religion

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Previous post from Kaga: Yes it's known as "margin of error" and the % correlation is not only relevant, it's the entire purpose of doing the experiment. Science is about predictions. You are still not talking about science.

Having a hypotheses isn't exclusive to the scientific method anymore than wings are exclusive to airplanes.

Please learn the error in how you continue to conflate everything.
End quote




So according to your definition of the scientific method e.g. "Prediction", then my post was scientific. Thanks

Honestly no idea what you are trying to express in this post. Reformat and try again please.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Once again you conflate two things.

Observing the available evidence and accepting the most likely conclusion via testing as "factual" is one thing (there are no facts in science, even existence itself is merely assumed but that's too advanced for you so I'll go no further.).
Preaching "Christian truth" and calling all forms of evidence fabricated (note no evidence of fabrication is provided) is another thing entirely.

It's clear nothing will change your mind. My mind on the other hand... to quote Bill Nye. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

That ts the point, THERE ISNT AVAILABLE EVIDENCE for all available science that is commonly accepted and, for example, taught in school. Your comment supports EXACTLY what you quoted to try and tear down.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is a jumbled mess that makes a ton of assumptions, including but not limited to: implying the scientific community doesn't correct it's hypotheses as new information is gathered, brain development has a set rate at which it can happen, that there are only 4 protohuman skeletons in existence (seriously WTF) and that said skeletons are fabricated.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How did man become a hairless animal? is a hard question for evolutionists. Any scientific theory must be ready to give an account of all phenomena. A hypothesis to explain the origin of man must explain all the facts. How did man become a hairless animal? Darwin's explanation is too puerile for any one professing to be a learned scientist to give. He says that the females preferred males with the least hair (?) until the hairy men gradually became extinct, because, naturally, under such a regime, the hairy men would die off, and, finally only hairless men to beget progeny would survive. What do sensible, serious students think of this "scientific" explanation? If we try to take this explanation seriously, we find that the science of phrenology teaches that females, as a rule, inherit the traits of their fathers, and males the traits of their mothers.

Hence, not the males but the females would become hairless by this ridiculous process. How do evolutionists account for the hair left on the head and other parts of the body? Why do men have beard, while women and children do not? If the hair left on the body is vestigial, why is there no hair on the back, where it was most abundant on our brute ancestors? Even Wallace, an evolutionist of Darwin's day, who did not believe in the evolution of man, calls attention to the fact that even the so-called vestigial hair on the human form is entirely absent from the back, while it is very abundant and useful on the backs of the monkey family. If there was any good reason why the human brute should lose his hair, why for the same reason, did not other species of the monkey family lose their hair? Can it be explained by natural selection? Was the naked brute better fitted to survive than the hairy animal? Did man survive because he was naked, and the hairy brute perish? Evidently not, for the hairy brute still exists in great abundance!

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That ts the point, THERE ISNT AVAILABLE EVIDENCE for all available science that is commonly accepted and, for example, taught in school. Your comment supports EXACTLY what you quoted to try and tear down.

You have been given a plethora of evidence. Your refusal to accept it does not negate is existence.

If you aren't going to take this seriously I'm going to stop responding. I'm tired of repeating things to deaf ears.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Honestly no idea what you are trying to express in this post. Reformat and try again please.

Prediction= assumption= science!

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is a jumbled mess that makes a ton of assumptions, including but not limited to: implying the scientific community doesn't correct it's hypotheses as new information is gathered, brain development has a set rate at which it can happen, that there are only 4 protohuman skeletons in existence (seriously WTF) and that said skeletons are fabricated.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Prof. R. S. Lull: "The brain, especially the type of brain found in the higher human races, must have been _very_ slow of development

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You have been given a plethora of evidence. Your refusal to accept it does not negate is existence.

If you aren't going to take this seriously I'm going to stop responding. I'm tired of repeating things to deaf ears.

What evidence, there still hasn't been any evidence, the evidence that has been provided is still based off theories that don't have legitimate support to back it up. Your right, it is getting tiresome trying to explain lack of evidence to people like you. I'm sure if I took a shit, said I'm a scientist, and this shit will turn into a new planet. You would accept it.

[rgostic]

If you trust a man in a lab to give you an accurate prediction of speciation dates on scales of millions of years based off of a hominid's cranial volume without reading his reports then you are pretty silly.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Once again you conflate two things.

Observing the available evidence and accepting the most likely conclusion via testing as "factual" is one thing (there are no facts in science, even existence itself is merely assumed but that's too advanced for you so I'll go no further.).
Preaching "Christian truth" and calling all forms of evidence fabricated (note no evidence of fabrication is provided) is another thing entirely.

It's clear nothing will change your mind. My mind on the other hand... to quote Bill Nye. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

You bust on my post as jumbled and full of assumptions and then try to prop up science as factual yet assumed? Nothing dogmatic and religious there!

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How did man become a hairless animal? is a hard question for evolutionists. Any scientific theory must be ready to give an account of all phenomena. A hypothesis to explain the origin of man must explain all the facts. How did man become a hairless animal? Darwin's explanation is too puerile for any one professing to be a learned scientist to give. He says that the females preferred males with the least hair (?) until the hairy men gradually became extinct, because, naturally, under such a regime, the hairy men would die off, and, finally only hairless men to beget progeny would survive. What do sensible, serious students think of this "scientific" explanation? If we try to take this explanation seriously, we find that the science of phrenology teaches that females, as a rule, inherit the traits of their fathers, and males the traits of their mothers.

Hence, not the males but the females would become hairless by this ridiculous process. How do evolutionists account for the hair left on the head and other parts of the body? Why do men have beard, while women and children do not? If the hair left on the body is vestigial, why is there no hair on the back, where it was most abundant on our brute ancestors? Even Wallace, an evolutionist of Darwin's day, who did not believe in the evolution of man, calls attention to the fact that even the so-called vestigial hair on the human form is entirely absent from the back, while it is very abundant and useful on the backs of the monkey family. If there was any good reason why the human brute should lose his hair, why for the same reason, did not other species of the monkey family lose their hair? Can it be explained by natural selection? Was the naked brute better fitted to survive than the hairy animal? Did man survive because he was naked, and the hairy brute perish? Evidently not, for the hairy brute still exists in great abundance!

Like most scientists, Darwin was incorrect about the finer details of a great many things. Your entire argument hinges on the misguided belief that scientists a. believe themselves infallible and b. Revere Darwin as some sort of deital figure.

Your entire argument is flawed, both ignoring that many people are born with copious amounts of hair (see the French), and that there are hairless species of many "kinds" of animals. That's not even considering the invention of clothing and shelter could be factors.

A better question similar to yours but against your stance would be "why do Whales and Dolphins have hair follicles when they don't have any hair?