I never met an "evolutionist". Just very well educated scientists. Evolution is fact. There is an extensive fossil record that has been supported by modern genetic techniques. There is no disputing evolution on scientific grounds. It is easy to see the transition from early austrailopithicines through Homo habilis, Homo erectus to early Homo sapiens and modern Homo sapiens. If one chooses irrationality and superstition over science, it is simply out of ignorance.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
Find the love of God here.
Audio, Gospel of John Chapter 1 AV h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=Ao4uaIjd3xs
@BereanBeacon1 Proves nothing. Plenty of supertitions out there, all nothing but myths and irrational nonsense. There is no god. There is no son. There is no Zeus, Mythra, Jupiter or Thor. All just silly superstitious beliefs. Science relies on empirical evidence, reason and proof. Superstition is irrational.
@Craigmw45 Your science fiction evolves so quickly, that it is difficult to be current. Fortunately real science is much more interesting and reliable and you should really try to understand it.
Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge. Proverbs 14:7 Bye.
@BereanBeacon1 "Your science fiction evolves so quickly, that it is difficult to be current. "
The theory of natural selection has been around longer then any person on the earth has been alive. This isn't ground breaking cutting edge research.
Keeping your arguments to within this century shouldn't be that hard and keeping up with the last century should be a given but the fact that your still not current with the century before that even, is down right sad. Though likely a intentional strawma
How long did it take for a plant to evolve the appearance of a stone? At least thousands of years! During it's transformation it must of been eaten freely by what ever predator desired it. Until it reached a point of misidentification as a stone. Of course by then it's eater evolved a nose for it's favorite food. And the appearance of a stone was only kept to fool botanist. Who would other wise pick them for specimens. Evolution explains every thing and nothing.
@TheScienceFoundation 1 or 50% camo would leave your survival 99% reliant on luck. Ask any Marine! Any luck would spoil our little evolution scenario. As the most beneficial rare mutations. Would be just as likely to be eaten as those that evolved in the wrong direction. Evolution is delusional when seen through the eyes of a rational mind and heart.
@Howie47 Again, not every member of every generation was eaten. and relying on 99% luck beats out relying on 100% luck. There is no 'wrong direction' anyone with a rational mind already understands this.
I'm still waiting on the creation mechanisms for, well, anything.
@TheScienceFoundation Such a statement by you, as this: "There is no 'wrong direction' anyone with a rational mind already understands this." Demonstrates you lack of reason. If camo is are goal,, for survival. We must proceed and progress in that direction! Other wise we'd be taking a step forward and a step backward, forever. God doesn't want to expose His mechanisms to a world, hell bent on destruction. Always needing better camo, so we can better our enemies, right?!
@Howie47 That's right, evolution has no direction. Anyone who's so much as glanced through a high school textbook on the subject could tell you that. Camouflage isn't the goal, it's just one mechanism one species happens to have. Some species evolve camo, others speed, others burrow, others climb trees. There are a lot of ways an organism can be better at surviving, they don't all go the same way. Darwin himself could have told you that.
@Impaler1815 All my life and from the mouth of every evo and every textbook. I have heard that the "goal and direction" of evolution is survival/reproduction. Now when it is inconvenient to the evidence at hand. Evolution is just blowing in the wind? Evolution doesn't have a single solid or fixed condition, application or even mechanism. That isn't fluid enough to fit any situation. Any theory that all encompassing is no theory at all. Evolution just replaces a God/Creator. "Evo did it".
@Howie47 If you were told evolution has a goal it's because it's easier to explain to you that way. Sure you might call survival and procreation evolution's goal, at least I would explain it like that to a layman. However, there is no intelligence or aim behind it, as a goal would imply. That's why any arguments involving intelligent planning of evolution fail, like your argument that evolution's goal is camouflage.
@Impaler1815 Arguments for planning only fail because the Evo. lobby know they destroy the concept of Godless materialism. They don't fail because they don't make sense in the light of the evidence. As soon as life starts down a path of developing and achieving a purpose driven mechanism; like camo. it is goal oriented. To argue other wise is just defecating on solid reasoning and communications.
@Howie47 Do you listen to your own arguments? You claimed camouflage is evolution's goal, and the fact that not every organism is camouflaged is evidence that goal wasn't met, and thus evolution is wrong. Now you're saying evidence requires that evolution has a goal. They can't both be true.
If an organism evolves camouflage it's because its parents were able to give birth to it before they died. It's got nothing to with camouflage being part of evolution's plan.
@Howie47 So you never said "If it was so easy, as evo's suggest, for mimicry's to develop. Then they would be NOT be the exception, but the rule!"
or
"Arguments for planning only fail because the Evo. lobby know they destroy the concept of Godless materialism. They don't fail because they don't make sense in the light of the evidence. "
You probably don't realise, but they're contradictory. You don't know you're own arguments.
@Impaler1815 If you would have read all I've posted on this thread, then you would have seen the consistency. But since your little world probably revolves around only you. You thought I started fresh. Any way, I'm not wasting any more time on a reject.
@Howie47 Two contradictory arguments are not consistent. I read your previous posts, and I don't think you ever had any idea what you're arguing. And now you've taken the first excuse you can find to spit the dummy.
@Howie47 All scientific theories change when new data is found. That's how science works. If data shows a theory to be inaccurate the theory is altered to make it more accurate. How else would science function? Would you rename a theory every time it changes?
Evolution is flexible, but it's still very much falsifiable. Evolution has to explain things using possible, natural mechanisms. We don't have a god that can do anything with magic.
@Impaler1815 If the very def. of a word used to describe a theory, has to be changed to accommodate new evidence. Then yes. a new word should be used. Their has been no proof found, but contrary evidence, to the idea that life is progressively evolving from simple chemical structure to complex sophisticated mechanisms. So they say evolution just means 'change". Well then call it "change"! It should be the CHANGE in life over time. Not the evolution!
@Howie47 I don't know what you've been told the definition of evolution has remained the same. Evolution does mean change. It also means common descent. They're two parts of the same theory. Where did you read that the definition of evolution is something else?
@tzephon Do you know how many different models of atoms have been proposed? How many mechanisms for gravity have been proposed? Did you know the Earth isn't completely round?
If falsifying certain parts of those theories didn't effect the validity of the overall theory, why should evolution be any different?
@Impaler1815 Actually, falsifying any part of those theories does invalidate those theories, according to Popper who is gave us our current ideas of falsifiability. Each theory exists over and against competing theories (ie gravity as gravitons vs curved space), not as modifications. According to Kuhn a paradigm existing in science is not modified until it 'evolved' into some new theory; but rather the need for modification sounds the pending death knell of that theory.
@tzephon So why do we still have the theory of gravity? What would you rather call it? Would you rather rename a theory every single time data changes it? What's wrong with just keeping the same theory, and teach that at some time it was different? Do you know what a scientific theory is?
@Impaler1815 Well, we don't have "a" theory of gravity, but rather several competing theories under a common name. What constitutes a theory depends on who you reference. In Routledge CEP it states (among other things) 'a conceptual device for systematically characterizing the state-transition behaviour of systems'. According to Popper a theory must be logically internally consistent. Any theory developing kludge fixes or exhibits change isn't a theory at all (it is internally falsified).
@tzephon A scientific theory is a collection of facts, hypotheses, laws and other theories that explain observed phenomena. If a theory has multiple hypothesised mechanisms, they still fall under the same theory. Why should we change the name of theory if the central idea is still the same? What would you call this new theory? What would you call the theory after that? Then after that? Then after that? Isn't it better just to keep the same name, and take note that parts of it have changed?
@Impaler1815 Your definition is so open as to include ideas which are clearly not scientific theories; ie ufos, fairies, criminal investigation, etc. "Gravity" is not a theory, it is merely name given to observed phenomena. However, general relativity is a theory. "Gravity" says that two masses are attracted to each other (an observation of the phenomena). Relativity seeks to answer why.
@tzephon I should have added that said facts, theories, hypotheses and laws should best fit the data. There are no laws ect that best fit the data, and support aliens coming to Earth, fairies ect. So you agree if something describes the same phenomena it should keep the same name, but we should remember there are multiple proposed mechanisms?
@Impaler1815 'Best fit the data' is the idea of a theory anyway, isn't it? And according to whom and by what objective criteria? Just saying something fits the data is subjective. And your last statement notes the existence of multiple proposed mechanisms to explain a phenomena. Those proposed mechanisms are not the same theory, but rather competing theories, (gravitons, geometric theory of gravity, newton)
@tzephon The logical chain of causality is hardly subjective. How else do you think we determine what's right or not? No one "just says" something fits the data, they have to actually be able to show it. Like I said, a theory can have other theories as part of it. Besides, they're not really theories, are they? More like hypotheses.
@Impaler1815 What 'logical chain of causality' are you referring to? The one that leaves us with over a dozen competing theories about gravity? They can't all be right can they? But they can all be wrong. They can't all be showing that their respective theory is correct. But because Einstein's theory is wrong there are many competitors.
@tzephon You misunderstood. I said "logical chain of causality", not "all knowing mind of God". Honest mistake.
When all the data is not available it's perfectly reasonable for multiple contradictory ideas to be a possibility. Those ideas still lead to the conclusion that objects are pulled together with a force directly proportional to their mass. Aka, the theory of gravity.
@Impaler1815 If a logical chain of causality were actually followed, only one theory could be reached. So please give me this logical chain you are referring to.
It would seem that if someone starts with the observation that objects are pulled together with a force directly proportional to their mass, then someone could hardly help but arrive at that same conclusion. However, that is not a description of a theory.
@tzephon Are you saying you've never come across any case where multiple possible conclusions adequately explain data? I'll give you a hint; gravity.
Are you referring to theory in the scientific sense or the casual sense?
I already told you what a theory is, and a conclusion that matches observations is absolutely a requisite. It's not the total description of a theory, but who said it was?
@Impaler1815 I'll give you a hint: They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. If gravity is caused by curvature of space caused by matter, then it can't be the interaction of gravitons between masses.
If I say that rain falls to the ground, that is a statement of my observation. If you say objects are pulled together with a force directly proportional to their mass, that's a statement of your observation. Both conclusions are in agreement with observation, but neither is a theory.
@tzephon Are you reading what I say? I already told you what a theory is, and how it easily accommodates multiple possible hypotheses. I also told you that a conclusion that matches an observation isn't the entire definition of a theory. You seem to be arguing against what you want me to be saying, not what I'm actually saying.
@Impaler1815 I already told you that your definition of a theory is over encompassing and non-rigorous. Isn't a 'fact' part of the 'data'? So we would expect that a 'fact' would fit the 'data', wouldn't we? Laws are something that we are defining by our theories, aren't they? etc. What about the ability to make a prediction. What about falsifiability. Specificity?
Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat This process takes place over many generations, and is one of the basic phenomena of biology.'
Exactly how is that science fiction? Which part? Please be specific
And I don't want random bible verses, I want support for your claim.
The moth that masquerades as a hummingbird is my favorite, "mimicry". I've debated this point with evos for years. Their defence. "their have been hundreds of books written to explain mimicry's." So as all false ideas that run contrary to the evidence. It takes allot of "esplaaanin". I think the choice of the word mimicry is a freudian slip. Because when evos see them it makes me me cry and stutter!
@Howie47 I don't see how one could think it runs contrary to the evidence, one organism that is one X's diet that resembles another organism that is not on X's diet has a better chance of surviving.
@TheScienceFoundation If it was so easy, as evo's suggest, for mimicry's to develop. Then they would be NOT be the exception, but the rule! It's amazing how evo's overlook this fact. A biological diverse environment is the rule. Mimicry's break that rule, are the exception to that rule. Which is a blatant punctuation of the fact, of a Creator. Mimicry's aren't the only exceptions. For every rule we can identify, there will always arise the exception. No matter how rare they be.
The mouth that masquerades as a hummingbird is my favorite, "mimicry". I've debated this point with evos for years. Their defence. "their have been hundreds of books written to explain mimicry's." So as all false ideas that run contrary to the evidence. It takes allot of "esplaaanin". I think the choice of the word mimicry is a freudian slip. Because when evos see them it makes me me cry and stutter!
Evolutionists are full of the ole luciferianism! God created man and that's that's ! God took the rib of man and created woman to aggrivate man ! lol Good Morning "B" and God Bless ya'll!
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. -Psalm 19:1-3
I never met an "evolutionist". Just very well educated scientists. Evolution is fact. There is an extensive fossil record that has been supported by modern genetic techniques. There is no disputing evolution on scientific grounds. It is easy to see the transition from early austrailopithicines through Homo habilis, Homo erectus to early Homo sapiens and modern Homo sapiens. If one chooses irrationality and superstition over science, it is simply out of ignorance.
edwardschlosser1 6 months ago
@edwardschlosser1 Thank you.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
Find the love of God here.
Audio, Gospel of John Chapter 1 AV h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=Ao4uaIjd3xs
BereanBeacon1 6 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Proves nothing. Plenty of supertitions out there, all nothing but myths and irrational nonsense. There is no god. There is no son. There is no Zeus, Mythra, Jupiter or Thor. All just silly superstitious beliefs. Science relies on empirical evidence, reason and proof. Superstition is irrational.
edwardschlosser1 6 months ago
Wow what a silly argument. Mimicry doesn't come about through random chance, its driven by natural selection, which is not a chance based mechanism.
We figured this out about 150 years ago, at least try and stay a little more current with your arguments.
Craigmw45 7 months ago
@Craigmw45 Your science fiction evolves so quickly, that it is difficult to be current. Fortunately real science is much more interesting and reliable and you should really try to understand it.
Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge. Proverbs 14:7 Bye.
BereanBeacon1 7 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Here's a challange. Name one major(ish) aspect of science, that you agree with.
I'll bet you can't.
Craigmw45 7 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 "Your science fiction evolves so quickly, that it is difficult to be current. "
The theory of natural selection has been around longer then any person on the earth has been alive. This isn't ground breaking cutting edge research.
Keeping your arguments to within this century shouldn't be that hard and keeping up with the last century should be a given but the fact that your still not current with the century before that even, is down right sad. Though likely a intentional strawma
Craigmw45 7 months ago
@BelieveandtrustJesus How so?
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
Whatever evolutionists say about the "science" of it, evolution takes a lot more faith to believe in than the Creation account.
CorrosionX3 7 months ago
How long did it take for a plant to evolve the appearance of a stone? At least thousands of years! During it's transformation it must of been eaten freely by what ever predator desired it. Until it reached a point of misidentification as a stone. Of course by then it's eater evolved a nose for it's favorite food. And the appearance of a stone was only kept to fool botanist. Who would other wise pick them for specimens. Evolution explains every thing and nothing.
Howie47 8 months ago
@Howie47 During its adaptation, not every single member of every single generation was eaten and 1% camouflage beats 0% camouflage.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation 1 or 50% camo would leave your survival 99% reliant on luck. Ask any Marine! Any luck would spoil our little evolution scenario. As the most beneficial rare mutations. Would be just as likely to be eaten as those that evolved in the wrong direction. Evolution is delusional when seen through the eyes of a rational mind and heart.
Howie47 8 months ago
@Howie47 Again, not every member of every generation was eaten. and relying on 99% luck beats out relying on 100% luck. There is no 'wrong direction' anyone with a rational mind already understands this.
I'm still waiting on the creation mechanisms for, well, anything.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation Such a statement by you, as this: "There is no 'wrong direction' anyone with a rational mind already understands this." Demonstrates you lack of reason. If camo is are goal,, for survival. We must proceed and progress in that direction! Other wise we'd be taking a step forward and a step backward, forever. God doesn't want to expose His mechanisms to a world, hell bent on destruction. Always needing better camo, so we can better our enemies, right?!
Howie47 8 months ago
@Howie47 That's right, evolution has no direction. Anyone who's so much as glanced through a high school textbook on the subject could tell you that. Camouflage isn't the goal, it's just one mechanism one species happens to have. Some species evolve camo, others speed, others burrow, others climb trees. There are a lot of ways an organism can be better at surviving, they don't all go the same way. Darwin himself could have told you that.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 All my life and from the mouth of every evo and every textbook. I have heard that the "goal and direction" of evolution is survival/reproduction. Now when it is inconvenient to the evidence at hand. Evolution is just blowing in the wind? Evolution doesn't have a single solid or fixed condition, application or even mechanism. That isn't fluid enough to fit any situation. Any theory that all encompassing is no theory at all. Evolution just replaces a God/Creator. "Evo did it".
Howie47 7 months ago
@Howie47 If you were told evolution has a goal it's because it's easier to explain to you that way. Sure you might call survival and procreation evolution's goal, at least I would explain it like that to a layman. However, there is no intelligence or aim behind it, as a goal would imply. That's why any arguments involving intelligent planning of evolution fail, like your argument that evolution's goal is camouflage.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 Arguments for planning only fail because the Evo. lobby know they destroy the concept of Godless materialism. They don't fail because they don't make sense in the light of the evidence. As soon as life starts down a path of developing and achieving a purpose driven mechanism; like camo. it is goal oriented. To argue other wise is just defecating on solid reasoning and communications.
Howie47 7 months ago
@Howie47 Do you listen to your own arguments? You claimed camouflage is evolution's goal, and the fact that not every organism is camouflaged is evidence that goal wasn't met, and thus evolution is wrong. Now you're saying evidence requires that evolution has a goal. They can't both be true.
If an organism evolves camouflage it's because its parents were able to give birth to it before they died. It's got nothing to with camouflage being part of evolution's plan.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 Yes I am aware of my own arguments, and your gross misrepresentation of the same. Now, go "impal" yourself!
Howie47 7 months ago
@Howie47 So you never said "If it was so easy, as evo's suggest, for mimicry's to develop. Then they would be NOT be the exception, but the rule!"
or
"Arguments for planning only fail because the Evo. lobby know they destroy the concept of Godless materialism. They don't fail because they don't make sense in the light of the evidence. "
You probably don't realise, but they're contradictory. You don't know you're own arguments.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 If you would have read all I've posted on this thread, then you would have seen the consistency. But since your little world probably revolves around only you. You thought I started fresh. Any way, I'm not wasting any more time on a reject.
Howie47 7 months ago
@Howie47 Two contradictory arguments are not consistent. I read your previous posts, and I don't think you ever had any idea what you're arguing. And now you've taken the first excuse you can find to spit the dummy.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Howie47 All scientific theories change when new data is found. That's how science works. If data shows a theory to be inaccurate the theory is altered to make it more accurate. How else would science function? Would you rename a theory every time it changes?
Evolution is flexible, but it's still very much falsifiable. Evolution has to explain things using possible, natural mechanisms. We don't have a god that can do anything with magic.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 If the very def. of a word used to describe a theory, has to be changed to accommodate new evidence. Then yes. a new word should be used. Their has been no proof found, but contrary evidence, to the idea that life is progressively evolving from simple chemical structure to complex sophisticated mechanisms. So they say evolution just means 'change". Well then call it "change"! It should be the CHANGE in life over time. Not the evolution!
Howie47 7 months ago
@Howie47 I don't know what you've been told the definition of evolution has remained the same. Evolution does mean change. It also means common descent. They're two parts of the same theory. Where did you read that the definition of evolution is something else?
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 Outside of evolution can you name a theory that has changed to accommodate new data?
tzephon 7 months ago
@tzephon Do you know how many different models of atoms have been proposed? How many mechanisms for gravity have been proposed? Did you know the Earth isn't completely round?
If falsifying certain parts of those theories didn't effect the validity of the overall theory, why should evolution be any different?
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 Actually, falsifying any part of those theories does invalidate those theories, according to Popper who is gave us our current ideas of falsifiability. Each theory exists over and against competing theories (ie gravity as gravitons vs curved space), not as modifications. According to Kuhn a paradigm existing in science is not modified until it 'evolved' into some new theory; but rather the need for modification sounds the pending death knell of that theory.
tzephon 7 months ago
@tzephon So why do we still have the theory of gravity? What would you rather call it? Would you rather rename a theory every single time data changes it? What's wrong with just keeping the same theory, and teach that at some time it was different? Do you know what a scientific theory is?
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 Well, we don't have "a" theory of gravity, but rather several competing theories under a common name. What constitutes a theory depends on who you reference. In Routledge CEP it states (among other things) 'a conceptual device for systematically characterizing the state-transition behaviour of systems'. According to Popper a theory must be logically internally consistent. Any theory developing kludge fixes or exhibits change isn't a theory at all (it is internally falsified).
tzephon 7 months ago
@tzephon A scientific theory is a collection of facts, hypotheses, laws and other theories that explain observed phenomena. If a theory has multiple hypothesised mechanisms, they still fall under the same theory. Why should we change the name of theory if the central idea is still the same? What would you call this new theory? What would you call the theory after that? Then after that? Then after that? Isn't it better just to keep the same name, and take note that parts of it have changed?
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 Your definition is so open as to include ideas which are clearly not scientific theories; ie ufos, fairies, criminal investigation, etc. "Gravity" is not a theory, it is merely name given to observed phenomena. However, general relativity is a theory. "Gravity" says that two masses are attracted to each other (an observation of the phenomena). Relativity seeks to answer why.
tzephon 7 months ago
@tzephon I should have added that said facts, theories, hypotheses and laws should best fit the data. There are no laws ect that best fit the data, and support aliens coming to Earth, fairies ect. So you agree if something describes the same phenomena it should keep the same name, but we should remember there are multiple proposed mechanisms?
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 'Best fit the data' is the idea of a theory anyway, isn't it? And according to whom and by what objective criteria? Just saying something fits the data is subjective. And your last statement notes the existence of multiple proposed mechanisms to explain a phenomena. Those proposed mechanisms are not the same theory, but rather competing theories, (gravitons, geometric theory of gravity, newton)
tzephon 7 months ago
@tzephon The logical chain of causality is hardly subjective. How else do you think we determine what's right or not? No one "just says" something fits the data, they have to actually be able to show it. Like I said, a theory can have other theories as part of it. Besides, they're not really theories, are they? More like hypotheses.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 What 'logical chain of causality' are you referring to? The one that leaves us with over a dozen competing theories about gravity? They can't all be right can they? But they can all be wrong. They can't all be showing that their respective theory is correct. But because Einstein's theory is wrong there are many competitors.
Some are theories, some hypotheses.
tzephon 7 months ago
@tzephon You misunderstood. I said "logical chain of causality", not "all knowing mind of God". Honest mistake.
When all the data is not available it's perfectly reasonable for multiple contradictory ideas to be a possibility. Those ideas still lead to the conclusion that objects are pulled together with a force directly proportional to their mass. Aka, the theory of gravity.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 If a logical chain of causality were actually followed, only one theory could be reached. So please give me this logical chain you are referring to.
It would seem that if someone starts with the observation that objects are pulled together with a force directly proportional to their mass, then someone could hardly help but arrive at that same conclusion. However, that is not a description of a theory.
tzephon 7 months ago
@tzephon Are you saying you've never come across any case where multiple possible conclusions adequately explain data? I'll give you a hint; gravity.
Are you referring to theory in the scientific sense or the casual sense?
I already told you what a theory is, and a conclusion that matches observations is absolutely a requisite. It's not the total description of a theory, but who said it was?
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 I'll give you a hint: They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. If gravity is caused by curvature of space caused by matter, then it can't be the interaction of gravitons between masses.
If I say that rain falls to the ground, that is a statement of my observation. If you say objects are pulled together with a force directly proportional to their mass, that's a statement of your observation. Both conclusions are in agreement with observation, but neither is a theory.
tzephon 7 months ago
@tzephon Are you reading what I say? I already told you what a theory is, and how it easily accommodates multiple possible hypotheses. I also told you that a conclusion that matches an observation isn't the entire definition of a theory. You seem to be arguing against what you want me to be saying, not what I'm actually saying.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 I already told you that your definition of a theory is over encompassing and non-rigorous. Isn't a 'fact' part of the 'data'? So we would expect that a 'fact' would fit the 'data', wouldn't we? Laws are something that we are defining by our theories, aren't they? etc. What about the ability to make a prediction. What about falsifiability. Specificity?
tzephon 7 months ago
@tzephon Of course that was just a basic definition. We're only allowed 500 characters you know.
What does falsifiability and specificity have to do with multiple possible hypotheses? Do you know where you're going with this?
Impaler1815 7 months ago
'Science Fiction:
Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat This process takes place over many generations, and is one of the basic phenomena of biology.'
Exactly how is that science fiction? Which part? Please be specific
And I don't want random bible verses, I want support for your claim.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
The moth that masquerades as a hummingbird is my favorite, "mimicry". I've debated this point with evos for years. Their defence. "their have been hundreds of books written to explain mimicry's." So as all false ideas that run contrary to the evidence. It takes allot of "esplaaanin". I think the choice of the word mimicry is a freudian slip. Because when evos see them it makes me me cry and stutter!
Howie47 8 months ago
@Howie47 Here are some YT titles for evolutionists to peer (smear) review.
Green River Formation Fossil Has Original Soft Tissue
Ancient Dinosaur Blood (68,000,000 Years)
Fossil Fraud Embarrasses Scientists
Scientist Draws With Extinct Squid Ink
AMBER EXPOSES EVOLUTION
Evolution: The Itsy-Bitsy Spider
Fantastic Australian Amber Supports Young World
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
The skin and tissue was not soft
There was no blood found, only a few degraded haemogloblin factors
The fraud was exposed by evolutionary scientists, not by creationists praying
And?
As for the rest of them, how do they support a young earth?
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago 2
@Howie47 I don't see how one could think it runs contrary to the evidence, one organism that is one X's diet that resembles another organism that is not on X's diet has a better chance of surviving.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation If it was so easy, as evo's suggest, for mimicry's to develop. Then they would be NOT be the exception, but the rule! It's amazing how evo's overlook this fact. A biological diverse environment is the rule. Mimicry's break that rule, are the exception to that rule. Which is a blatant punctuation of the fact, of a Creator. Mimicry's aren't the only exceptions. For every rule we can identify, there will always arise the exception. No matter how rare they be.
Howie47 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Howie47 'Then they would be NOT be the exception, but the rule!'
Where are you getting that? Evolution is not directional as I'm sure I've pointed out to you before. Mimicry doesn't break anything.
'blatant punctuation of the fact, of a Creator'
How so? By what mechanism? How did you determine this? Is there anything but bare assertion based on your want to believe?
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
The mouth that masquerades as a hummingbird is my favorite, "mimicry". I've debated this point with evos for years. Their defence. "their have been hundreds of books written to explain mimicry's." So as all false ideas that run contrary to the evidence. It takes allot of "esplaaanin". I think the choice of the word mimicry is a freudian slip. Because when evos see them it makes me me cry and stutter!
Howie47 8 months ago
Evolutionists are full of the ole luciferianism! God created man and that's that's ! God took the rib of man and created woman to aggrivate man ! lol Good Morning "B" and God Bless ya'll!
bssmart1118 8 months ago
Our Lord is an awesome God!
ChristiansofAsia 8 months ago
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. -Psalm 19:1-3
EKrassner90 8 months ago
@EKrassner90 Amen!
ChristiansofAsia 8 months ago
@EKrassner90 Amen
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Amen
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago