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.
Experimental evolution - WikipediaAtomic Theory, Germ Theory and the Theory of Gravitation are all repeatable in a laboratory.
Try repeating evolution.
That’s silly. First of all, evolution has been observed in labs. Secondly, evolution involves history, Do you deny the French Revolution because it can’t be replicated?IF you cannot repeat it, then you do not "know" it.
You believe it based on FAITH.
Then why do they deny evolution is one stage of cosmic evolution?They have no need to cover up or pretend to know what they do not.
That's cute.For the same reason you deny the bible is one stage of the Marvel Universe.
That is not the way that science is done. It is the tests that have to be repeatable. Those not involved in the sciences often do not understand this. It is not the results that must be repeatable. And there are many ways that experiments are repeated in evolution. The same species of fossils can be found again and again. If found in "wrong" layers they could refute the theory. That does not tend to happen.Atomic Theory, Germ Theory and the Theory of Gravitation are all repeatable in a laboratory.
Try repeating evolution.
That is called an equivocation fallacy. Put it this way, if an atheist applied that sort of fallacy to the Christian God and say the God of the Hindus, and some are monotheistic, and tried to claim they were one and the same here they would probably get moderated. It is both incorrect and disrespectful.Then why do they deny evolution is one stage of cosmic evolution?
I don't accuse people of ignorance. I identify ignorance in myself and others. Ignorance, of itself, is not a "bad" thing.Your next move, accusations of ignorance, is also right out of your well-worn play book. Beyond that, I can't find a thing you've contributed that I've been able to learn from.
Micro-evolution; variants within a given species.That’s silly. First of all, evolution has been observed in labs.
That Revolution was observed and recorded. But since it was not observed under controlled conditions, the specifics cannot be proved.Secondly, evolution involves history, Do you deny the French Revolution because it can’t be replicated?
I am an engineer. Results need to be repeatable.That is not the way that science is done. It is the tests that have to be repeatable. Those not involved in the sciences often do not understand this. It is not the results that must be repeatable.
Micro-evolution; variants within a given species.
We have never observed one species turn into another species.
That Revolution was observed and recorded. But since it was not observed under controlled conditions, the specifics cannot be proved.
All that tells us is that you do not understand the scientific method. Here is a simplified flow chart of it, tell me where it says that results need to be repeatable:I am an engineer. Results need to be repeatable.
If I design a progressive die, or a bridge, or a building, or an electrical or pneumatic circuit, I need repeatability when that product is built and put into service.As you can see the experiment just repeatedly confirm the hypothesis. It does not require repeatable results.
isnt it a fact that motors need design?
we can detect design. like we detect design in archeology.
Insisting repeatedly that macro evolution is a fact, without evidence that is void of conjecture and speculation, doesn’t explain or make it so. My inability to see, and in particular to understand, ‘why’ you would reason the way you do in such a case, does not necessarily make me the ignorant one.What is a problem is when anyone engages in a topic of which they are largely ignorant, but that ignorance is disregarded or denied. Initially this leads to misunderstanding or misapplication of the topic. If the person is open to understanding that they are ignorant of the topic area then the issue is easily solved. If they refuse to recognise it and insist upon avoiding the established facts then they are guilty of wilfull ignorance. That leads to the kind of fruitless discussion you and I are engaged in.
Oh boy... I don't think I'll even go there.The reason you have learned nothing from me is because of that closed mind and the prejudices you carry with you.
You're talking about engineering.If I design a progressive die, or a bridge, or a building, or an electrical or pneumatic circuit, I need repeatability when that product is built and put into service.
Of course. I am trained as a design engineer. And God is the ultimate engineer.You're talking about engineering.
That would be because you are doing engineering, not science.If I design a progressive die, or a bridge, or a building, or an electrical or pneumatic circuit, I need repeatability when that product is built and put into service.
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?