There you go. What is observed, hypothesized and theorized about evolution within science is compatible with the scientific method.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There you go. What is observed, hypothesized and theorized about evolution within science is compatible with the scientific method.
I am actually reading the article you linked. It doesn't seem that you did. It mentions the "scientific theory of evolution". I love your self-refuting style. It is so economical and time saving.
Well that certainly is your view or opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, just as others are.Pseudo? Like YEC or ID? I prefer to call those pseudo-sciences what they really are.
YEC and ID are pseudosciences. They fit within the descriptions that are found in the link you provided. You really didn't read it all did you. Of course not.Well that certainly is your view or opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, just as others are.
Scientists themselves have called the various ideas, beliefs, statements and practices claimed by other scientists to be scientific, what it rightly is - pseudo science, because there is no scientific method that can be applied to the guesses.
Do you also call it as it is, when it involves those things you believe. Or do you still refer to them, as science science?
For example, a hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.
When these ideas are presented as fact, and scientific, with no way of testing them, and observing any reality, but merely giving ones opinions on what one thinks, do you call that science science?
Perhaps you can explain the difference between what you consider pseudoscience, and science science.
I'm wondering too, why you would consider something to be true, based on reasoning, when scientist (A) carry it out, as opposed to reasoning on the part of other scientists (B).
For example, say you repeat an experiment, and there is general agreement on the conclusions. Then later, those conclusions are overturned, do you feel comfortable with that method of "empiricism"?
If current conclusions are later overturned by scientific methodology I can accept it.Well that certainly is your view or opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, just as others are.
Scientists themselves have called the various ideas, beliefs, statements and practices claimed by other scientists to be scientific, what it rightly is - pseudo science, because there is no scientific method that can be applied to the guesses.
Do you also call it as it is, when it involves those things you believe. Or do you still refer to them, as science science?
For example, a hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.
When these ideas are presented as fact, and scientific, with no way of testing them, and observing any reality, but merely giving ones opinions on what one thinks, do you call that science science?
Perhaps you can explain the difference between what you consider pseudoscience, and science science.
I'm wondering too, why you would consider something to be true, based on reasoning, when scientist (A) carry it out, as opposed to reasoning on the part of other scientists (B).
For example, say you repeat an experiment, and there is general agreement on the conclusions. Then later, those conclusions are overturned, do you feel comfortable with that method of "empiricism"?
"Scientific Methodology" is apparently not considered to be such by all scientists. So I guess it's opinions of people that determines what is. Thus science science apparently is pseudoscience to some scientists. While what may be viewed as pseudoscience, isn't distinguishable from science science.If current conclusions are later overturned by scientific methodology I can accept it.
Ok."Scientific Methodology" is apparently not considered to be such by all scientists. So I guess it's opinions of people that determines what is. Thus science science apparently is pseudoscience to some scientists. While what may be viewed as pseudoscience, isn't distinguishable from science science.
Do you have records or any evidence of your claim? Have you shown that the theory of evolution is pseudoscience? So far you never have."Scientific Methodology" is apparently not considered to be such by all scientists. So I guess it's opinions of people that determines what is. Thus science science apparently is pseudoscience to some scientists. While what may be viewed as pseudoscience, isn't distinguishable from science science.
I know thatThey're not suggesting the skull is a half dragon and half humanoid. It's just an elongated humanoid skull found in China. This dragon man.
Hey I was thinking about this today, sometimes I do think y'know. And I was thinking if only there were motion pictures showing the birth, I mean, emergence, ok evolution, of cells changing into a different species.Do you have records or any evidence of your claim? Have you shown that the theory of evolution is pseudoscience? So far you never have.
I have heard people make the same comments about biblical creation, biblical miracles or the life of Christ. Besides the continued use of your straw man version of evolution (I am certain you have claimed to have studied this in the past), what is your point?Hey I was thinking about this today, sometimes I do think y'know. And I was thinking if only there were motion pictures showing the birth, I mean, emergence, ok evolution, of cells changing into a different species.
LOL, again -- humans with different shaped eyes do not mean evolve to different species. Y'all are really sompin. That's facts, that this Dinoman wore pants? LOLOL...(man o man) He needed to cover up his lower parts, lolol...guess the artist didn't think it was that warm, huh. You guys are somthin. What I see is a horrible attempt to justify the Darwinian theory at any cost.Oh sure, throw facts in there that make sense.
You are something. What I see is a person that does not understand the science, but rejects it all at any cost in favor of a man-made doctrine that they decided to believe as real.LOL, again -- humans with different shaped eyes do not mean evolve to different species. Y'all are really sompin. That's facts, that this Dinoman wore pants? LOLOL...(man o man) He needed to cover up his lower parts, lolol...guess the artist didn't think it was that warm, huh. You guys are somthin. What I see is a horrible attempt to justify the Darwinian theory at any cost.
I suppose you wanted to seem a picture of him hanging out?LOL, again -- humans with different shaped eyes do not mean evolve to different species. Y'all are really sompin. That's facts, that this Dinoman wore pants? LOLOL...(man o man) He needed to cover up his lower parts, lolol...guess the artist didn't think it was that warm, huh. You guys are somthin. What I see is a horrible attempt to justify the Darwinian theory at any cost.
Too bad the warm weather animals haven't figured to make coats, lol, while they're in their same species, of course, if the climate changes. And, of course, do you say the facts are that this dinoman wore pants over his lower parts?Oh sure, throw facts in there that make sense.
Is it consistant with the dinoman's skull part that he wore pants? People have pets and most don't cover them up. Zoos have gorillas with their "lower parts" hanging out. So why not dinoman?I suppose you wanted to seem a picture of him hanging out?
The climate of the area where the skull was found has been pointed out to you already. The fact that similar remains have been found in parts of the world with similar climates seems to have escaped your notice. The fact that naked humans are not found running around in cold climates is another fact to have escaped your notice. That public representations of people are commonly covered in the US media is yet another fact that has gone over your head. What about the history of drawing similar individuals. Were they clothed. Yes they were. The addition of clothing caters to our cultural expectations more than saying anything about how the actual individual existed in life.Is it consistant with the dinoman's skull part that he wore pants? People have pets and most don't cover them up. Zoos have gorillas with their "lower parts" hanging out. So why not dinoman?
What is it with you and this subject? I can determine no validity for your enthusiasm or reasoning here. What is it you think you are saying with this obsession over the artistic rendering?Too bad the warm weather animals haven't figured to make coats, lol, while they're in their same species, of course, if the climate changes. And, of course, do you say the facts are that this dinoman wore pants over his lower parts?