johnson1010 wrote:Ina you FACE dexter!
haha
Scrumfish is right.
For Scrumfish, I didn't indicate it but everyone who knew me understood it was a lame attempt at sarcasm
In total there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm
johnson1010 wrote:Ina you FACE dexter!
haha
Scrumfish is right.
Hehe, I was absolutely not trying to be in your face. And yeah, I've been a member of the forum for years but have been inactive for quite a few years. I'm dipping my toes back in the waters because it's nice to be able to discuss things from the perspective of evolution as a fact without having to argue it all the time and really enjoy that about this forum. Hopefully I'll stick around long enough to enjoy your sarcastic wit. I'm a bit sarcastic myself and have to watch out for that when dealing in text format! That and my giant potty mouth.Dexter wrote:johnson1010 wrote:Ina you FACE dexter!
haha
Scrumfish is right.
For Scrumfish, I didn't indicate it but everyone who knew me understood it was a lame attempt at sarcasm
Still holding out on evolution?ant wrote:No way of knowing because evolution essentially describes what is seen and pieces together what was.
It is descriptive more than it is predictive. Good theories are predictive and based on mathematics.
At what point did hominids become human and was that a predictable occurrence?
It sounds like you are implying that evolution is therefore not a "good theory."ant wrote:No way of knowing because evolution essentially describes what is seen and pieces together what was.
It is descriptive more than it is predictive. Good theories are predictive and based on mathematics.
At what point did hominids become human and was that a predictable occurrence?
I appreciate your balanced responses, DWill. And I agree with what you wrote.DWill wrote:It's very true that evolution is in general descriptive rather than predictive. Would any biologist disagree with that? But its inability to be significantly predictive doesn't make it a "bad" theory. It's just the nature of this particular study. Theories have different areas of strength.
We can't possibly predict what the next "step" in our evolution might be, if there is one.
Im not making anything "sound" bad.Dexter wrote:It sounds like you are implying that evolution is therefore not a "good theory."ant wrote:No way of knowing because evolution essentially describes what is seen and pieces together what was.
It is descriptive more than it is predictive. Good theories are predictive and based on mathematics.
At what point did hominids become human and was that a predictable occurrence?
Perhaps you can help me with reading comprehension. Was this not your implication?
Let me help you with your own logic. You have a short memory and poor reasoning skills.ant wrote: Im not making anything "sound" bad.
ant wrote:Good theories are predictive and based on mathematics.
Implied conclusion: Evolution is not a good theory.ant wrote:Evolution is not mathematically predictive.