21 Jun '05 10:14>
Originally posted by bbarrHow do you know that I don't understand it? 😉
How do you know that you understand the post to which you are responding?
Originally posted by ColettiDo you ever read dj2's posts? This is the crux of his argument: even if macroevolution occurs, we must reject it because it does not explain where inorganic matter came from. Without this as a foundation, the theory is unfounded.
No foundation??? What do you mean?
Originally posted by dj2beckerHmm . . . I guess you won't be using anymore arguments from Michael Behe (i.e. irreducible complexity) since he accepts common ancestry of all species (including humans and great apes).
[b]We share common ancestors with others in the great apes.
Evolutionists, or everybody? Include yourself. Please leave me out of it.
Besides, how do you know that you share a common ancestor with any of the great apes?[/b]
Originally posted by telerionOK. So abiogenesis would be a foundation of Macroevolution. I'd say it's a necessary prior assumption. It would seem that establishing the validity abiogenesis is a critical requirement to justifying the belief in evolution. So if you admit that this is lacking (that evolution lacks a foundation) then I can see no reason why anyone would consider it a scientific fact.
Do you ever read dj2's posts? This is the crux of his argument: even if macroevolution occurs, we must reject it because it does not explain where inorganic matter came from. Without this as a foundation, the theory is unfounded.
Originally posted by frogstompYou've got that backwards. Falsifiable mean being able to disprove. A good scientific theory should have some testable criteria by which the theory can be disproved. By having that criteria, and showing that the tests fail, it gives strength to the theory, and avoids the adoption of false theories.
You confuse "falsifiable" with not being disproved. "Cannot disprove it" is not the same as not being falsifiable.
What you are showing is your woeful lack of understanding of the scientific method.
And the Naturalism as religion idea is simply ludicrious. ...