What if it was created by God to evolve?

[Subduction Zone]

I have not made any scientific points.
Argue away... strawmen are easy to argue against.

I never said that you made any scientific points. But like it or not you are a descendant of apes which means that you still are an ape.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have I been aggressive? What did I say that was aggressive?

Sounds like a baseless claim.

So you are not interested in debate... then why comment?

He is right in one point. There is no "debate" when it comes to evolution. That was settled a long long time ago. All there is now are corrections.

 

[dwb001]

I never said that you made any scientific points. But like it or not you are a descendant of apes which means that you still are an ape.

Nope... you have not proven your assertion.

 

[dwb001]

He is right in one point. There is no "debate" when it comes to evolution. That was settled a long long time ago. All there is now are corrections.

So you concede the loss. Thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope... you have not proven your assertion.

What "assertion"? You appear to be confused. I only stated well known facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you concede the loss. Thanks.

No, you are confused. If you support the creation myths you lost before you were even born.

Once again, there are only corrections at this point. Evolution is a fact. There is more scientific evidence for it than there is for gravity.

 

[dwb001]

What "assertion"? You appear to be confused. I only stated well known facts.

You asserted that we are ape descendants.

 

[dwb001]

No, you are confused. If you support the creation myths you lost before you were even born.

Once again, there are only corrections at this point. Evolution is a fact. There is more scientific evidence for it than there is for gravity.

Evolution is a theory.

We don't know what gravity is either. We can describe its effects and create a model that mimics its behavior... but exactly what gravity is is not known.

Evidence can point to different conclusions. And I would say the more plausible conclusion yo the evidence presented is Creation and a Young Earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You asserted that we are ape descendants.

Yes, that is a well known fact. It is not an assertion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution is a theory.

No, the theory of evolution is a theory. One can always tell when one is dealing with the scientifically illiterate because they think that is a "good argument". In the sciences theories outrank laws. There are laws that have been superseded by theories, but you will not find theories that have been superseded by laws. The theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution.

We don't know what gravity is either. We can describe its effects and create a model that mimics its behavior... but exactly what gravity is is not known.

True, that is why we have a theory of gravity. But we do not need to know everything about a subject to know that it is real. Do you doubt gravity?

Evidence can point to different conclusions. And I would say the more plausible conclusion yo the evidence presented is Creation and a Young Earth.

Not necessarily. Once again, because people are imperfect scientific evidence is well defined to try to avoid those imperfections from affect one's work. As I already told you elsewhere without at least a testable hypothesis one cannot have any scientific evidence:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,

There is none for your beliefs.

 

[dwb001]

Yes, that is a well known fact. It is not an assertion.

Not a fact. You think it is... but no.

 

[dwb001]

No, the theory of evolution is a theory. One can always tell when one is dealing with the scientifically illiterate because they think that is a "good argument". In the sciences theories outrank laws. There are laws that have been superseded by theories, but you will not find theories that have been superseded by laws. The theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution.

So the definition of a theory and a law have changed over the past 40 years.
If you change the goals you always win the arguments.

True, that is why we have a theory of gravity. But we do not need to know everything about a subject to know that it is real. Do you doubt gravity?

I doubt that we understand gravity.

Not necessarily. Once again, because people are imperfect scientific evidence is well defined to try to avoid those imperfections from affect one's work. As I already told you elsewhere without at least a testable hypothesis one cannot have any scientific evidence:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,

There is none for your beliefs.

I am using your evidence. So you are saying that you have none?

Please at least try to follow the thread of what I am saying.

You are chasing your own version of my argument with only passing understanding of what I am saying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not a fact. You think it is... but no.

Yes, it is a fact, but you need to learn the basics of science before you can demand an explanation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the definition of a theory and a law have changed over the past 40 years.
If you change the goals you always win the arguments.

Nope. It was the same 40 years ago. How much education have you had? What was the last science course that you took and when?

I doubt that we understand gravity.

Naughty, naughty. I did not say that we fully understand it. We understand quite a bit about it, but there is still more to learn. And once again you keep making the logical fallacy of assuming that because we do not know everything that we cannot know something.

I am using your evidence. So you are saying that you have none?'

This is a falsehood on your part since to use it you have to agree to the source that found it. That is how evidence works. If you want to make up a totally new explanation you need a working hypothesis first. That is how science works.

Please at least try to follow the thread of what I am saying.

Oh, I am. I can't help it if you are completely wrong.

You are chasing your own version of my argument with only passing understanding of what I am saying.

No, I understand your version. You have to make false claims about having evidence.

One more time, in the sciences you cannot have evidence unless you have a testable hypothesis. No hypothesis, no evidence.

 

[dwb001]

Yes, it is a fact, but you need to learn the basics of science before you can demand an explanation.

A cult member expresses an opinion as fact.

 

[dwb001]

Nope. It was the same 40 years ago. How much education have you had? What was the last science course that you took and when?

Yes they have changed.

Naughty, naughty. I did not say that we fully understand it. We understand quite a bit about it, but there is still more to learn. And once again you keep making the logical fallacy of assuming that because we do not know everything that we cannot know something.

Why is my response to your question naughty? I gave my opinion and now you say I am not entitled to have a differing opinion? How very open minded of you.

This is a falsehood on your part since to use it you have to agree to the source that found it. That is how evidence works. If you want to make up a totally new explanation you need a working hypothesis first. That is how science works.

Not the way they did science back I the day. First you see something (evidence)... then hypothesis can be formed to explain said occurance... then experiment to find if hypothesis is even valid... then you have one possible explanation for how the even may have occurred.

The apple fell from the tree before Newton formed his equations.

Oh, I am. I can't help it if you are completely wrong.

i always could be wrong... can you admit the same? If not... you might just be in a cult.

No, I understand your version. You have to make false claims about having evidence.

Your evidence... I make no claim of having evidence.

One more time, in the sciences you cannot have evidence unless you have a testable hypothesis. No hypothesis, no evidence.

Evidence comes before hypothesis... cause before effect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A cult member expresses an opinion as fact.

Oh my the irony!!!

 

[dwb001]

Oh my the irony!!!

Have I expressed any opinions as fact?

Please tell me where I did that and I will correct myself and apologize.

Will you do the same?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes they have changed.

Prove it. I could probably dig up an old textbook. And you need to answer questions. How much scientific education do you have? It looks as if you struggle through the ninth grade and that was it.

Why is my response to your question naughty? I gave my opinion and now you say I am not entitled to have a differing opinion? How very open minded of you.

Because you misrepresented what I said.

Not the way they did science back I the day. First you see something (evidence)... then hypothesis can be formed to explain said occurance... then experiment to find if hypothesis is even valid... then you have one possible explanation for how the even may have occurred.

Then you had bad teachers in junior high school. When you see something that is an observation. It does not qualify as evidence until you have a testable explanation. It has been that way for quite some time. But they usually do not teach very much in the way of the philosophy of science even in high school.

The apple fell from the tree before Newton formed his equations.

No, not at all. Observing things falling on the Earth had nothing to do with his equations. The apple was a myth and even worse you are describing Galilean gravity, not Newtonian. Newton got his equations from the orbits of planets.

i always could be wrong... can you admit the same? If not... you might just be in a cult.

Yes, I quite often admit when I am wrong. But since you are the one denying science it appears that you are in a cult. Do you not know that most Christians do not believe the myths of Genesis? It is not required to do so to be a Christain.

Your evidence... I make no claim of having evidence.

Now you can't make up your mind.

Evidence comes before hypothesis... cause before effect.

No, observations come before the hypothesis. This is not my definition. It is the definition of scientists.

 

[dwb001]

Prove it. I could probably dig up an old textbook. And you need to answer questions. How much scientific education do you have? It looks as if you struggle through the ninth grade and that was it.

Autistic memory from grade 12 science.

Because you misrepresented what I said.

Then maybe be more clear.

Then you had bad teachers in junior high school. When you see something that is an observation. It does not qualify as evidence until you have a testable explanation. It has been that way for quite some time. But they usually do not teach very much in the way of the philosophy of science even in high school.

Why would you create a hypothesis if you didn't observe something first?

No, not at all. Observing things falling on the Earth had nothing to do with his equations. The apple was a myth and even worse you are describing Galilean gravity, not Newtonian. Newton got his equations from the orbits of planets.

A myth with value. You understood my reference and idea immediately.

Yes, I quite often admit when I am wrong. But since you are the one denying science it appears that you are in a cult. Do you not know that most Christians do not believe the myths of Genesis? It is not required to do so to be a Christain.

i agree with science. I disagree with many conclusions of scientists. Do you see the difference?

I have many things to say to those Christians as well. But why are you deflecting?

Now you can't make up your mind.

I have not changed my stance at all. Please show me where I have.

No, observations come before the hypothesis. This is not my definition. It is the definition of scientists.

So you call it observation... but is not that observation a form of evidence? What is the event is non repeatable? We observe an accident... but we can not repeat it. We can duplicate it maybe... but not repeat it. Is the observation of the accident not evidence?