continued Quote:
Originally Posted by nkgupta80  No, because genetic differences show only one line of evolution, there isn't much room for interpretation. You are right that if we still followed Darwin's methods of relating species, we'd be running into a lot of problems. We'd probably try relating fish and whales as more related than whales and other mammals. Phenotypes aren't hardfast like genotypes. By examining genes we see only one set of relations and very little confusion. |
WHERE IS THE ONLY ONE, ONE, justone LINE IN THE SQURE AND THE TRIANGLE?
What is No? Do you disagree that genetic drift is the process of change in allele frequencies that occurs entirely from chance? Do you disagree that in the Pinnet square and Da Fenitti triangle there is no coordinate of environment, no line of genetic isolation (speciation)? And where am I right? And where is your claim about the relation between the genetic drift and natural selection? Bingo. You have your own theory of evolution, which is different from others theories here and you have dropped it after I have pointed the contradiction of it to mathematics of genetics. I have no intention to try to figure out your new statement, I never was right in what you claim I was right, I was not even there at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkgupta80 This last part got me kinda confused (i haven't quoted your whole post). Are you saying that hypotheses are not necessary? Or are they invalid? Or unprovable? I agree that I said that scientists hypothesize and continue to hypothesize. But they also test them. whats so hard about that. |
It is not what I am saying, it is what the scientific method is saying, and it is not saying what you are reciting, but exactly what it is saying. You see it is like I have a measure, a ruler, the 4 rules, all I have been doing is applying it, - no thinking or invention needed, - to see how far you are away from science. Take the ruler and measure any statement of yours by yourself to see exactly what would be my answer.
But again I can give it all to you, put your cross shoes on and tie up my feet. You can hypotheses or theorize, or use any loose semantic you want, and you can test, but until your can demonstrate your tests proving your hypothesis or theories, please, do not come to me with them as with any kind of scientific or useful truth.
Moreover, I may entertain even an untested hypothesis but only on 3 conditions 1. It has to be logical, or as you have said it has to be expressed mathematically so that I can appreciate the beauty of your imagination. 2. It should not take more than 25 pages altogether, anything more than that would make your imagination ugly.3. It must not contradict laws of physics.
Evolution has never hold up to these requirements.
If it isn’t mathematical it is not logical in science. Species that look different to you may look similar to me, - as I always say evolution is in the eye of the beholder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkgupta80 The last sentence again kinda alludes to the nature of reason. Yes there are different logical systems, but once they start conflicting drastically, you have a problem. The logic that goes into natural selection and evolution is NOT different from the logic that goes into every other science. Now if you accept science as a study, if you accept its results, then you accept the logic behind it. You live in a society where technology created from scientific models is all around you and you constantly use it. If you deny that the logic behind those models produced valid results, then you're living in conflict. |
Again, science studies nature. Nature does not follow human logic. Nature and you, -who did create whom? It is as simple as that. Logic of all other science, including technology is known as mathematics. That used to be the bare minimum I used to ask evolutionists for in the beginning. Now I am not even asking for that minimum, I will do it myself, I am asking for something I can do math about…
As to the process of scientific thinking, I am afraid you have been confusing with the scientific method, – there is no rules, you can hypothesize, hypnotize, use imagination as Einstein, fantasize, use logic, get drunk, do whatever you want in your head. Many say that logic is of no help, opinions and methods vary greatly…
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkgupta80 BTW, you keep saying you have to repeat your posts. I've read your posts, and a lot of it doesn't make sense, and it is hard to argue with out bringing some of those topics up. So it is better that if we have a debate here, we debate step by step. You argue, i refute, i argue, you refute. If need be that you need to repeat something, you gotta do it, sry about that. |
As a lot of it does not make sense, then it is exactly what I am asking you to do, in order to spare my time, and I really should stop, - you take the most nonsensical statements of mine and kill me quickly…
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkgupta80 One final question: why do you find evolution so hard to accept? Evolution doesn't disprove god (even in Acquinas' proofs), it just shows that the Christian version of creation is wrong, which Acquinas did not prove haha. It was actually the Christian thinker St. Augustine that said wonderfully(Its funny how you put christian scientist infront of everyone ): |
You see whether it is old posts or new posts you are not following your own ‘’You argue, i refute, i argue, you refute’’. I do not put CC scientist in front of everyone. Did I ever put CC in front of Einstein or Feynman? I put CC only in front of CC scientists. You cannot debate like this…I am sorry if I have to leave, I really have some other things to do…
What is Christian version of creation and what is evolutionist version of creation?
No science can disprove G-d, as well no science can prove G-d, G-d is not in the scientific domain at all just by definition. Who did create whom?
Let’s look at the problem. We know that science exists. We don’t know if G-d exists. There are 2 variants.
1. G-d does not exist. So we have science that exists on the left and nothing that exists on the right. Can science prove or disprove nothing existing?
2. G-d exists. We have science that exists on the left and G-d who exists on the right. Who has capability to prove or disprove whom, who is the almighty?
The theorem that ‘’No science can disprove G-d, and as well no science can prove G-d’’ is proven unless you have some different answers to the questions. Now let’s polish it and do it in math…. I am getting carried away…
Did not I say that I used to believe in G-d and in some kind of a version of evolution in the same way as SD and you believe in your own versions? I believed that evolution was some kind of a science I did not know too much about. My belief in G-d did not improve when all evolutionists convinced me that evolution was not science. When I came on DP I did not know that, but after debating with evolutionists I am fully convinced now. My belief in G-d has not changed, in the same way as my understanding of science has not changed even a bit since I have became a Christian.
It is another proof #1000001 that any time when one criticizes evolution the evolutionists spin into considerations of one’s personal views and beliefs away from science. This is another proof that evolution is not science.
I do not mind to accept evolution in exchange for your love, I do not mind to announce it publicly if it pleases you, darling, but I would have to announce it as my personal belief I have no proof for within realms of science.
Yardbirds | For Your Love Lyrics