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.
Becoming a TE didn't enter your mind?Of course I want to deal with facts. It's why I'm no longer a YEC, after all.
Becoming a TE didn't enter your mind?
So you're a Factist then?While dealing with facts convinced me that YEC wasn't true, and likewise OEC, philosophy and specifically logic left me unconvinced of TE.
so you agree that if we will find a series of fossils like 15234 (5 represent the horse in this case) instead of 12345 evolution will be false in this case. right? again: this is your criteria. i want to be clear about this before i will try to give you such an example.
I'm asking him if he's a Factist.Only you would be able to make it sound that accepting facts is an unreasonable course of action...
So odd how frequently you totally ignore and/or distort what others write - especially if what they've written makes one of your mantras look like the childish nonsense they almost always are:so a watch isnt evidence for design. thanks.
Why did you ignore - troll-like - everything else?this is what he said: If you find a watch, 'the designer dun it' is simply a proclamation. so a watch by itself isnt evidence for design according to him. its just a proclamation.
I watched a video about the fallacy employed by those claiming 'science changes its mind, so it cannot be trusted' the other day. It ended with a clip of NGT talking about how relativity "replaced" Netwonian mechanics - it was not that Newton was "wrong", it was that his theories and equations did not cover things that were discovered later. Newtonian mechanics is still 'right' with regards to the things that it covers, Relativity just encompasses that plus more. The anti-science crowd has trouble with the distinction.A truelly out of place fossil would require a serious explanation, yes. Although if you have just one of them, it wouldn't be enough to dismantle a theory that's only grown ever more solid from multiple independent lines of evidence - the fossil record being just one of them, and not even the best one at that...
Now, if you would find a bunch of them, with some kind of pattern that doesn't fit the evolutionary narrative, then you'ld have something.
A singular example and nothing else, is problematic to simply discard 200 years of solid and useful science. After all, all that other evidence doesn't just go away...
So, do you have a truelly out of place fossil, or better yet, a bunch of them?
Not really sure what your point is with pressing this. I mean, let's be serious, it's not like you have such a fossil and have kept it a secret all this time, right?
I watched a video about the fallacy employed by those claiming 'science changes its mind, so it cannot be trusted' the other day. It ended with a clip of NGT talking about how relativity "replaced" Netwonian mechanics - it was not that Newton was "wrong", it was that his theories and equations did not cover things that were discovered later. Newtonian mechanics is still 'right' with regards to the things that it covers, Relativity just encompasses that plus more. The anti-science crowd has trouble with the distinction.
True - but when science comes up with things that contradict their a priori beliefs, they also are very quick to take the tiniest of 'anomalies' (so-called) as 'evidence' that the theory as a whole is defunct.I think the anti-science crowd actually doesn't have much trouble with that distinction.
I think what they actually have trouble with, is when science comes up with things that contradict their a priori beliefs.
After all, they are totally fine with any and all science, including "replacing" theories, they feel agrees (or doesn't contradict) their faith based a priori beliefs.
People need to stop calling it a theory.a scientific theory is a theory that we can test. mean it can be falsified. the problem with evolution is that it cant be test. for instance: some evolutionists (like dawkins and others) claiming that if we will find even a single out of place fossil- evolution will be false. but we actually found many such fossils like this one:
New dinosaur found in the wrong place, at the wrong time
but as you can guess- they just push back the evolution of the creature and dont claim that evolution is false. the problem is that in this way any fossil will not falsify evolution. other evolutionists claimed that if we will find more shared ervs with far species than close species evolution will be false. but in this case they can just claim for convergent evolution or convergent loss or even ils. so even such a case will not be a problem for evolution, and therefore its not a scientific theory by definition. as a general note: english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there in general. thanks.
If it's evolution, it's a wrong.People need to stop calling it a theory.
It’s a hypothesis.
Jesus is a creationist, so I know what you mean.Coming from creationists, that means little.
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?