I wouldn't mind hearing your take on it, sure. Do you accept that Mt. Vesuvius erupted in 79 A.D.? If yes, what direct evidence do you think exists for that event?
There is none.
Do you know that mountains erupt? Yes or no.
Say you did not know, How would you find out?
Let us say that you never saw mountains erupt, and it takes millions of years. Would you mind demonstrating that you would not have to interpret, and make suppositions, in order to draw conclusions.
Can you say that your conclusions are 100% correct?
Here is one.
You never saw a plane in your life.
Out of the blue, you saw one.
How would you go about figuring out how it came to be?
What?
If there is evidence there is no need for supposition. Do you not get that?
No I don't. Explain it to me please.
A scientific hypothesis is generally stated as something along these lines - 'If X is true, then we should expect to find Y in conditions A, B and C, ' or 'I have repeatedly observed X under Y conditions, so I predict that Y causes X,' something like that.
You make some observations, perform some experiments, etc., and you in fact find that in conditions A, B and C, you find Y.
Hypothesis supported (correct).
Until it loses support with further research that turns that support on its head. Then what? We continue our research. That's science, right?
Science knowledge is subject to change in the light of new evidence or new interpretation of existing evidence.
Where is the supposition?
May I ask, are you a scientist? Why are you asking me this?
A supported (correct) hypothesis is in and of itself not 'an argument.' It may be used AS evidence in an argument for something else, but a 'proven' hypothesis is just that.
If a hypothesis is correct, why does it need to change, and would it being used as evidence, not mean that, ideas are being use as evidence - even though these ideas are really only being supported by other ideas?
Thank you for honestly putting proven in inverted commas.
You had written:
"The most that can be said, if one is honest, is that the evidence for the hypothesis can be a strong argument for those who present it - which can be said for many arguments... but it isn't "a done deal". It's not fact - although evolutionist want it to be."
The evidence supporting the hypothesis is also not an 'argument.' It is evidence.
My hypothesis A states that when X, we should see Y. Here is X, look - there is Y.
What is 'the argument'?
See above.
The point I made was that you were taking the content of a press release, in which the author of the press release used the sort of sensationalist language that a layman would use, as 'evidence' that pelvic bones in whales have a function and thus are not vestigial.
The issue is that why should whales have pelvic bones at all if they were 'created' to live in the oceans? Evolution explains why they have these bones. Creationism makes farcical assertions.
Did the whale need these bones on land, or in the ocean?
I thought it was the ocean, therefore, I don't see how creation is ruled out.
Dolphins have them also, don't they?
Why do the couple creationists you linked to trump the multitude that see things realistically?
Did you not read any of my links? There were good explanations showing how Tomkins was being dishonest (or incompetent).
If that is what you are looking for, then why did you not indicate as much instead of just posting links and implying that your sources were the bearers of the REAL truth?
Sorry about that. I plan on doing things a bit differently, but there were two links, and I don't think you commented on the second.
And I should also note, that I did not, sadly or otherwise, 'just say' that anyone was lying, I wrote, for example:
"Tomkins' claims are routinely debunked by scientists lacking the drive to prop up a religious belief."
Did you interpret that as calling Tomkins a liar?
I didn't say what I said to you. The person I was referring to, knows whom I meant. Sorry about that misunderstanding.
I have referred to some as having lied on here, for I know of no other way to describe a person that, just days after having been given evidence for evolution, turns around and says yet again that there is none.
I see evidence, as information gathered primarily through the senses, which can lead one to believe something.
So while you may think, or believe that you have evidence for evolution, by examining that information, another person may look at that same information and say that evidence does not support evolution - to them it supports something entirely different.
So why do you think you are right in calling the person a liar? Would the person not be right to return that "compliment"?
Parasites are generally eukaryotic organisms, not bacteria.
Yes, thank you. I was asking how these parasites that depends on a host, survived.