nPeace
Veteran Member
What made you ask that... did you read it in my post?What makes you think that the concept of life coming from a common ancestor is not testable?
I made some statements, and asked a question, and instead of addressing that, you ask a question that imo, is irrelevant to anything I said.
I noticed that every single post I made, I had a number of people breathing down my neck - so many comments, I could not find the time to respond to all of them. Now I focus on the proposition that all life came from one common source, and one single person responds, and how does he respond, with a question that, it appears to me, has nothing to do with what I am saying.
The guy, who had so much to say, jumping on every post I made, now stands on the side, and responds - not to my post, but an irrelevant question, by trying to answer for me. Obviously he would say something that is in his mind - not in mine. I'll be nice, and not comment on what I really think about the answer he proposed.
So it looks like it's just you and I left @Subduction Zone.
Whether we go forward from here, seems to be up to you. So just to remind you of where I am...
It is claimed that it is okay or safe, to extrapolate on the evidence to conclude that the idea is true, but this does not follow the method of good science.
The definition of extrapolate:
extend the application of (a method or conclusion, especially one based on statistics) to an unknown situation by assuming that existing trends will continue or similar methods will be applicable.
This is not keeping with the scientific method.
It's not experimental, observable, nor repeatable.
One can assume anything to support an idea. That's not good science. Is it?
So let me put it a different way.
We often hear, and read expressions like, "It just takes time".
Accumulating change
Microevolutionary change might seem too unimportant to account for such amazing evolutionary transitions as the origin of dinosaurs or the radiation of land plants — however, it is not. Microevolution happens on a small time scale — from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale — in other words, macroevolution!
The four basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time. And life on Earth has been accumulating small changes for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for these simple evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.
[GALLERY=media, 8725]Macroequation by nPeace posted Nov 16, 2018 at 6:22 PM[/GALLERY]
The above is extrapolating.
To extrapolate on the observed evidence (adaptation, speciation), to assume that this leads to an unknown situation, or idea, is not keeping with good science.
Do you agree with that?
We can discuss the other claims of evidence, if you like... after you let me know if you agree or disagree.
I looked at this statement...if you are against higher education you are against education.
And please, do not use dishonest arguments. You are usually better than that.
if you are against higher education you are against education.
...and a few things come to mind.
1. The article on the jw.org website explains, why higher education is not considered the recommended choice, and it explained that education is very important. So apparently, it seems you don't care what the article said - you ignore it, and believe... what you want to - which is not truth.
2. This statement, to put it mildly, makes no sense. It's the same thing as saying, "You discourage unwholesome association and entertainment, therefore you hate association and entertainment". That is ridiculous, isn't it?