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.
You rigged my post! It's a rigged system folks.Got to got to bed, now.
G'night.
They can't, they have only been told to say that it's false not why it's false.How about you disprove it with evidence, instead?
I'm sorry, but that's not how physics works. Yes, you draw deductive conclusions, but only within the physical model your working with. In this case, it's a model that includes a constant speed of light and a wide range of other assumptions about physics. Within that model, you can compare observations with expectations under different hypotheses. You can't just look at the data and draw deductive conclusions about the true model however -- it's still inductive reasoning. Exactly the same is true of evolutionary biology. There's a reason that it's universally considered a scientific field within the scientific world.However with a supernova, you know the speed of light, and from that you can logically deduce the time etc.
With evolution these are not logical deductions that proceed from a set of determined variables. This is physical data that you look at and try to connect the dots, and genome data that you make conclusions from based on similarities.
Then why is it a theory.
Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk
If a scientific theory implies that the Lord Jesus Christ was mistaken in what he believed and taught concerning human origins then that scientific theory is indeed an affront to Christianity because it is implying that Jesus was a deluded charlatan.
Of course you have to make assumptions, but you draw from determined variables, not looking at fossils or genome similarities. This logical deduction is different.I'm sorry, but that's not how physics works. Yes, you draw deductive conclusions, but only within the physical model your working with. In this case, it's a model that includes a constant speed of light and a wide range of other assumptions about physics. Within that model, you can compare observations with expectations under different hypotheses. You can't just look at the data and draw deductive conclusions about the true model however -- it's still inductive reasoning. Exactly the same is true of evolutionary biology. There's a reason that it's universally considered a scientific field within the scientific world.
whwre is any one here getting any information abut any of the topic .. ? from books man wrote .so its what man said vs what man said according to some including . but if the scripture is written only by men ,then it would be a fable and would not deliver that which is promised within it . but it does .and i testify of it along with Millions of others throughout the world .
we know of the foretelling of Jesus within its pages factually penned onto paper from 400 to 2000 years before the events occurred and we know they could not have known nor influenced what occurred at the cross . yet the mathematical probabilities of every single things foretold happening exactly as foretold is astronomical .. no, these words penned on parchment by man did not originate from man .. and while of course the fools who say there is no god will decry it .. woe to those that claim to be his own disciples that join them in their folly .
Have you read Birch and Ehrlich's paper? They're arguing against the unwarranted application of evolutionary theory; they're not arguing that the fact of common descent is somehow in doubt. There are frequently multiple possible hypotheses in evolutionary theory to explain a particular observation. In contrast, there is at present no competing hypothesis that could replace common descent as an overall explanation for biological diversity.My point is that these are not worthwhile falsifications when other explanations exist. These are pointless, and do not serve to actually combat what Birch and Ehrlich are saying.
evolution ...the OP says should no be a religious topic .. and it isnt
this is a christian forum .. it is non christians and non believers who come here and then push the topic on the site -i have always found that interesting
i don't believe in santa clause .. so i go to forums and decry that which does not exist..? no lol i dont .
because no one need decry or resist that which does not exist ..if one pushes against what does not exist one falls on their face .. no they come here to resist that which does exist .to resist there must be something to be resisted .
You draw from determined values within your model: mutation rates, recombination rates, insertion probabilities for endogenous retroviruses... What was the difference again?Of course you have to make assumptions, but you draw from determined variables, not looking at fossils or genome similarities.
How much of both kinds of science have you done?This logical deduction is different.
Of course there's empirical evidence that the speed of light is constant. There's also empirical evidence that long terminal repeats are the result of unique retroviral insertions, and empirical evidence that genetic differences between species are the result of accumulated mutations. I'm arguing that there's no fundamental difference between the fields. I mean, sure, physics has a much easier subject matter to study, but biologists have to make do anyway.And on the speed of light, are you saying there is no empirical evidence that it is constant? Or what are you trying to say then?
So you agree there should be more skepticism of the tenets underlying evolution?Have you read Birch and Ehrlich's paper? They're arguing against the unwarranted application of evolutionary theory; they're not arguing that the fact of common descent is somehow in doubt. There are frequently multiple possible hypotheses in evolutionary theory to explain a particular observation. In contrast, there is at present no competing hypothesis that could replace common descent as an overall explanation for biological diversity.
Some genome similarities are very striking, however--such as the location of random retrovirus insertions which we share with other primates with whom we have other indications of common ancestry.Of course you have to make assumptions, but you draw from determined variables, not looking at fossils or genome similarities.
How do you repeat looking at a fossil record and drawing a conclusion? Do you just look at it again and again?
Right, but your inability to understand evolution is not my problem. That is your problems. If you won't let yourslef learn then that is your fault. Most creationists simply won't let themselves understand. That is one of the reasons that your side loses in court. Judges do at least understand the nature of evidence. Then can clearly see that their is evidence for evolution and none to speak of for creationism.I don't claim to know exactly the mechanics of it all. I wasn't there in the distant past. However the onus is not on me, but the one proposing the hypothesis to convince me.
What "other explanations"? Refuted or self contradicting explanation are not explanations. You keep making thins claim but never post any.Where did I say there was no falsification of evolution?
I'm saying the falsification isn't worth anything when there are other explanations for the observation at hand. So this does not run counter to what Birch and Ehrlich is saying. Anyone can come up with a ludicrous example of something that could falsify evolution, but this is worthless when the thing at hand already could have another explanation.
You're comparing mutation rates and recombination rates to the speed of light constant and assumptions we make in physical models... right. Even with these mutation rates, we still have to look at fossils and make deductions based on connecting dots etc. This is not the same as observing and making logical deductions.You draw from determined values within your model: mutation rates, recombination rates, insertion probabilities for endogenous retroviruses... What was the difference again?
Oh I'm much more a physics man admittedly. Probably wasn't hard to tell. (Or maybe it was hard to tell, and I just appear generally scientifically ignorant in all aspects. That's okay, I'll take it on the chinHow much of both kinds of science have you done?
"easier subject matter to study" How dare youOf course there's empirical evidence that the speed of light is constant. There's also empirical evidence that long terminal repeats are the result of unique retroviral insertions, and empirical evidence that genetic differences between species are the result of accumulated mutations. I'm arguing that there's no fundamental difference between the fields. I mean, sure, physics has a much easier subject matter to study, but biologists have to make do anyway.
There being no better explanation does not necessarily mean the only available one is true.Various ways. First others could observe the same fossil and see if they agre with your interpretation. Second many fossils can be observed in more than one place. It is not just the fossils themselves that tell us life is the product of evolution it is also where and how they are found.
There is no creationist explanation that has not been refuted. At least none that I know of.
I understand it, I just don't find it convincing enough.Right, but your inability to understand evolution is not my problem. That is your problems. If you won't let yourslef learn then that is your fault. Most creationists simply won't let themselves understand. That is one of the reasons that your side loses in court. Judges do at least understand the nature of evidence. Then can clearly see that their is evidence for evolution and none to speak of for creationism.
it's not the observation that is falsified, it is the prediction being falsified by the observation. You thought that dogs giving birth to cats as an hypothetical observation which would falsify evolution was silly; how about this: show that the duck and the platypus share stretches of identical DNA giving rise to their bills and webbed feet. Evolutionary biologists would have a lot of splainin to do about that.You rigged my post! It's a rigged system folks.
Alright my bad, I should have used a different term then. It's coming down to semantics then, when really I'm trying to address a problem of evolution not being able to be falsified in any worthwhile sense, one that does not require an observation being falsified that can already be explained by other things.
This does not necessitate that we actually share a common ancestor though. They suggest many things, but do not prove them.Some genome similarities are very striking, however--such as the location of random retrovirus insertions which we share with other primates with whom we have other indications of common ancestry.
You're asking me to just show things which don't exist. The point is not that there are random things that could end the theory, but that there should be things which can't be explained by any other means, which could end the theory.it's not the observation that is falsified, it is the prediction being falsified by the observation. You thought that dogs giving birth to cats as an hypothetical observation which would falsify evolution was silly; how about this: show that the duck and the platypus share stretches of identical DNA giving rise to their bills and webbed feet. Evolutionary biologists would have a lot of splainin to do about that.
No, but it remains the only available one until it is falsified or superseded. That's how science works. That's as "true" as science gets.There being no better explanation does not necessarily mean the only available one is true.
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?