Sure all fossils are challengeable..... But My point is that tikaalik or any other intermediate between fish and tetrapod (let's call it fishapot) is expected to be found in any layer from the early denovian to modern times ..... Finding tiktaalik in the mid denovian is not a valid prediction...
...spelling mistake ? You making all this mess because I the outcompete function of my cellphone choose the incorrect word and I didn't noticed ?
The fact that you are making a deal out of a spelling mistake is evidence that you don't really disagree with (or can refute) my actual points...
Again we decided to use the word "dinosaur" to describe the clade that includes trex birds etc...
We could have chosen any other word
Why is this so hard to understand?
True but strawman I never said the opposite
Yes it is just semantics........We decided to define dinosaur as: a group of animals with a specific evolutionary history that includes birds and trex but not petrodactils (something with a different evolutionary history by definition would not be called dinosaur)
What is do controversial...
The point is that in principle through convergent evolution our descendents could develope something like a gill, scales swimming habilites and other traits that we commonly associated with fish.
Hence humans can evolve in to something that we would call fish
You obviously agree with this...
...time?
What I said is that some scientists say it. The paper shows that there is such controversy……………….and even more important those who claim that it only evolved once claim it based on the evidence that they see from phylogenetic……………….not because more than once is impossible as @Pogo claims
In the context of evolution there is no such thing as “backwards”
If your point is that humans will never evolved “back” to become the *same* ancestral fish that we used to be 500M years ago………….I agree………if your point is that we will never recover the exact same gills (same genes) that we...
What is irrational about the idea of a man traveling for tax issues?
Ok share those other mysterious sources
Maybe but so far you haven't shown any failure except for
1 there are other sources (not just Josephus) because I say so
2 the trip to Bethlehem is absurd because I say so
...
aja
And where did RNA came to be in the first place? How did that mechanism evolved?
Answer:
Who knows, there are many competing hypothesis
Do you suggest a different answer?
You adressed a starwman.
Your original argument was “because God can explain everything, then nothing in particular could ever count as evidence against God”
The balls and the archer examples where used to refute that argument ………..or you can simply think twice and see for yourself why your...
Sure, if by pure reason you include logic philosophy personal experiences testimonial evidence and other things beyond the empirical method…………..then my question and my concern was answered.
I had the impression (wrong impression apparently) that you where an empiricist in the sense that you...
...beyond reasonable doubt…………..but there are good reasons to doubt “4”
Reject is a strong word………but Some reasons to doubt “4” are
1 the lack of conclusive evidence
2 the existence of other alternative mechanisms
3 the existence of obstacles that seem hard to overcome with these mechanisms...
...you already decided that naturalism it is difficult to reach at sound conclusions if the process of thinking and evaluating evidence is being guided by this unfalsifiable world view.
Let’s say that the hypothesis “an intelligent designer is responsible for the fine tuning of the universe “...
...disagreement would be on secondary issues, but for the sake of this discussion I agree
I am confused, aren’t you granting that there is evidence for a designer above in red letters?
We´ve had this conversation before; I disagree, parsimony is just one of many criteria used to establish...
Well I tend not to overcomplicate stuff, I´ll I simply define/understand evidence as anything that supports a proposition/claim/hypothesis/theory etc. ………. Obviously using valid reasoning would be a valid bonus, but it is not indispensable
If X supports Y then X would be evidence for Y
--
But...
Ok, but why are you changing the topic?
I said that:
Falsifiable: means that something can be tested and could potencially be proven wrong beyod reasonable doubt
You disagreed with the “beyond reasonable doubt thing”
Me and some other user (quote below) have corrected you………………so do you...
...refuting the particular objection of ………….“because God can explain every possible observation, no particular observation could ever count as evidence for God”
Given that you haven’t address my argument for why I think you argument fails (the archer example and the red greed balls example)...
...archer (like god) could have done anything (ether miss or hit the target)………………..but if the arrow hits the target you would accept that as evidence for “intent”…………….. no specific prediction is needed.
Please explain which of these 2 points you reject
1 the arrow hitting the target would be...