- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Messages
- 34,953
- Reaction score
- 5,487
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Wow, what are you talking about? How does any of that address what I said?
Read #347 again.
Wow, what are you talking about? How does any of that address what I said?
The numerous complex, varying, and shifting hypotheses.
Explanations are not evidences. Of course we're talking about macro-evolution.
Anyway, Occam's razor is not irrefutable, I think?
I would like you define how you are using some terms.
What do you mean Occam's razor is, and how does it apply to this discussion.
Can you explain, in your own words, what the relationship of 'macro-evolution' to the biological version of evolution, I would like to see evidence that you had a clue about what you are talking about.
If you're quick, you'd see that Occam's razor was already explained. Though not explicitly explained - the way it was delivered is easy to deduce what it is. Why don't you backtrack?
Hint: #335
Sorry. That you have to ask me to explain Occam's razor is dead give-away why I shouldn't bother proving myself to you. Not only that, you even asked how it applies to this topic!
WHO BROUGHT UP OCCAM'S RAZOR? :lol:
I don't need your validation, thank you.
Fine tuned for what? For us? That does deserve some silly emoticons.
335 merely refers to it. It does not explain it, or show an understanding of it. What part of 'why don't you define it, and descibe what it says so I know you understand what you are talking about' don't you understand??
I want to make sure you actually understand the terms you are throwing around. It is not enough to throw terms around if they are misapplied, because they are not being understood. I do not see any evidence that you actually understand what those terms are referring to.
Her reactions are simply a way to distract from the original question. She's not interested in a conversation but a verbal sparing match. I for one have had my fill.
What is there to explain? That conversation was between me and another poster - and there was a reason why I talked about Occam's razor. It was a response to another's. You're butting in into something that doesn't really concern you, actually.....and as you yourself asked, how does this apply to the topic?
Perhaps you should direct your question to the one who brought it up in the first place? You're barking at the wrong tree.
If #335 isn't clear enough for you, perhaps you ought to research about it.
Why do I have to prove myself to you? Like I said, I don't need your validation.
If you're obsessing with Occam's razor - then start your own thread devoted to it. That way, you can show us through your OP how much you know about it.
Challenging someone to explain what she understands about it, isn't evidence that you, yourself, know anything about it at all.
Actually, chances are you don't. ESPECIALLY, after you commented on #335, and the questions you just asked. :lol:
What I'd stated about it, is there - it explains. In a nutshell.
The follow-up posts also show how I was applying it!
However, you can't deduce from those explanations - well, that's not my problem anymore. By your insistence for "detailed" explanation, you prove that the problem is with your understanding, not mine.
Btw, do you know what "deduce" means?
Anyway, I don't have to spoon-feed you, and I don't care what you think of me. Take it or leave it.
Bye-bye for now, Ramoss...... until you've got something worth responding to.