- Joined
- Sep 3, 2018
- Messages
- 30,122
- Reaction score
- 3,395
- Location
- Meridian, Idaho
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I don't know. Neither do you.
Non Sequitur
I don't know. Neither do you.
Correct David, you do not know. But you ASSUME that I do not know.
I do not wish to educate you above the elementary things you know about science.
This is simple to know.
What explains buoyancy? Do not look it up if you do not know. If you are half as smart as you talk like you are, you will know very fast.
Non Sequitur
You are wrong about what an argument appealing to authority is. Already went through this with another poster who was wrong about it. According to the both of you, it makes virtually every argument an appeal to authority. That is an absurdity. Not going through that dance again.
Every scientific theory is not based on axioms. Theoretical physics uses axioms. Evolutionary theory does not. They are not the same.
Your chosen source called evolution a fact. Take it up with them.
Evolution
in other words, going forward, your dishonesty will be more blatant than usual. No one is required to play your debating games. You don't set the rules.
Apparently you are ignorant of these two types of science.
Do you even know what theoretical physics is?
Theoretical physics
Its theories are derived quite differently from evolutionary theory.
It doesn't really matter if anyone "believes" in evolution or not. It does not change the facts that support that it occurs and has occurred. The facts of evolution are not up for popular vote any more than any other scientific facts.
I don't know. Neither do you.
And there we have it David, see my bolded text above - now you're beginning to see things as I see them.
It is true, that pretty much every argument we make about science is rooted in an appeal to authority, it has to be, unless we have direct experience of the experimental and theoretical aspects of the argument we simply have to base our position on external sources.
There is nothing controversial or unreasonable about this, it is your denial of it that I take issue with.
I disagree, every proposition is in fact based on axioms, until you really appreciate this you'll continue to disagree with me and you'll be wrong.
Yes I know that, I cited the source because I agree with their drawing a distinction between axioms and theories that's why I cited them, citing some article does not amount to a blanket agreement with everything that source may have said in the past or might say in the future.
Claiming some purported process is a "fact" technically means one cannot question the claims made about the process, I do not regard that as conducive to the honest pursuit of scientific truth, everything must be open to question, to scrutiny.
So it could have been a supernatural event.
Of course evolution is not a fact...otherwise there would not be so much controversy over it...
Theory...facts = oxymoron...There is no scientific controversy over evolution. The only so-called controversy comes from those who ignore the facts of the theory.
David are there any claims made by any evolutionist that might be wrong?
Your position has to be "no" because you regard it as a fact.
But I do not see how you can claim that everything written about evolution by every writer on evolution is by definition true simply because "evolution" is true.
This is quite ridiculous.
Theory...facts = oxymoron...
I'm setting this rule.
Because science is always changing because man's knowledge is limited, unlike God's...You plainly do not understand what scientific theories are. There can't be a scientific theory with facts.
That's because "evolutionary theory" is too grandiose a term for it.
And there we have it David, see my bolded text above - now you're beginning to see things as I see them.
It is true, that pretty much every argument we make about science is rooted in an appeal to authority, it has to be, unless we have direct experience of the experimental and theoretical aspects of the argument we simply have to base our position on external sources.
There is nothing controversial or unreasonable about this, it is your denial of it that I take issue with.
I disagree, every proposition is in fact based on axioms, until you really appreciate this you'll continue to disagree with me and you'll be wrong.
Yes I know that, I cited the source because I agree with their drawing a distinction between axioms and theories that's why I cited them, citing some article does not amount to a blanket agreement with everything that source may have said in the past or might say in the future.
Claiming some purported process is a "fact" technically means one cannot question the claims made about the process, I do not regard that as conducive to the honest pursuit of scientific truth, everything must be open to question, to scrutiny.
Because science is always changing because man's knowledge is limited, unlike God's...
this kind of theory https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theoryThere is a growing tendency to refer to the theory of evolution as not a theory at all, but a fact.
This has permeated the literature more and more over the past few decades and is now taken for granted by many people, it is now quite acceptable even in scholarly discourse to describe evolution as a fact.
Here is an article devoted to this, it strives to justify this label, here are some quotes:
and
and
Richard Dawkins is also on record in this regard:
Can a fact ever be questioned? Well it seems not, note the qualification we see in these quotes "beyond reasonable dispute" (it would be unreasonable to dispute it) and "would be perverse to [with]hold assent" (it would be perversion to dispute it) and "beyond sane doubt" and "beyond informed doubt".
Clearly in the minds of these writers only an unreasonable person, a perverse person, an uninformed, unintelligent person would dispute evolution.
The effect of this is of course to discourage dissent, if one did ever find a reason to dispute evolution then one could not express that because only a perverse, uninformed idiot would ever do that!
Welcome to Kafkaesque world that evolution has grown into, claiming to be science it is dogma. When dissent is discouraged then truth is trampled, when the edicts of those in authority ("the experts") prevent the free expression of ideas then truth is trampled.
This is the real perversion, the unwillingness to be open to question, the insistence that one must agree to be regarded as intelligent, the obsession with eliminating doubt.
This is why I abandoned atheism and later evolution, it is based on fear, fear of disagreeing, fear of questioning, this is not science this is exactly how Galileo was treated, human nature has not changed, just the cloak that it drapes itself in.