Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Kenny'sID]

Yet we observe evolution occurring.

Is the one particular incident you refer to, all evolution covers, or is there just a bit more to it?

You have not observed evolution a whole, far from it.

 

[Speedwell]

so if they were able to do so you will not conclude design?

Not unless the objects appear to be man-made.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You asked me to post it and I did so for the benefit of trying to move the discussion along (see post #1083). But instead of responding to that, you once again fixated on writing another conspiratorial rant about misconstruing the meaning of your posts and then made a point of ignoring the very thing you asked me to write:



Then you have the gall to accuse others of not posting the very things that you make an emphatic point of ignoring when people do post them.



Please stop, I only have so many irony meters.

Didn't see it, and for very good reason.

With all your stalling, I pretty well gave up on you, so I'm sure you can understand why I might miss something in either skimming or not reading your posts at all.

But of course you see what you actually brought on yourself as "gall" from me...amazing. I'm surprised I saw this post.

 

[pitabread]

With all your stalling, I pretty well gave up on you, so I'm sure you can understand why I might miss something in either skimming or not reading you posts at all.

But of course you see what you actually brought on yourself as "gall" from me...amazing.

You can keep blaming me all you want if it makes you happy. But for a half dozen posts now you still haven't addressed the prior topic which were my questions to you about the scientific method.

So are you going to address what I previously wrote re: the scientific method or not?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Evolution has a major advantage within the scientific method; if one of its hypotheses is false or can’t be proved (say it is only partially true), it just recycles back through the flow chart, all the while still considering itself a theory or evidence because it is well-supported (according to its own definition). That’s okay with the physical and biological science stuff to the degree of their provability, but Evolution’s big ticket “ideas” on the whole (like projecting evolution back into different epochs, including origin) and without proof shouldn’t have a verifiable claim because it’s in the scientific method ‘revolving door’ any more than a religious idea.

I suspected as much of something along those lines. Thank you.

Between that and the convenience of not even having to provide "proof" for those hypotheses, due to the claim science doesn't provide that...well, Id say they pretty well have it in the bag.

 

[sfs]

But some assumptions have to be made, and I'm saying you do not know without a doubt that your tests begin with an accurate baseline in all studies.

That's true of all human conclusions about any subject whatsoever, past or present, scientific or not. And yet we still somehow manage to muddle through as if we were really learning something about the world around us.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You can keep blaming me all you want if it makes you happy. But for a half dozen posts now you still haven't addressed the prior topic which were my questions to you about the scientific method.

So are you going to address what I previously wrote re: the scientific method or not?

Of course I am, now that I have seen it... settle down. You only "wish" I wouldn't address it so you can badger, and gloat about your "gotcha"...surely you can't think I'm going to let that happen?

There are other threads and posters here on the boards, and just so you know, it's not all bout just you.

 

[Jimmy D]

Is the one particular incident you refer to, all evolution covers, or is there just a bit more to it?

You have not observed evolution a whole, far from it.

If you bothered reading the link I provided for you earlier in thread you wouldn’t have to embarrass yourself.

 

[Jimmy D]

Of course I am, now that I have seen it... settle down. You only "wish" I wouldn't address it so you can badger, and gloat about your "gotcha"...surely you can't think I'm going to let that happen?

There are other threads and posters here on the boards, and just so you know, it's not all bout just you.

More excuses?

Have you got any questions about Pita’s description of the scientific method, it seemed quite easy to understand?

 

[pitabread]

Of course I am, now that I have seen it... settle down. You only "wish" I wouldn't address it so you can badger, and gloat about your "gotcha"...surely you can't think I'm going to let that happen?

There are other threads and posters here on the boards, and just so you know, it's not all bout just you.

Given that you keep complaining about everyone else stalling, I figured you'd be chomping at the bit to get this over with.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So, I go to the post you said I should address, and I've run into the same ol' thing, and still haven't gotten to the scientific method you said you posted.

I said:
I'm not going to lock myself into some method that may reflect some of the ridiculous claims you all have made here thus far, such as "science proves nothing" and "theory" is not the theory in the dictionary, and that's just to name a few.

This is something else I don't understand.

In order to have a conversation about something there is usually the need to agree on basic terminology. It's how people are able to communicate without misunderstandings.

When discussing something in the context of science, there is going to be certain terms that have specific means in that context. As was previously pointed out, dictionaries don't exist so you can just pick whatever definition you happen to prefer. They exist to give definitions in the context of usage of specific words.

If you refuse to agree to basic terminology I'm again not sure what you are expecting here. It seems unnecessarily argumentative and not conducive to having a conversation.

OK, first let's try to get to the root of your time consuming misunderstands. And we're going to take it slowly here, because I figure if we can get to the bottom of why you consistently have a a problem understanding, we may be able to do away with the time consuming explanations and get to the actual debate.

Agreeable terms would be nice, but I just don't think you were paying attention. Probably something you can't help, so I mean no harm in saying so. Look closely and tell me why I may not be able to agree to your terms, or you to mine for that matter...do you see it? Now give me those reasons, please, and we can go from there, hopefully anyway.. If you don't see them there they are sprinkled all over here and there, and it's hard to believe you haven't noticed a one of them, but I suppose it's possible. Anyway, if not, I'll do my best to point them out, but seems to me they are so obvious already that may not help. But I'm getting ahead of myself....

So there is one yes or no question there, and then an explanation if the answer is yes...two questions in all all depending on the answer to the first.

It may take awhile for me to get back to you, or not, IDK, but please be patient if it does. If that hasn't happened in a couple of days, you are welcome to remind me.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Given that you keep complaining about everyone else stalling, I figured you'd be chomping at the bit to get this over with.

I am, but I'm having to keep defending some of these wild misunderstands of yours.

See, there's another with an obvious reason that whooshed right over your head, leaving me to have to explain again.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If you bothered reading the link I provided for you earlier in thread you wouldn’t have to embarrass yourself.

Care to answer what you responded to instead of evading it while showing your impatience on top of everything else?

Do you really think that explains evolution in it's entirety?

 

[Kenny'sID]

More excuses?

Have you got any questions about Pita’s description of the scientific method, it seemed quite easy to understand?

You too? Wish I could help you keep up with the thread, but I already have one that's requiring all the time I'm willing to invest at this point.

Maybe read things twice/3 times?

 

[Jimmy D]

Care to answer what you responded to instead of evading it while showing your impatience on top of everything else?

Do you really think that explains evolution in it's entirety?

Eh?

What are you talking about? I said that evolution has been observed, nothing more.

 

[Jimmy D]

You too? Wish I could help you keep up with the thread, but I already have one that's requiring all the time I'm willing to invest at this point.

Maybe read things twice/3 times?

Aaaand still no comment on whether you understand or accept Pita’s explanation of the scientific method.

Why is that?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Eh?

What are you talking about? I said that evolution has been observed, nothing more.

I told you what I was talking about when I responded...unbelievable.

3, maybe 4 times?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Aaaand still no comment on whether you understand or accept Pita’s explanation of the scientific method.

Why is that?

As I said, I can't keep up with the thread for you. Maybe someone else can repeat my posts for you.....sorry

 

[Snappy1]

We haven't had someone this exhausting since @justlookinla

 

[Kenny'sID]

We haven't had someone this exhausting since @justlookinla

To whom do you refer and exactly why, or is it just an empty and "untrue" comment while just the opposite is more accurate?