Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And I provided the test.
Was I impolite?
you accepted these hypothesis as valid, despite the fact that they are only 1 sentence................. ( @gnostic disagrees, he claim that hypothesis cant be 1 sentence)
my hypotheiss was a testable explanation..............I even provided the test and the resoults of the test
Yes the test was the mathematical estimates provided my Roger Penrose.................................He calculated the probability of having low entropy at the big bang……………….given that the probability was so small this serves as evidence against “random chance did it” and in favor of “nonrandom mechanism” did it
You did not give an explanation. It was only a claim.
Yes, with some objections. Dark matter is a lot more than just the claim. Go back and look. I said something on the order of you being close.
As said there's no test showing the small increments from fish to apes.
the theory of evolution is a claim
Why would we need that? Fossilization is rather rare so it is not expected. Making unreasonable demands only shows that you cannot argue against the facts.
No, it is not. But then you keep yourself willfully ignorant about evolution so there is no helping you.
You wrote, "they are going to look at what they consider to be evidence backing up their conjectures, but there is nothing that makes it true," and I answered, "Nothing for you, but not nothing for those educated in the science. You still seem to have no concept of what others can and do know. To you. all opinions are as uninformed as yours and therefore equal. Everything is conjecture to such a person."
To you, but to the informed, it is much more than that. The theory has been confirmed correct beyond reasonable doubt. It isn't important that you know that, but responsible people ought to correct errors when they read them, so you should expect a response like this every time you make that claim. Maybe someday you'll get tired of reading words like these. That also doesn't matter. I'm fine with you doing what you do for whatever reason you do it, but as I said, I believe errors should be corrected.
OK. That "truth" you seek is probably also useless. Suppose you knew for a fact that the deists are correct, and that an intelligent designer created the seed that then unfolded spontaneously in the universe we see today. Nothing changes. The information is useless.
I thought it was. I was emphasizing that you also don't need those answers, because what really matters in daily life is practical knowledge - the ideas that allow us to shape some aspect of our conscious experience in a way that we prefer, and that these other issues are what is actually irrelevant.
I don't believe that, but it is irrelevant to my claim that the Bible writers didn't know where the rain came from. You seemed to be trying to refute that with indecipherable references to the Tower of Babel and the words of ancient Egyptians.
Then why use the word linear? You would do well to find plainer language, assuming you want to be understood. You call continual progress linear progress, and you add ambiguity. You call natural "languages" metaphysical, and I can't tell what you mean.
Not to me you can't, because I have seen the evidence that there IS progress. I've seen it in my own lifetime. I don't see how you make me unsee that nor understand what I saw differently.
There you go again with poetry where prose is more instructive. I have no idea what you mean by a unicorn here. Did you mean a fictional character?
You can repeat it as often as you like, but I disagree. You'll need to falsify my belief to change my mind, and once again, experience has taught me that I CAN navigate life effectively with the knowledge that I do have.
No, I don't assume that I know everything about gravity, but I know what my dog knows about it (and more), and we both manage to understand it well enough. She knows that she will stick to the floor but also can jump up and then return to the floor, or that if she drops a piece of food, to look downward for it.
OK. As I indicated to @PureX above, the knowledge that I have is enough to accomplish my goals. My belief set works for me.
I have no reason to believe either of those comments. Regarding using the word round for spherical, it's also ambiguous. A coin is round but also unlike a sphere, has flat surfaces. I suggest using words like circular and spherical. They're more descriptive (more specific) than round.
That's not been my experience, and doesn't describe most people I know, either.
sorry i am not understanding
An explanation of what where you expecting?
My interpretation was, that the Dark matter example was good enough for you, that I grasped your concept of evidence correctly ………. If I am wrong then I am wrong ……….we can go back to the dark matter example a correct me if you think that I made a relevant mistake.
