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.
Read it again if you have to. I'm sure the double-standard is now obvious, but of course you can't admit being wrong.
Again, this is the exact method used by evolutionists when they discuss potential falsification of their theory. Evolutionists imagine a hypothetical find and then assert what their response would be to this hypothetical find.
From this thought experiment they claim to demonstrate support for the theory...
again.... Evolutionists allege a strengthening of their theory by discussing how they would respond to a hypothetical discovery.
Read it again if you have to. I'm sure the double-standard is now obvious, but of course you can't admit being wrong.
I've provided plenty of reasoning for my disputes
And since you have no counter-argument
, your response is to simply try and make the subject of discussion forbidden,
Knowing what the model is about, we can infer what kind of things we would not expect to find if the model is accurate.
Hypotheticals are fine. The are a great tool for communicating ideas. However, you seem to want to pose a hypothetical, assert that scientists would take a specific position, then, when you are told by people with formal training that that would likely not be the response, you want to try and dismiss that.And if you could only quote me where I said "similarity = nested hierarchy" then you'd have a point. However my entire thesis so far has been that the nested hierarchy can accommodate vast differences, so good luck.
If you're going to pretend to correct me, put a little more effort into making it believable.
Again, this is the exact method used by evolutionists when they discuss potential falsification of their theory. Evolutionists imagine a hypothetical find and then assert what their response would be to this hypothetical find. From this thought experiment they claim to demonstrate support for the theory...
again.... Evolutionists allege a strengthening of their theory by discussing how they would respond to a hypothetical discovery.
Read it again if you have to. I'm sure the double-standard is now obvious, but of course you can't admit being wrong.
What is basically comes down to is that you're fine with evolutionists discussing how they would respond to a hypothetical scenario, but you have to try and censor anyone disputing those claims. I've provided plenty of reasoning for my disputes. And since you have no counter-argument, your response is to simply try and make the subject of discussion forbidden, as you've just attempted here and several times prior. It's an excellent study in evolutionist debating tactics.
Right. We can come up with something that could falsify evolution, then look for it. We've done that. A lot.You just said it yourself. This involves a discussion of hypothetical discoveries and how they would potentially falsify a theory. You're simultaneously admitting it and then denying it. Your position is completely nonsensical.
Now can we move past this irrational objection of yours or shall we keep wasting time?
You just said it yourself. This involves a discussion of hypothetical discoveries and how they would potentially falsify a theory.
You're simultaneously admitting it and then denying it. Your position is completely nonsensical.
Now can we move past this irrational objection of yours or shall we keep wasting time?
"To infer things from data" is not synonymous to "discussing hypothetical discoveries". In fact, it literally has nothing to do with it. I can't see any sense in what you are saying.
There's nothing hypothetical about real data.
"Not observed" as in,In your view, what does the term 'potential' refer to in regards to 'potential falsification'?
Mountains of real data for evolution is hard to quantify. What is all this evidence supporting? Can you tell me in your own words what you feel the evidence is supporting and what evidence there is for it?"Not observed" as in,
"Evolution has a mountain of real data that supports it, but all potential falsifications creationists have thought up have failed to turn up."
"Not observed" as in,
"Evolution has a mountain of real data that supports it, but all potential falsifications creationists have thought up have failed to turn up."
To avoid a gish gallop, I'll do the top 3:Mountains of real data for evolution is hard to quantify. What is all this evidence supporting? Can you tell me in your own words what you feel the evidence is supporting and what evidence there is for it?
Well, the supposed chicken protein found in humans but not chimps appears to made up whole cloth by Gish. I'd say, "made up by creationists" fits that to a T.Potential falsification is a universal concept applied to all scientific theories. It's not something that "creationists have thought up".
Half of the evolutionists' online bible "TalkOrigins" deals in the subject of potential falsifications, i.e. hypothetical scenarios and how they would affect the theory.
So again we are back to DogmaHunter's irrational position that nobody should be allowed to critically examine the reasoning behind such alleged potential falsifications by discussing how the theory would be affected by such hypothetical scenarios.
In your view, what does the term 'potential' refer to in regards to 'potential falsification'?
So again we are back to DogmaHunter's irrational position that nobody should be allowed to critically examine the reasoning behind such alleged potential falsifications by discussing how the theory would be affected by such hypothetical scenarios.
Hypotheticals are fine. The are a great tool for communicating ideas.
However, you seem to want to pose a hypothetical, assert that scientists would take a specific position, then, when you are told by people with formal training that that would likely not be the response, you want to try and dismiss that.
If a specific protein was found in humans and chickens but not chimps, it very well could cause serious problems for the model. The unlikely scenario that such a gene would be highly conserved across two classes of vertebrate, but very recently became inactivates in chimps is testable though. We could say, "if this is a recent loss, we should be able to find a reasonably intact inactive copy of the gene in chimps, and active copies in gorillas and orangutans" among many other tests available for that hypothesis. This would not be left as a hypothetical, but extensively tested. Something not quite so extreme happened in primates about 63 million years ago with loss of function of the GULO gene in the primate suborder Haplorhini, but retained in the suborder Strepsirrhini. Of course, the GULO gene isn't terribly highly conserved when reliable dietary sources of vitamin C are present and appears to have lost function in multiple lineages. Now, before you jump in and say, "Ha! Told you scientists would just explain it away!" let me remind you again that similar function or appearance is not what the nested hierarchy is based on, but rather the isolated genetic changes. between lineages. As such, chimps and humans should have similar inactivated GULO genes, but genetically dissimilar to any remnants of the inactivated gene in guinea pigs. Why? because even loss of function must follow the nested hierarchy to be explained by the evolutionary model.
If a bat was more genetically similar to a pigeon than other mammals, the theory could not explain that, and the current model would fall.
If a bat was more genetically similar to pigeons than other mammals... first of all it would probably not look as much like a mammal to begin with.... but even if it did, the bat lineage would be classified as the remnant of some ancient basal-mammalian divergence that had conserved much more of traits shared with the common ancestor of reptiles/birds. Sort of the same idea as monotremes. As far as pushing the origin of an animal group back in time...this is another benefit of using imaginary data... evolutionists can just make up mysterious "ghost lineages" of when they believe certain animals must have been evolving, yet left no fossil evidence.
This is the point where your threads completely devolve. You make baseless hypothetical assertions, have those assertions directly rebuked by actual experts, and you say, "No, you're wrong, the experts would actually say X". It's a farce. You did this in geology, and you're now doing this with the tree of life, and it's not particularly reasonable.
I'm not entirely sure, but you've had at least one legitimate expert tell you what their reaction would be, so...Okay, instead of just shouting how wrong I am like you usually do, why don't you explain why evolutionists couldn't invoke the reasoning that I outlined.
While you're at it, please explain to us why evolutionists couldn't invoke 'convergent evolution' for multiple origins of bat wings.
I'm all ears.
This is exactly what I want to hear as well. You have made a very good argument for your point and all they are doing is saying that it wouldn't be addressed in that way but no reasons are given for that denial.Okay, instead of just shouting how wrong I am like you usually do, why don't you explain why evolutionists couldn't invoke the reasoning that I outlined.
While you're at it, please explain to us why evolutionists couldn't invoke 'convergent evolution' for multiple origins of bat wings.
I'm all ears.
To avoid a gish gallop, I'll do the top 3:
That morphological structural differences fit into a nested hierarchy and that genetic analysis builds the same nested hierarchy (double nested hierarchy)
This is widely accepted by creationists as well.Observed speciation both in the wild and in the lab
Fossil evidence sorted into layers showing changes in skeletal structures over time.
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?