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.
Therefore, 2+2 could equal 5, because, again, +Y is the unknown factor which is always there.
To use a classic example, according to you, God can make a square circle, just by inserting this +Y (i need to get a patent on that)?
The problem is in your view of ¨the man¨...
What makes you think that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable?It is science 101. Google up "falsifiability". Physics is falisibiable but not evolution, evolutionists don't seem to understand science though.
What makes you think that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable?
What makes you think that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable?
Try agan. No strawman arguments allowed.Try to falsify this,
<A> is evolved from <B>
There are billions of living organism existing and existed in this world. Fill in any then make it falsifiable!
You can't even list ONE evolution which can be falsifiable! Your theory is thus a joke!
Birds are evolved from single cell organisms <----- not falsifiable
Cats are evolved from single cell organisms <----- not falsifiable
Dogs are evolved from single cell organisms <----- not falsifiable
........
<millions> can be listed but none falsifiable. Evolution is a joke!
If you think that any evolution is falsifiable, please write a peer report to the community of scientists instead of vomiting your disgusting BS here!
The best evolutionists can do by far is possibly to make <A> is evolved from <A> falsifiable such as bacteria is evolved from bacteria. Pathetic!
Well I didn't think it was a very good argument, but I didn't see a strawman. Can you enlighten me please.Try agan. No strawman arguments allowed.
It as accurately described evolution as describing Christianity in a belief that "if you nail a guy to a tree you can live forever". Yes, Jesus was crucified, and we know that we all have a single celled ancestor. But portraying those facts dishonestly is not a proper way to refute an idea. Evolution, like it or not, is a fact. As a Christian one is actually claiming that God is a liar if one goes with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Creationists generally do not believe that God lied so the only way that they can argue against evolution is to totally distort what the theory says.Well I didn't think it was a very good argument, but I didn't see a strawman. Can you enlighten me please.
Evolution, like it or not, is a fact. As a Christian one is actually claiming that God is a liar if one goes with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Creationists generally do not believe that God lied so the only way that they can argue against evolution is to totally distort what the theory says.
You do not understand the concept of falsifiability. The theory is falsifiable since it makes specific predictions and if those predictions fail so does the theory. Macro and micro are poor terms to apply to evolution. By their proper definition both have been observed, but since it is all evolution and there is no boundary between the two they are not used much any longer. Lastly just as there is both a theory of gravity and gravity is a fact the same can be said about evolution.Actually 'Evolution is a fact' may be completely untrue. It depends on what type of evolution you are talking about. Microevolution is a fact, but Macroevolution is a theory. A good one, but it is not a fact.
More importantly it is not falsifiable, which requires the repetition of the experiment and macroevolution is all about unique events that are not repeatable. So if you want it to be scientific, I have no problem, but it is not fact and it is definitely not falsifiable. Science is actually limited by falsifiability.
Creationists come in all shapes and sizes. I agree that YEC distort the theory, but not all creationists are YEC (the 'YE' bit should give that away). It is perfectly reasonable to hold to both creationism and macroevolution for example: a creator God creates evolution as the mechanism to achieve his creation.
Hawkins may have been a bit OTT, but it doesn't change the point being made that the particular processes pointed out are not falsifiable, and therefore the whole thing is not falsifiable: If the theory is made of straw, then it is a strawman.
PS: Science tells us that all of us can trace our ancestry back to one female. Sounds a bit like 'Eve' to me.
not challenging math or physics?...
I enjoyed the laugh friend.
https://www.history.com/topics/roaring-twenties/scopes-trial
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/monkey-trial-begins
YEC claim that young people are leaving the Churches because they thru being educated about Evolution they can no longer believe the Genesis account of Creation. YEC claims that if these young people can not believe the Creation Accounts than they will not trust rest of the Bible.
So, to maintain religious boundaries of their young people they feel that they must attack Evolution. They even can't deal with Old Earth Creationists or anyone who disagrees with their YEC model.
Thank God, you are not a Theistic Evolutionist. YEC I meet goes nuts on them.
Actually 'Evolution is a fact' may be completely untrue. It depends on what type of evolution you are talking about. Microevolution is a fact, but Macroevolution is a theory. A good one, but it is not a fact.
More importantly it is not falsifiable, which requires the repetition of the experiment and macroevolution is all about unique events that are not repeatable. So if you want it to be scientific, I have no problem, but it is not fact and it is definitely not falsifiable. Science is actually limited by falsifiability.
Creationists come in all shapes and sizes. I agree that YEC distort the theory, but not all creationists are YEC (the 'YE' bit should give that away). It is perfectly reasonable to hold to both creationism and macroevolution for example: a creator God creates evolution as the mechanism to achieve his creation.
Hawkins may have been a bit OTT, but it doesn't change the point being made that the particular processes pointed out are not falsifiable, and therefore the whole thing is not falsifiable: If the theory is made of straw, then it is a strawman.
PS: Science tells us that all of us can trace our ancestry back to one female. Sounds a bit like 'Eve' to me.
What makes you think that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable?
Of course, you have to do some real brain twisting to deny all the evidence...
Actually 'Evolution is a fact' may be completely untrue. It depends on what type of evolution you are talking about. Microevolution is a fact, but Macroevolution is a theory. A good one, but it is not a fact.
More importantly it is not falsifiable, which requires the repetition of the experiment and macroevolution is all about unique events that are not repeatable. So if you want it to be scientific, I have no problem, but it is not fact and it is definitely not falsifiable. Science is actually limited by falsifiability.
Creationists come in all shapes and sizes. I agree that YEC distort the theory, but not all creationists are YEC (the 'YE' bit should give that away). It is perfectly reasonable to hold to both creationism and macroevolution for example: a creator God creates evolution as the mechanism to achieve his creation.
Hawkins may have been a bit OTT, but it doesn't change the point being made that the particular processes pointed out are not falsifiable, and therefore the whole thing is not falsifiable: If the theory is made of straw, then it is a strawman.
PS: Science tells us that all of us can trace our ancestry back to one female. Sounds a bit like 'Eve' to me.
that why is think ur a liar or an idiot.
PS: Science tells us that all of us can trace our ancestry back to one female. Sounds a bit like 'Eve' to me.
I love that. think about it. you have a mom. ur mom has a mom, and so it goes back into prehistory, even into our relatives...
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?