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.
Sorry for not being clear in my previous comment where I conflated facts with theory. The word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts." I hope that clears it up. As a layman I was convinced that the ToE was fact by the consilience of the evidence from genetics, molecular biology, paleontology, geology, comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, and many other fields.Prease exprain how theory can be fact
I can make a pretty good guess. But you aren't likely to find a bone even 50 years old just laying out somewhere. They degrade pretty fast. That's why fossils aren't generally bones that just laid there and got covered by leaves or whatever, those are long gone.i
Can you tell how long a bone has been lying out in a pasture, approximately?
All those variations don't necessarily bring us to a progression from simple to complex.We know evolution is a fact that has occurred by observing its results, i.e. modern organisms differ from past forms
We know evolution is still occurring by the differences between organisms and their descendants.
Lol, except that you all claim there's no such search for proof.When there is consilience of evidence from many fields there is little room for misinterpretation.
That is why science is peer reviewed
History is not forward looking. It does not make predictions.
I would think that a person hired to make observations would be trained well trained in the field they are working in.
Sounds like you are claiming that forensic anthropologists wasted loads of time and money for an education that does not give them expertise in their field.
When there is consilience of evidence from many fields there is little room for misinterpretation.
That is why science is peer reviewed
History is not forward looking. It does not make predictions.
I would think that a person hired to make observations would be trained well trained in the field they are working in.
Sounds like you are claiming that forensic anthropologists wasted loads of time and money for an education that does not give them expertise in their field.
If you know what you know what you are talking about thenLol, except that you all claim there's no such search for proof.
But beyond that, being "well trained" to look for stuff that matches the current assumptions about the past really doesn't give me any confidence in their findings.
When it's given out on test day, and you'd better have the right answers, or your paper will be graded accordingly.Prease exprain how theory can be fact
Fossils show a progression of evolution from the simple to the complex. Fossils also predict future fossils.All those variations don't necessarily bring us to a progression from simple to complex.
See:In the fossil record organisms appear fully formed and then disappear or remain today. The lack of change recorded in the fossil record is used by evolutionists to support the idea of punctuated equilibrium.
A lack of transitional forms and the sudden appearance of new organisms are used to support this idea. What they actually support is creation. Not a gradual rise from the muck.
And how did they arrive at that consilience? after how many tries? how many computers were involved? what evidence to the contrary is left out?When there is consilience of evidence from many fields there is little room for misinterpretation.
Your contempt for scientists is noted.And how did they arrive at that consilience? after how many tries? how many computers were involved? what evidence to the contrary is left out?
I'm just waiting for a time when they find a near complete skeleton, give it a scientific name, propagate it to the public as some great discovery of a missing link -- then someone notices it has fillings in its teeth.
L'Aquila prosecuted them. Remember that?Your contempt for scientists is noted.
Independently.And how did they arrive at that consilience?
Are you assuming scientists from the many fields conspired?after how many tries? how many computers were involved? what evidence to the contrary is left out?
You are likely to have a very long wait.I'm just waiting for a time when they find a near complete skeleton, give it a scientific name, propagate it to the public as some great discovery of a missing link -- then someone notices it has fillings in its teeth.
Yes. How do you think Pluto got demoted?Are you assuming scientists from the many fields conspired?
Then you think it was a conspiracy. OK!
By a vote among the scientists. The majority voted for reclassification.. How do you think Pluto got demoted?
Where were the planetary astronomers during the vote? any idea?By a vote among the scientists. The majority voted for reclassification.
When did Pluto get demoted?
Capping years of intense debate, astronomers resolved today (Aug. 24) to demote Pluto in a wholesale redefinition of planethood that is being billed as a victory of scientific reasoning over historic and cultural influences. But already the decision is being hotly debated.
Along with a death certificate.Speedwell said:It just got its designation changed.
Officially, Pluto is no longer a planet.
"Pluto is dead," said Caltech researcher Mike Brown, who spoke with reporters via a teleconference while monitoring the vote. The decision also means a Pluto-sized object that Brown discovered will not be called a planet.
"Pluto is not a planet," Brown said. "There are finally, officially, eight planets in the solar system."
Sorry for not being clear in my previous comment where I conflated facts with theory. The word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts." I hope that clears it up. As a layman I was convinced that the ToE was fact by the consilience of the evidence from genetics, molecular biology, paleontology, geology, comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, and many other fields.
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?