- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That isn’t what “subjective” means.
T
Techno2000
Guest
And it can mean God used the earth to make them also.
B
Bradskii
Guest
C’mon, Techno. I need to know if you agree or not so we can continue.Techno2000:
There is no comparison to how society operates. We are talking about nature. If you were a dog and needed food, would you eat the chickens that were easy to catch or the ones that were difficult? It’s an easy answer as I’m sure you’d agree. It’s literally the survival of the fittest.Bradskii:
You are looking at this through the lens of how man treats man in this society. People stepping on people to get to the top.The poor and weak cast aside for the rich and powerful.Darwin and you are trying to extrapolate and apply this to the animal kingdom. There were no worse flyers and half ass runners. Everything was created to fill it’s own niche in Nature.
So don’t head off and try to work in social Darwinisn. We are talking just dogs and chickens. No hidden philosophical meanings here.
And I’m pretty sure that you know where the arms race between these two creatures might end up. With dogs that are much better climbers than their ancestors and chooks that can fly a lot better than theirs.
Now there is nothing I have said at any point that is any way unreasonable or can in any way be described as speciation. It is STILL dogs and chickens.
Do you abree?
L
LateCatholic
Guest
Scientism has nothing to do with the correctness of the Theory of Evolution, just as gout has nothing to do with the quality of a recipe.
What you may mean to say is that there are plenty of reasons to doubt the scientific method. If there are, please identify one. The scientific method refers to the process of developing a theory, then testing its predictions by gathering evidence or solving its equations and comparing to real-world behavior. What about this process do you reject, and why?
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
Science is the study of natural events. Why would God need to be mentioned?
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Because He brings everything into existence, in all its diversity, each individual constituent doing His bidding, in accordance with the nature He has given them, all testifying to His glory. When we do science in the next world, if not in the future here, that’s how it will be done.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
The Theory of Evolution is an affront to the scientific method is what is being stated and restated. In that respect it is like string theory, but no one cares about that because that Theory has no Implications in regards to who we are and our relationship with God. If one believes that life is a random event and that natural selection is the sculptor if mankind, it will reflect on what one does, which is crucial to who we become for all eternity.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
“Subjective” does not mean “close.”
T
Techno2000
Guest
I understand and agree with the concept only as far as selective breeding goes, not
the morphing into completely new species. Plus there’s no fossil records to back that up. And what you say is survival of the fittest, I call it a food chain.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
I stand corrected. Can you point me to it?
Ussher of course is the usual source for those who choose to believe that the universe was created in 4004 BC. He couldn’t get that simply from the Bible because there is no continuous Biblical chronology. He used his very considerable scholarship to create what he believed was a chronology of all human history, from Biblical and extrabiblical sources, to use as a kind of trellis. Where his world chronology and his Bible chronology coincided he fixed one to the other.
Still that didn’t fill all the gaps, and he had to resort to interpretation of Biblical symbolism (ie he didn’t restrict himself to what you might call a “literal” reading of the Bible).
His problem, of course, was that the historical method was a quite inadequate tool for studying prehistory. Fortunately we have better tools today.
Ussher of course is the usual source for those who choose to believe that the universe was created in 4004 BC. He couldn’t get that simply from the Bible because there is no continuous Biblical chronology. He used his very considerable scholarship to create what he believed was a chronology of all human history, from Biblical and extrabiblical sources, to use as a kind of trellis. Where his world chronology and his Bible chronology coincided he fixed one to the other.
Still that didn’t fill all the gaps, and he had to resort to interpretation of Biblical symbolism (ie he didn’t restrict himself to what you might call a “literal” reading of the Bible).
His problem, of course, was that the historical method was a quite inadequate tool for studying prehistory. Fortunately we have better tools today.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Let’s review:
You said:
I said:
I understand why you would want to focus on what I was not challenging. But the fact remains that you used the term “subjective” incorrectly to discredit DNA similarities.
A
anon65111186
Guest
Being near in relationship: close relatives
Nearly equal, nearly the same : a close match
Closeness for ancestors is all based on DNA and anatomical similarities.
Do you want a quantity? There are plenty of studies that quantify the DNA proximity for each species if you look it up yourself.
B
buffalo
Guest
It has to be observable, repeatable and predictable. Evolution is in the camp of historical science.
‘Nearly’
By whose standard?
Sorry, but you can’t claim as proof something that is not precise.
Nearly is entirely subjective.
You may think these codes to be nearly the same.
Others may see the difference and say they are different.
Still others may look at the end product and say 'not even close.
By whose standard?
Sorry, but you can’t claim as proof something that is not precise.
Nearly is entirely subjective.
You may think these codes to be nearly the same.
Others may see the difference and say they are different.
Still others may look at the end product and say 'not even close.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The Higgs boson is “proven” to exist by observations that only approximately indicate its presence. It is a mistake to equate the proof of a scientific theory with the proof of a theorem in geometry.
A
anon65111186
Guest
Is $1.99 nearly $2 or is $1.89 nearly $2? Both are nearly $2, and both are somewhat subjective. Whether such a judgement would be invalid because of subjectivity would be hard to argue.
I think any reasonable person would agree that both are close to $2. In the same way, a reasonable person would say our DNA ancestors (homo naledi, homo erectus) are close to us.
That judgement is based on the amount of DNA that is similar, within the defined range of homo sapiens sapiens. Not all homo sapiens have exactly the same DNA mind you, so DNA wise, homo sapiens is, taking your stance, a subjectively defined term.
Last edited:
- Status