious belief.
Okay, he's wrong.Whether it is his religious belief or not is irrelevant. He's wrong.
But he frames them as questions.
Yes, maybe telling him over and over that populations evolve, not individuals can get a bit tedious; but after all, how many times do we Christians have to basically tell people, in so many words, GOD DID IT, before they get the message?
But he frames them as questions.
Yes, maybe telling him over and over that populations evolve, not individuals can get a bit tedious; but after all, how many times do we Christians have to basically tell people, in so many words, GOD DID IT, before they get the message?
No, AV1611VET: A scientific definition is not a religious belief. You cannot compare them.Yes, maybe telling him over and over that populations evolve, not individuals can get a bit tedious; but after all, how many times do we Christians have to basically tell people, in so many words, GOD DID IT, before they get the message?
Suit yourself.Gottservant should already know from his own education and be able to learn from the first statement of the definition of evolution that it applies to populations, not individuals and so avoid unfortunate thread titles.
So what selection pressure do I have to watch out for, that might make me a monkey?[/b]
Tell me how evolution can be observed, tested, repeated etc. If it isn't science according to the definiton of science, it's religion.The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment. Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation.
Suit myself about what, AV1611VET?Suit yourself.
You do know that evolution is a scientific theory backed op by an enormous amount of evidence, morse86?According to wikipedia, Science is....
...
Suit myself about what, AV1611VET?
Gottservant's inability to understand what evolution is that leads to incorrect thread titles?
I know that you are not the one complaining someone is posting the same things over and over. That is the other posters. If I knew more about Gottservant's posting habits then it could also be me.
According to wikipedia, Science is....
Tell me how evolution can be observed, tested, repeated etc. If it isn't science according to the definiton of science, it's religion.
Hi,
I am so much a scientist. My age means I am retired. It does not mean I have changed. I've seen some of their data. It is most compelling, and it is no threat to God. Compelling in the scientific sense would be translated to the nomal sense, as fact. We scientists have a different view of facts like this. And that view is so esoteric (hard to understand outside of the few who use that term in this world we live in.) that it can be easily misunderstood. Their observed and repeatable evidence is there.
If I dig down, and find the same patterns they do, all around the world. That is the repeat part you are asking about.
A testing of evolution, is to see if the pattern, of evolution, in those layers is ever different anywhere when tested. It is not. No matter how many times you test what they have found the answers are always the same. In the esoterica of science it is said this way. It is the same so far. (Yet you cannot use those words as pu there, unless you are me or like me, in training and experience as those are said practically in code. It is one of the reasons, scientists say little. They are misunderstood so much of the time.)
Religion, is normally about this version of God existing and you should believe that, and it is also that, this other version of God existing and you should believe that. Religion is about some version of a god existing, and why usually, everyone should believe in that particular version of a god.
...Kate.,
Hi,
I am so much a scientist. My age means I am retired. It does not mean I have changed. I've seen some of their data. It is most compelling, and it is no threat to God. Compelling in the scientific sense would be translated to the nomal sense, as fact. We scientists have a different view of facts like this. And that view is so esoteric (hard to understand outside of the few who use that term in this world we live in.) that it can be easily misunderstood. Their observed and repeatable evidence is there.
If I dig down, and find the same patterns they do, all around the world. That is the repeat part you are asking about.
A testing of evolution, is to see if the pattern, of evolution, in those layers is ever different anywhere when tested. It is not. No matter how many times you test what they have found the answers are always the same. In the esoterica of science it is said this way. It is the same so far. (Yet you cannot use those words as pu there, unless you are me or like me, in training and experience as those are said practically in code. It is one of the reasons, scientists say little. They are misunderstood so much of the time.)
Religion, is normally about this version of God existing and you should believe that, and it is also that, this other version of God existing and you should believe that. Religion is about some version of a god existing, and why usually, everyone should believe in that particular version of a god.
...Kate.,
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?