Search results

I didn’t see it . That thread got closed, so I stopped reading it. it was not answered by the OP. My rhetoric is scientific, you can keep “infantile.” That is your last insult to me, if you cannot post without insult, don’t expect a conversation you illustrate a problem however: , Darwin did...

Of course abiogenesis is within the scope of science to study. The first problem in studying it is definition of ”life” which is profound and difficult. But other threads were commenting instead , on an unspecified amorphous” theory of evolution” , indeed questioning whether it is “ just a...

Having established the posters on the other thread don’t understand the SCIENTIFIC meaning of the word theory, and the posters all seem to believe in a non existent single theory of evolution that somehow explains life, what’s the point in this thread? If you want to discuss it first state...

I don’t have a minority view , unless you mean that those who understand such as Darwin are a minority on forums like this. I hold the views of science. As a one time director of science companies and institutes its hardly a surprise. I also know the scope of science. What it can answer - what...

So someone who starts a thread “ just a theory” clearly doesnt see, to know what a theory is! ( In science not atheist wish believe terms ) Worse than that on an evolution thread that you appear to have no idea what darwins thesis was - the scope and Whether it qualified as hypothesis or...

Nope. Just an ex scientist who wants to talk science, not atheist wish believe. So you cannot state darwins conjecture with precision? how DARE you post on an evolution thread?, if you don’t even know that much? if you mean by hijack ” introduce science in place of atheist wish believe”. Guilty,

Let’s see if you can answer the question I posed let’s see what you know - what was Darwin’s conjecture in origin of species - and did it qualify as a hypothesus or theory? what did darwin say would falsify his conjecture, and has it happened? Answer with science please.

But as a result you are exposed to widely publicised myths and supposition for which actual evidence is lacking. Like Abiogenesus as a start of life. Nothing but suposition. or the supposition that the modern cell evolved from something much simpler that could result from just chemistry. but...

spare us the generality. what precisely is the hypothesis you claim is proven experimentally - so is therefore in your opinion a theory. comment on the science , not the poster.

Then tell me your theory of evolution, you claim is true. Simple. the onus is on you to support your views ,particularly when they fly in the face of science - as is the idea of a single wide ranging “ theory of evolution” which does not exist. If It exists it should be simple for you to...

Then answer the science issue. you cannot . what is Your personal “ theory of evolution”. The hypothesis and how you verified it?

I’ve now returned from abroad. my answer - Codswallop. I am pointing out to you NON scientists That there is no single “ theory of evolution “ as such, despite the attempts of most of you to pretend there is. Certainly not in the context you use the term. but then I am a scientist, so...

Hans. Backrgound There are only two ways to view this. As a scientist or not. I prefer the former. If you are in non scientist mode, theory , hypothesis proof can mean what you like. Evolution can mean what you will. If you are in scientist mode Theory. Hypothesis. Proof mean very specific...

So you ask a question in the title , but Refuse to discuss the answer. so What in your opinion is “ the” theory of evolution. confine yourself please to statements that use the correct scientific defintion of theory. Use words correctly please.

But then guy was spot on. I suggest you confine to analytic argument not insults.

Because there is no such thing as “ the” theory of Evolution. As in one its an assumption made by evolution “ believers” who don’t understand what is actually there. What is there is a mixture of beliefs, ideas, a few hypotheses , some theories primarily in molecular genetics And pure...

Well I suppose it is progresss that finally you are engaging with evidence , which is why I reply instead of the usual straw man attacks against those whose opinions violate your beliefs. So pointing out your first straw man -at one level it doesn’t matter whether the samples were cardiac or...

you do love your false hoods. Have you ever actually studied logic? Clearly not. I don’t need medical qualifications to trust a consensus of well qualified scientists, medical doctors, pathologists et. in multiple instances, who did study the evidence! They deserve benefit of the doubt unless...

So as a person who has never studied the evidence in depth, and certainly not first hand , who is neither medically or scientifically qualified to assess any of it, you are happy to claim that a big group of scientists who HAVE done both all got it wrong in their core areas of expertise...

A pause on my travels caused me to look at this forum again. Alas in one post the above proves how pointless it is, to look on a science forum where the posters just want to promote their atheist beliefs devoid of a shred of scientific integrity,. Let us summarise his stated support of this...