*Facepalm*
Do you know what it means to summarize?
I literally defined empirical for you and then told you how it was observed. Which is in the definition of empirical.
English
-
Edited by Coker: 4/9/2015 6:33:17 AMYou have not observed microbes turn into a man. You have not recreated an experiment that shows this. Learn to reading comprehension. Learn to empirical science.
-
No I haven't. But scientists have observed this in the fossil record. Learn the words you're using. Every time I explain things and play your dumb game you just change your requirement for what you demand each time I fulfill it. You're just dodging, and trying to preserve your stance. When you can stop dodging let me know, thanks.
-
Edited by Coker: 4/9/2015 6:44:47 AMWe observe bones in the dirt. That is not the same thing as observing microbes evolving into a man. Let alone apes into man. The connection you draw from them is not observed, learn to separate your assumptions from the facts. I'm not changing anything, you just have a false comprehension of what empiricism is. It must be observable, testable, and repeatable that microbes can turn into a man, you have provided no experiment demonstrating that. Evolution has no place in empirical science, it is a religion.
-
[quote]Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[/quote] [quote]observation [b][u]or[/u][/b] experimentation[/quote] [b][i][u]OR[/u][/i][/b]
-
Edited by Coker: 4/9/2015 6:52:13 AMYou have neither. You observe bones in the dirt. You do not observe microbes turning into man, except in your mind. Your assumptions are separate from the empirical facts. It's empirically true, that we share 60% of dna with a banana. It is not empirically true that therefore we share the same ancestor. But you seem to like to conflate empirical data, with the assumptions you draw from them.
-
The empirical evidence for evolution comes from [u]observing[/u] the fossil record. Even empirical evidence must be interpreted. The issue is you consistently deny the well tested conclusions science supports, but give no alternative, or a reason why you deny them. Your just verbally dancing around. The good thing is, your opinion doesn't change the fact that evolution is empirically proven, and I don't have to go re do all the work the scientific community has done to prove it. Its been proven already, regardless of your acceptance of it.
-
Edited by Coker: 4/9/2015 3:07:46 PM[quote]You have neither. You observe bones in the dirt. You do not observe microbes turning into man, except in your mind. Your assumptions are separate from the empirical facts. It's empirically true, that we share 60% of dna with a banana. It is not empirically true that therefore we share the same ancestor. But you seem to like to conflate empirical data, with the assumptions you draw from them.[/quote] Learn to empirical science. You're clearly showing your lack of comprehension of the definition, or do not know just how much belief and assumption goes into your religion. There's nothing empirical or observable about microbes to man. The connections are not observable, it only exists in your head.
-
Learn the definition of empirical. And then answer any of the questions I have asked you. You're just evading.
-
[quote]Learn the definition of empirical. And then answer any of the questions I have asked you. You're just evading.[/quote]
-
If you want to evade all the questions I've asked that's fine. I understand your just pushing an agenda and have nothing to show for your reasoning. It's cool.
-
Edited by Coker: 4/9/2015 3:34:38 PMLearn the definition of empirical, then come back with observable undeniable proof that microbes evolve into a man, thanks. Your assumptions mean nothing in the realm of empiricism.
-
Evade, evade, evade.
-
Edited by Coker: 4/9/2015 3:42:40 PM[quote]Evade, evade, evade.[/quote] Likewise, comeback with empirical proof that microbes can become man. If you cannot, that's fine.
-
If i present anything that meets the mark, you'll just dismiss, evade, and move the mark.
-
No, my mark has always been the same, and you've failed to provide observable proof of a microbe becoming man. GG.
-
The fossil record, genetics, and chemistry have the evidence. Regardless of your acceptance or denial, that is the evidence. Its empirical evidence, regardless of how you want to skew the definition, and like all evidence it must be interpreted, because that is how conclusions are formed, and information learned. If you deny that conclusion, which has been accepted by the scientific community due to it holding up over time, and only gaining support from new information, then I can't help you. It seems that youre not trying to dispute evolution, you trying to dispute me. I didn't prove evolution, its been proven long before I learned about it. I'm simply sharing known information, that you have access to, just as I do. If you dispute it, fine. But show why, other than "that doesn't meet my made up standard". Have the last word, because that's all you care about. You don't care how dumb you sound, or how much you evade questions, or your failure to back up anything you claim. You care about the last word. So have it. Its meaningless.
-
Sorry, but your interpretation of empirical data, is separate from the empirical data itself. There's nothing empirical about your assumptions. It's never been observed, a microbe becoming a man. If you can provide real empirical proof, that is observable or testable, that isn't completely dependent on bias interpretation or assumption, I'd like to see it. Thanks.