Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[juvenissun]

An apology is not something you ask for and get in return on the internet.

Hope it does not apply to you. (but I don't count on it)

Think it this way: the internet environment is perfect for making apology. Why not? What to lose?

 

[46AND2]

What did I say wrong?

I was mostly being facetious, but you did insult my literacy...and I just showed you where you said exactly what I claimed you said...exactly what you said you didn't claim.

 

[juvenissun]

I was mostly being facetious, but you did insult my literacy...and I just showed you where you said exactly what I claimed you said...exactly what you said you didn't claim.

Show me the words I said. If I am wrong, I won't hesitate to apologize.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hope it does not apply to you. (but I don't count on it)

Think it this way: the internet environment is perfect for making apology. Why not? What to lose?

Actually, being that no one can tell who you are, people have an easier time being rude, because the people they insult will never find out who they actually are. You can say whatever you want without consequences. If you find the environment hostile, you can just as easily leave and pick up where you left off in a different forum.

 

[46AND2]

You were wrong in this post:

Hey, I am going to accuse you that you can not read !!!

I did not say creationism IS scientific. I said creationism INCLUDES everything which is scientific.

Do you understand? Creationism has something IN EXTRA, which is not arguable.

Because you said:

Creationism can not be falsified does not mean creationism is not scientific. Everything of creationism is scientific, except the falsification part, which is religious.

I know what I am talking about. You give me a fossil sequence, and I will try to explain it scientifically.

I put the important bits in bold.

I was mostly being facetious, but you did insult my literacy...and I just showed you where you said exactly what I claimed you said...exactly what you said you didn't claim.

 

[CabVet]

I did not say creationism IS scientific. I said creationism INCLUDES everything which is scientific.

Do you understand? Creationism has something IN EXTRA, which is not arguable.

Ok, let's argue about the part of creationism that is scientific then, you can keep the religions portion. Specifically, the part that says that the first organisms created on earth were fruit trees, and that all life on earth was created during a 6-day period. And, the fact that there are no cows (or fruit trees) in the Devonian.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you work in computer industry with this ignorance, you WILL have trouble.

What's in the Harry Potter does not INCLUDE science. "Inclusion" here is a logic term, but not a literature description.

If creationism included scientific logic, then it would be falsifiable. It isn't. Therefore, creationism does not include scientific logic.

In science, you have a null hypothesis. If creationism includes science, then it would have null hypotheses. No null hypothesis, no science.

 

[juvenissun]

You were wrong in this post:



Because you said:




I put the important bits in bold.

I did not say creationism IS scientific.

Everything of creationism is scientific, except the falsification part,

The above are your quotes.

I think your misunderstanding is not aware of the way I use the reserved word "IS". I am used to use it this way, and I guess you are not.

Here the "IS" means equivalent, equal to. It is a logic use of the word.

With this explanation, I guess I don't see any problem of what I said. Falsification is a scientific idea and is not included in Creationism.

Well, I admit that the green text is not a clear description (falsification is not an element in the set of creationism). But I don't think it is a mistake.

 

[CabVet]

I did not say creationism IS scientific.

Everything of creationism is scientific, except the falsification part,

If creationism is not falsifiable, by definition it is not scientific. Why is it so hard for you to understand this simple fact?

 

[super animator]

I learned that cows were selectively breed just as bananas. So yea, that why you don't find them in the Devonian era.

 

[46AND2]

I did not say creationism IS scientific.

Everything of creationism is scientific, except the falsification part,

The above are your quotes.

I think your misunderstanding is not aware of the way I use the reserved word "IS". I am used to use it this way, and I guess you are not.

Here the "IS" means equivalent, equal. It is a logic use of the word.

With this explanation, I guess I don't see any problem of what I said. Falsification is a scientific idea and is not included in Creationism.

Well, I admit that the green text is not a clear description (falsification is not an element in the set of creationism). But I don't think it is a mistake.

I think you need to reread what I said. Pay particular attention to the bolded parts:

Wow. Just...wow.

Then why did you claim creationism was scientific? If it is not falsifiable, it is not scientific.

In order for something to be scientific, it has to be ALL the things that constitute science. You can't say it is scientific, except for the falsification part. That exception excludes it from being science. Period.

And you DID say that creationism IS scientific. In fact, you said EVERY PART of it is scientific, except falsification.

Also, in the post that I quoted from you, you did not even use the word "includes." You said that you never said creationism is scientific, but that you INSTEAD said that it INCLUDES science.

I clearly demonstrated that you did, in fact, say that creationism is scientific (except falsification). I replied by pointing out that without falsification, it's not science. You can't leave out one part of science and claim that it still uses science. Particularly such an important part of science.

 

[juvenissun]

If creationism is not falsifiable, by definition it is not scientific. Why is it so hard for you to understand this simple fact?

Why is it so hard for you to understand that science is only a subset of creationism?

 

[CabVet]

I learned that cows were selectively breed just as bananas.

Is that why there are no cows in the Devonian? FYI, here is a cow pre-domestication:

P.S.: At 7,500 years old, this one seems to be older than the planet too.

 

[bhsmte]

I see it is comedy hour again.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I learned that cows were selectively breed just as bananas.

To an extent, they are like chickens, the basic cow was there, but they were selectively bred to have more meat, give more milk, etc. bananas were not selectively bred, rather, they are all basically clones of the same plant, well, the stereotypical banana is, anyway. Without humans, that particular kind of banana would go extinct.

 

[CabVet]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that science is only a subset of creationism?

Ok, then tell me, what subset of creationism can be falsified?

Hint: you already said there is none.

 

[juvenissun]

I think you need to reread what I said. Pay particular attention to the bolded parts:



And you DID say that creationism IS scientific. In fact, you said EVERY PART of it is scientific, except falsification.

Also, in the post that I quoted from you, you did not even use the word "includes." You said that you never said creationism is scientific, but that you INSTEAD said that it INCLUDES science.

I clearly demonstrated that you did, in fact, say that creationism is scientific (except falsification). I replied by pointing out that without falsification, it's not science. You can't leave out one part of science and claim that it still uses science. Particularly such an important part of science.

Sigh. This is why symbolic argument is always better.

A = science
B = can not be falsified.

Creationism = (A + B)

Clear? That is what I said.

If you want to argue about science, then we can do the part A of creationism, which is fully scientific and it does include falsification.

But one should never ask how to falsify creationism because creationism also has part B in it.

------

OK, I take back my accusation on you and apologize. I thought you should understand, but you don't.

 

[super animator]

Is that why there are no cows in the Devonian?

pretty much, as there is no evidence of humans existing during of that time. I don't think that kind of cow would exist due to natural selection.

 

[FredHoyle]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that science is only a subset of creationism?

Which tells us that you are damaged beyond hope in a dream world of delusion and ignorance.

 

[super animator]

Hold on, what exactly kind of cow we are talking about here?