[quote]Learn the definition of empirical. And then answer any of the questions I have asked you. You're just evading.[/quote]
English
-
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.