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.
He jumped from one of the couches on to it...Not the Christmas tree, I hope!?
Why don't you tell us. Let's see if you can get those words out.How many times has the theory of evolution made a prediction that HASN'T come true?
Once each. Feel free to provide examples where that isn't the case.And for the ones that did come true, how many times did they have to try before they got it right?
Guess what? None of those are predictions from ToE.TOE: I prediction oil will be found here.
PWN: Nope. Thumper truck says NO.
TOE: Try over there.
PWN: Nope. Thumper truck says NO.
TOE: Try this spot.
PWN: Bingo! Oil has been found!
TOE: Wohoo! Let's hear it for evolution!
TOE: I predict this drug will be a prenatal wonder drug.
PWN: Let's hope so!
* later *
TOE: Ewww. What's happening?
PWN: Don't know.
TOE: Pregnant women should be more careful what they eat.
PWN: Maybe it's something in the water?
TOE: I doubt it. It's happening all over.
PWN: Oh. Oh.
TOE: What?
PWN: It's our wonder drug.
TOE: Then blame the big pharmaceuticals.
PWN: They hired us ... remember?
TOE: Oh, ya.
TOE: Look what we found!
PWN: Shouldn't we ...
TOE: Let's call it Haroldcookii and get it out to the public!
PWN: Um ... aren't we being a little hasty?
TOE: Who cares? If it turns out to be something else, big deal. Retraction on page 16.
That's because you have a myopic view of evolution.Guess what? None of those are predictions from ToE.
My view of evolution has no influnce over what predictions ToE does or does not make. Your myopic view of science influences what claims you make.That's because you have a myopic view of evolution.
If that was true, you would realize that biological evolution is one very small iota of evolution as a whole.My view of evolution has no influnce over what predictions ToE does or does not make.
If that was [sic] true, you would realize that biological evolution is one very small iota of evolution as a whole.
In fact, it is so small, it can't be seen from the outside (or anywhere near the edge).
For your edification, biological evolution comes in sixth in cosmic evolution's chain of events:* pic *
If you don't understand the difference between Theory of Evolution and other uses of the word "evolution" then whatever you say is word salad. QED.For your edification, biological evolution comes in sixth in cosmic evolution's chain of events:
... and seen from afar in the universe:
... life on it (the Earth) is so small, it can't be seen from near the outer marker.
In fact, our whole galaxy can't be seen.
You can call this "word salad" if you want ... but then you can call me Genghis Khan too.
And if you don't understand:If you don't understand the difference between Theory of Evolution and other uses of the word "evolution" then whatever you say is word salad. QED.
And if you don't understand:
. Theory of Particulate Evolution
+ Theory of Galactic Evolution
+ Theory of Stellar Evolution
+ Theory of Planetary Evolution
+ Theory of Chemical Evolution
+ Theory of Biological Evolution
+ Theory of Cultural Evolution
+ Theory of Future Evolution
-------------------------------------
= Theory of Cosmic Evolution
Nothing wrong with my understanding. You need to look a lot closer to home for the problemAnd if you don't understand:
. Theory of Particulate Evolution
+ Theory of Galactic Evolution
+ Theory of Stellar Evolution
+ Theory of Planetary Evolution
+ Theory of Chemical Evolution
+ Theory of Biological Evolution
+ Theory of Cultural Evolution
+ Theory of Future Evolution
-------------------------------------
= Theory of Cosmic Evolution
... then something's wrong.
Either that, or they are.Most of those terms aren't used per a "Theory of..." context though.
I'll pass.Nothing wrong with my understanding. You need to look a lot closer to home for the problem
Either that, or they are.
I googled each one separately, and with the exception of two of them (can't remember which ones), they came up.
That's not my problem, pitabread.Given the vastness of the internet, it's possible to find any combinations of words being used somewhere. I'm talking about formal usage in scientific literature, however.
That's not my problem, pitabread.
I'm just a dumb hick when it comes to science.
Perhaps, though, you could tell me why it happens to be on HARVARD's website?
Does Harvard know something you don't?
Did you ever google "Jesus is a myth"? You need to be careful what you claim from google searches.Either that, or they are.
I googled each one separately, and with the exception of two of them (can't remember which ones), they came up.
You and pitabread are going to great lengths to defend this doosey of a remark:Did you ever google "Jesus is a myth"? You need to be careful what you claim from google searches.
And unless we dispense with the bologna, I'm going to go to READ ONLY on this.Guess what? None of those are predictions from ToE.
I will stand by my initial statement that none of them are predictions of ToE. ToE is, in your infographic, "Theory of Biological Evolution". You know this yet you choose to feign ignorance. It's easy to demonstrate your modus operandi. So why don't you think about this conversation next time you want to wilfully misrepresent science? I'm sure there's a commandment about that sort of behaviour.You and pitabread are going to great lengths to defend this doosey of a remark:
And unless we dispense with the bologna, I'm going to go to READ ONLY on this.
You want to call it "word salad" and act like you don't know what I'm talking about ... fine.
But don't think for a minute you've made some kind of brownie points with me.
All you've done is deny your own academia (Harvard, in this case), and frankly, I can understand why.
You think about this conversation the next time you see some acadumbic whining that we "pick and choose" Bible verses and doctrines.
I'll do that.So why don't you think about this conversation next time you want to wilfully misrepresent science?
But you won't see it displayed on the courthouse lawn, will you?Bungle_Bread said:I'm sure there's a commandment about that sort of behaviour.
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?