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.
Lol! Well done, your prediction is correct
There are many pages of articles, and I'm not going to copy & paste them here because you are unwilling to click on a link. It's your loss, not mine.
Spoon feeding is for babies and the paralysed. The information is out there for anyone curious enough to look.
Clearly, if you have your own personal definition of what constitutes 'Real Science'™, you're going to find what real scientists consider to be real science different. I can't help you with that.Surely you can cut and paste a paragraph or 2. I have looked. It is not out here. Evidently you do not know what constitutes reliable evidence. Accepting as evidence what can't b e proved is for the gullible and those ignorant of real science.
You don't even understand what constitutes verifiable evidence. Hint---It ain't rhetoric
A characteristic cause by a mutation may not be passed on to the next generation. Even if it continues, the species does not change.
The albino remains whatever its parents were and it will reproduce after its kind. That is verifiable land can't be falsified.
And yet you insist on applying the colloquial, not the scientific, use of "proof". That makes your statement dishonest. Colour me surprised.... I predict that you'll insist on that usage again.I am not interest in colloquially. It is not science.
Bingo!By not accepting that real science proves/disproves theories, proves you have been indoctrinated and are ignorant of real science.
I accept the science that shows the best explanation is different blood types, just as I accept the science that shows evolution to be the best explanation for the diversity of life.Do you think what has been given as your blood type is accurate? Why?
Pot calling the silverware black? That's not a good look for you....Your indoctrination has cause you to accept a false premise. Learn to think for yourself.
Well done, you posted something accurate!
Unsubstantiated rhetoric. Please provide citations.
So why not present some for whatever explanation you have for the diversity of life on Earth? All I’m hearing is unconvincing rants against mainstream biology, what have you got aside from rhetoric?
Clearly, if you have your own personal definition of what constitutes 'Real Science'™, you're going to find what real scientists consider to be real science different. I can't help you with that.
That TRUTH falsifies evolution.
I don't need your help. I need something you consider scientific evidence. Evidently you don't have any. You would give your eye teeth to prove me wrong, but you can't. Is it not embarassing for me to keep asking for evidence and you keep making excuses not to?
There's a world of evidence out there (and a fair amount on these forums) - if you are really interested.I don't need your help. I need something you consider scientific evidence. Evidently you don't have any.
Lol, no. I've given you links to evidence; the rest is up to you.You would give your eye teeth to prove me wrong, but you can't. Is it not embarassing for me to keep asking for evidence and you keep making excuses not to?
I ask first. When you present the evidence for natural selection, I will present the evidenced for the diversity of life.
Wait a minute... Nobody is interested in "proving" anything to you, and you are not in a position to demand it. You could come down off your high horse and discuss evolution and the evidence which supports it, but really, we don't feel any need to talk you out of being a creationist, especially if you are going to be snarky about it.I don't need your help. I need something you consider scientific evidence. Evidently you don't have any. You would give your eye teeth to prove me wrong, but you can't. Is it not embarassing for me to keep asking for evidence and you keep making excuses not to?
There is no evidence for evolution?I don't need your help. I need something you consider scientific evidence. Evidently you don't have any. You would give your eye teeth to prove me wrong, but you can't. Is it not embarassing for me to keep asking for evidence and you keep making excuses not to?
-_- all that post was doing was demonstrating that the abiogenesis hypothesis is different than spontaneous generation. I don't need to demonstrate either process to show that they have different definitions, and since this is an creationism vs EVOLUTION debate subforum, I have no obligation to defend abiogenesis at all. It's a hypothesis, not a theory, so I view it as more than reasonable to question it.As usual nothing in your post included HOW is happened. Rhetoric is not evidence. Notrhing in you post can be proved.
It's posts like this in response to what PsychoSarah posted that make it obvious one of two things is happening.As usual nothing in your post included HOW is happened. Rhetoric is not evidence. Notrhing in you post can be proved.
I don't know why this is so hard for them to grasp. They just can't seem to grasp that things are never proven not by what we know now, but by what we might know in the future.Formal proofs apply to closed axiomatic systems (logic, mathematics). This does not apply to statements of affairs in the real world, which are always potentially uncertain due to the possibility of errors in observation, interpretation, random chance, etc. This is why even Popperian falsification is not a guarantee that an hypothesis is incorrect, and why the scientific method aspires to minimise such errors and ideally requires independent replication.
You are correct that many scientific observations (e.g. plurality of blood groups, evolution by natural selection) are backed by so much accumulated evidence that they are beyond all reasonable doubt, and might colloquially be called 'proven', but this is not formal proof, as it is not purely deductive but relies on inductive reasoning from multiple observations. This is the 'Problem of Induction' identified by David Hume back in the 18th century.
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?