Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
10 May 2008, 5:58 pm
10 May 2008, 5:58 pm
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
10 May 2008, 5:59 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Even without the just-so stories, cladograms, homoplasies being called homologies, and all the rest, biology would be a study of natural economics. Biology would still make sense even outside of the unnecessary misotheistic-evolutionary framework.
well get right on winning your nobel prize with coming up with an alternative SCIENTIFIC THEORY that explains how everything came to be.
Even if it's non-naturalistic? Or is that a prerequisite?
S-C-I-E-N-T-I-F-I-C ............. that's the prerequisite.
Whose definition of SCIENTIA do you accept?
better go check your other thread to see if anyone has defined science for you
10 May 2008, 6:00 pm
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 May 2008, 6:04 pm
Sedaka wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Gromit wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
misotheistic-evolutionary framework
I keep hearing that evolution is opposed to God, but haven't yet seen any evidence for it. Can you provide that evidence?
How about most of the threads on PPR and most of the posts made by anti-theists? If you can't see the link, it is not my fault.
Hello there, just in case you wanted some evidence that evolution is NOT opposed to God.
Yes, but you're not consistent.
Feel free to point out any inconsistencies. Heck, you're the one who alternately says "evolution is bull," and "I accept evolution." How have I been inconsistent?
I accept the scientific aspects of evolutionary theory, I just don't accept the bull of a storyline some evolutionists try to feed the public via books, TV, movies, textbooks, teachers, etc. I'm not accepting it based on popularity, authority, but only what is actually falsifiable compared to that which fluffs up the story to make it fun.
im still waiting for you to state in a sentence what these things you believe about evolution are... or these non-facts you keep referring to... i don't care what other people there are out there who say it's BS.... in your own words... summarize what is wrong with evolution.
What I accept: natural selection acting on mutations, new species do arise, etcetera. Id est, what is observable and testable.
What I cannot accept: cladograms, homoplasies being passed off as homologies, etc. Id est, anything which is non-falsifiable.
cladograms aren't even directly the theory of evolution... they're more like proposed geneology trees (and yes, they're testable with MATH, though we can't and DONT claim 100% accuracy... cause you can't... but it's the best most "parsimonious" presentation).......... so you're saying that you DO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION now though.... eventhough it contradicts the bible?
and it's not the GOAL of evolution to pass of homoplasy as homolgy. im sure sometimes we get it wrong (but then, i'm sure we get it wrong the other way around too)... but we use the best knowledge we can... from MANY MANY directions... trying to piece together the best picture. are you saying you don't believe in homology at all? if so, how can you "believe in evolution" then?
and how do you think demonstrating that these new observable species should be tested?
Re: homologies
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=c7lnLCatp64[/youtube]
10 May 2008, 6:06 pm
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 May 2008, 6:07 pm
10 May 2008, 6:08 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Even without the just-so stories, cladograms, homoplasies being called homologies, and all the rest, biology would be a study of natural economics. Biology would still make sense even outside of the unnecessary misotheistic-evolutionary framework.
well get right on winning your nobel prize with coming up with an alternative SCIENTIFIC THEORY that explains how everything came to be.
Even if it's non-naturalistic? Or is that a prerequisite?
S-C-I-E-N-T-I-F-I-C ............. that's the prerequisite.
Whose definition of SCIENTIA do you accept?
Why not use your own definition? Of what is observable, testable, and falsifiable. That's what you gave a few posts ago.
Which puts god out of the equation...
He wants to put god in a scientific paper, yet by his own admission god can not fit into the criteria of scientific.
If inference is allowed, then God's existence can be shown. Otherwise, no.
:jaw drops again:
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 May 2008, 6:09 pm
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
10 May 2008, 6:09 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Gromit wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
misotheistic-evolutionary framework
I keep hearing that evolution is opposed to God, but haven't yet seen any evidence for it. Can you provide that evidence?
How about most of the threads on PPR and most of the posts made by anti-theists? If you can't see the link, it is not my fault.
Hello there, just in case you wanted some evidence that evolution is NOT opposed to God.
Yes, but you're not consistent.
Feel free to point out any inconsistencies. Heck, you're the one who alternately says "evolution is bull," and "I accept evolution." How have I been inconsistent?
I accept the scientific aspects of evolutionary theory, I just don't accept the bull of a storyline some evolutionists try to feed the public via books, TV, movies, textbooks, teachers, etc. I'm not accepting it based on popularity, authority, but only what is actually falsifiable compared to that which fluffs up the story to make it fun.
im still waiting for you to state in a sentence what these things you believe about evolution are... or these non-facts you keep referring to... i don't care what other people there are out there who say it's BS.... in your own words... summarize what is wrong with evolution.
What I accept: natural selection acting on mutations, new species do arise, etcetera. Id est, what is observable and testable.
What I cannot accept: cladograms, homoplasies being passed off as homologies, etc. Id est, anything which is non-falsifiable.
cladograms aren't even directly the theory of evolution... they're more like proposed geneology trees (and yes, they're testable with MATH, though we can't and DONT claim 100% accuracy... cause you can't... but it's the best most "parsimonious" presentation).......... so you're saying that you DO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION now though.... eventhough it contradicts the bible?
and it's not the GOAL of evolution to pass of homoplasy as homolgy. im sure sometimes we get it wrong (but then, i'm sure we get it wrong the other way around too)... but we use the best knowledge we can... from MANY MANY directions... trying to piece together the best picture. are you saying you don't believe in homology at all? if so, how can you "believe in evolution" then?
and how do you think demonstrating that these new observable species should be tested?
Re: homologies
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=c7lnLCatp64[/youtube]
hate to break it to you.... but we do have a common ancestor with BANANAS
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 May 2008, 6:10 pm
Kalister1 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Even without the just-so stories, cladograms, homoplasies being called homologies, and all the rest, biology would be a study of natural economics. Biology would still make sense even outside of the unnecessary misotheistic-evolutionary framework.
well get right on winning your nobel prize with coming up with an alternative SCIENTIFIC THEORY that explains how everything came to be.
Even if it's non-naturalistic? Or is that a prerequisite?
S-C-I-E-N-T-I-F-I-C ............. that's the prerequisite.
Whose definition of SCIENTIA do you accept?
Why not use your own definition? Of what is observable, testable, and falsifiable. That's what you gave a few posts ago.
Which puts god out of the equation...
He wants to put god in a scientific paper, yet by his own admission god can not fit into the criteria of scientific.
If inference is allowed, then God's existence can be shown. Otherwise, no.
:jaw drops again:
And you are like a constant value function.
10 May 2008, 6:11 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Even without the just-so stories, cladograms, homoplasies being called homologies, and all the rest, biology would be a study of natural economics. Biology would still make sense even outside of the unnecessary misotheistic-evolutionary framework.
well get right on winning your nobel prize with coming up with an alternative SCIENTIFIC THEORY that explains how everything came to be.
Even if it's non-naturalistic? Or is that a prerequisite?
S-C-I-E-N-T-I-F-I-C ............. that's the prerequisite.
Whose definition of SCIENTIA do you accept?
Why not use your own definition? Of what is observable, testable, and falsifiable. That's what you gave a few posts ago.
Which puts god out of the equation...
He wants to put god in a scientific paper, yet by his own admission god can not fit into the criteria of scientific.
If inference is allowed, then God's existence can be shown. Otherwise, no.
:jaw drops again:
And you are like a constant value function.
I could say the same about you, and my observation would at least be true.
10 May 2008, 6:12 pm
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
10 May 2008, 6:13 pm
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 May 2008, 6:15 pm
10 May 2008, 6:16 pm
