Search results

Yes- logic is my second language and English is my first. You are proficient in neither. You are ignorantly or willfully using the wrong definition of the word theory despite the context being clear. Stop that.

The fact that a high percentage of women stated they would exit the country accounts for much of the party differences. Woman are democrats more frequently than they are republican. Do you all encourage woman to stay and fight?

We are discussing what is necessary and sufficient, not what is best. Fossils are observed and their location and surroundings recorded. DNA sequences are observed and compared. To a logical person, macroevalution can be supported or rejected based on these observations. You cannot see because...

I wouldn't hurt to have a basic understanding of evolution and NOT JUST defer to experts. People have legit questions about it and need a response or to them their ignorance becomes proof that evolution could not have happened.

Evidence may modify a theory, but it rarely falsifies one as a whole body of evidence will need to be explained in a different light to do so. Seemingly contradictory evidence improves a theory usually.

It falsifies hypotheses in such a way that a remaining hypothesis becomes a supported conclusion. Multiple conclusions that converge from different angles becomes a theory. Stripe is an inartful dodger.

You are one to talk. You are always about a monologue rather than a dialog. Otherwise you would get pinned down right quick. We are talking about conclusions based on empiricism. Not a fortune teller drawing conclusions from her marks demeanor. Keep focused. True. It has become a theory...

You have to ask yourself what needs to be observed to draw conclusions in science. Can it be pieces of the puzzle or must it be the whole thing? Do you apply your requirement of overarching observe-ability to other areas of science or just evolution?

Why don't you read what you have quoted? It answers your own foolish criticism. It's almost like you are ignoring the details on purpose. Not the biggest surprise.

I, of course, unreservedly consider rape immoral. We are discussing whether the construct of human rights capture a practical way to address morality in law and in our larger understanding of how to understand morality. I congratulate you on not being a rigid thinker like many who post here...

Projecting into the future is vastly more difficult than reconstructing the past. So much so I would not compare the two.

What would be the point? You just respond: "your dreaming" "not true" or other mantras instead of explaining why the evidence shown is weak. You are mostly a waste of time.

Democratic Republics have real time decision-making power where it is warranted. Acts of war, diplomacy, and executive orders can happen with a quickness. People can apply the golden rule because they do not have absolute power. They are checked by a wish to maintain their own freedoms so...

It's not determined by wannabe scientists / junk science consumers - that's for sure.

Pence used Space Force in the most complicated military operation of our time to eliminate the labs.

I concur.

You do not need to help me track this conversation as if I am confused. You are the one who is confused - clearly. I never implied only you. I never mentioned you at all. People against homosexuality often provide no basis for it what-so-ever beyond matters of taste and the dictates of their...

Oh, is it time for you to perseverate on that dumb interpretation again?

What are you talking about? I grant that you were right in a limited area, and it is off topic? You should bask in the glory because it is the only meager area where what you have said makes sense. The right of someone accused of rape to have a hearing and an opportunity to be heard limits...

Yes. And, in discussing the recipe for any meal, we must explain exactly how a stove works or no dinner for you.