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.
Upvote
0
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.
Yet we observe evolution occurring.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Given that you keep complaining about everyone else stalling, I figured you'd be chomping at the bit to get this over with.
If you bothered reading the link I provided for you earlier in thread you wouldn’t have to embarrass yourself.
More excuses?
Have you got any questions about Pita’s description of the scientific method, it seemed quite easy to understand?
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?
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?
Eh?
What are you talking about? I said that evolution has been observed, nothing more.
Aaaand still no comment on whether you understand or accept Pita’s explanation of the scientific method.
Why is that?
We haven't had someone this exhausting since @justlookinla
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?