Incorrect.
It plainly isn't. It's just pointing out the truth.
No, it was correct.]/quote]
Wrong. Try harder.
I'm a person. I define the word consistent with how the dictionaries do. If you want to define it inconsistently with dictionaries, that's fine. It's just semantics. As long as we know how the words are being used, it doesn't alter the underlying logic of the arguments.
Incorrect. It's simply an effort to nail down the meaning so we know what we're talking about. If it hurts your feelings that I chose a definition that's consistent with the dictionary, that's fine. Pick some other definition that doesn't hurt your feelings. As long as we are clear about what the words mean,the particular definition used doesn't matter. It's just a tool for communicating the logic of the argument.
By definition, if one life is exactly the same as the other, then we're only talking about a single life, not two. If the two differ (e.g., one has been born and one hasn't), then they are, by definition, not exactly the same. I'm puzzled how you could fail to understand a truism that's as simple as "when two things differ in some respect, they're not exactly the same." I'm not sure how to argue with someone who can't even grasp that.
You're just saying that "A will lead to B barring anything that would stop A from leading to B." It's correct, as far as it goes, but so what?
No, not all of us. Fetuses, obviously, don't. Neither do embryos, even if they're human embryos. Nor clumps of fat cells, even if they're clumps of human fat cells. Or corpses. Or the irreversibly braindead. It's the mind that gives rise to a right to life.
If you want to attribute the right to a being you've imagined, that's fine. When you can talk that figment of your imagination into paying me a visit an making an argument for why fetuses should be seen as having a right to life, I'll gladly listen. But until I have such a visitation, you'll need to build the argument yourself.
The right is a consequence of the ability, not the same as the ability.
How would you define conception?
No. The location isn't what affects person-hood. The quality of the brain activity does. It's just that in most cases, the birth is a very major factor in brain activity. The birth itself triggers massive rapid changes in the brain, and immediately after the birth the brain is suddenly taking in massively more and sharper input from the outside world. Still, it probably takes a few months until the cerebrum is sufficiently myelinated and primed to have anything we could rightly think of as a "soul," but since the birth is a point where the woman's rights are no longer infringed, since it's out of her body, there's no downside to drawing a line there and protecting the infant from that point, even if morally speaking it may not yet have achieved personhood.
Some would say that killing any animal is murder, too, for their own religious reasons. That's fine -- if you want to define murder to include killing a fetus or a pig or an insect, you can do so, and avoid killing those things. However, it would be wrong for you to use our law to impose your religious sensibilities on those who do not share them.
I could as easily assert, with an equal absence of any evidence, that God gave us the mental capacity to develop means to abort unwanted pregnancies, and so we shouldn't be bringing unwanted pregnancies to term, adding to excess population with children whose parents didn't even want them.
Why? What makes conception special?
All of them? Or just the human ones?
Which one? Ganesh? Pan? Loki?
All the unborn, or only the human unborn?
How about "an increase in average kinetic molecular motion on a planetary scale"?
It's impossible to, say, measure the motion of every particle on Earth simultaneously, if that's what you mean. However, what we can do is take a vast number of readings of the atmosphere and oceans, all around the world, and intelligently deduce whether there's been a net heating of the overall system. And, it turns out, there has: on an astronomical scale. We know with a high degree of confidence what's behind the majority of that warming, in the last couple centuries: humans burning mind-boggling amounts of fossil fuels.
Falsifiable theories are a part of science. Even to get to the point of theories, though, you have ideas, hypotheses, revisions, etc. Science doesn't start and end with falsifiable theories.
That's not a theory, in the scientific sense of the word. More information:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/difference-between-hypothesis-and-theory-usage
Yes, they are, for the reasons I laid out, which you have been unable or unwilling to address.
I'm judging by the available evidence, including your total ignorance of what the word "theory" means in the scientific context.
Was it a lousy school or did something happen to diminish your brain function at a later time?
For someone who likes to throw logic terms around, you have not even made an attempt to understand the terms. That's not a true Scotsman fallacy.
Nobody said otherwise.
Incorrect.
No. Religion is belief in the absence of any supporting evidence.
Explaining what, exactly? Evidence, right? Without any evidence to explain with your theory, what is it, exactly?
Correct. What you have provided is, instead, a theory. See how easy it was to come up with a theory, and see how it didn't even require any supporting evidence to formulate?
That's not a theory.
Drill down to the core and take a look around. Find a way to use neutrinos or other exotic particles to scan the interior. Find a way to map the interior using more sophisticated processing of waves from seismic activity, etc. With present technology, it's not possible, but it's not an inherently un-falsifiable idea.
It isn't
As you're well aware, nothing I said suggested otherwise. It's like you think throwing out wholly random cliches from a high-school-level logic course constitutes making an argument. Scotsman Fallacy. Law of excluded middle. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Correlation doesn't imply causation. For these things to be useful in our debate, they need relevance to the thing you're responding to.
And, as you ought to be aware, that's exactly what these things are.
Plate tectonics is science, not religion.
As you know, there's not a shred of evidence to support the idea of Jesus as a supernatural Savior being. That's what makes it a religious notion. By comparison, the idea that there was an historical Jesus can be approached more scientifically, since there's some historical evidence to support that idea, and it's testable in a real-world way (probably not testable enough to ever be definitively established, but at least enough that it can influence a reasonable person's perception of how probable it is to be true.)
That's not what "theory" means in a scientific context.
Incorrect. It's falsifiable. There are an infinite number of conceivable things we might discover that would falsify the theory. It's just that in generations of fervent searching for such falsifying evidence, nothing has ever been found of the sort.
No. Because it's falsifiable and was formed as a result of ample supporting real-world evidence, it's science. By comparison, the idea that an invisible man who lives in the sky created the world in seven days is a religious belief, in that it never had any supporting evidence behind it, and to the extent it was falsifiable, it was shown to be false ages ago (e.g., with various pieces of evidence that firmly establish timelines that are inconsistent with that seven-day timeline). Yet, it's still believed, as a matter of faith. That's religion: belief in the absence of evidence.
You keep saying that, but haven't even attempted to support that assertion. Supporting evidence is pretty much the antithesis of religion. Religion is faith. It's belief without the need for real-world supporting facts.
No - it's falsifying, resulting in a false belief being abandoned and a new belief, more consistent with the data, being tried out. That's how science advances. Religion, by comparison, can withstand any new facts, because facts just don't matter.
You've make the same naked assertion over and over, and don't even attempt to support it. Anyway, you're still not grasping how it works. Supporting evidence is the difference between fanciful speculation and a scientific hypothesis. Through long survival of testing, the hypothesis grows into a theory. The difference you cling to, between the lack of conflicting evidence and the presence of supporting evidence, isn't even a particularly meaningful distinction. For example, if your hypothesis is that a certain island is uninhabited, and you go and visit it and find no sign of habitation, after a thorough search, you could call that a lack of conflicting evidence. But, every time you tried out a new way to search for inhabitants, only to come up with the same answer, could also be regarded as supporting evidence that it's uninhabited. The distinction between an absence of evidence of habitation and evidence that it's uninhabited is semantic, rather than substantive.
Look up the incompleteness theorem.
No system can be fully closed. That's the point of the incompleteness theorem.
They can be falisfied, they just haven't been, yet, despite massive attempts to attempt to do so. What makes you think natural selection has?
Not even close. Religion works through faith.
In this case, we're talking about falsifiable theories.
It's neither hateful or bigoted. I actually feel a lot of sympathy for the know-nothings. Life in the cave is pathetic and I wish them the best luck in making their way out into the world.
You assert the same things over and over,with no support. No, obviously science isn't just a set of theories.
Science is a method -- a method that starts long before you get to a point of a theory.
Yes, I've heard you assert that over and over. What makes you think so (by which I mean "what would you like us to think makes you think so?" -- since what actually makes you think so is your politics)?
Sure.
We know it with a high degree of confidence. Experts put that degree of confidence well over 90%.
In a similar sense, we have no way of accurately measuring absolute body temperature for a patient. If you take her temperature orally, maybe she just has a weird condition that makes her mouth unusually warm. Same with any other spot you might measure. Similarly, it's conceivable that temperature randomly spike for the thirty seconds you were measuring, but otherwise are totally normal. But, over time, doctors have come to regard various temperature sampling methods as sufficiently reliable in gauging overall body temperature to be the basis for treatment. It's similar with temperature sampling methods on the global scale. It's just that on the global scale, the religion of climate denialism is entrenched against anything that might suggest the need for politically unpalatable policies.
Not by the scientific community -- by them, it is seen as a highly probable theory, which has survived decades of exhaustive testing, but which is always open to falsification if sufficient contrary evidence were to be found. AGW is, however, rejected by right-wing dummies, for reasons of political faith.
How about, to save us both time, you just copy and paste your dozen instances of the exact same phrase at the top of the post, then delete them from the body. That way, I can skip it and only read the actual arguments, rather than the mindless mantras?
It's nothing of the sort.
No. Faith is firm belief in the absence of evidence. It may or may not involve any circular reasoning.
As you now see, you failed to refute anything.
Now that you see you failed to refute anything, do you care to try again?
You've shown nothing of the sort. You've merely mumbled the same empty assertions repeatedly, without even trying to support them.
I am definitely not. Try rereading.
You haven't though. What do you think the difference between the two is -- and don't just return to your notion that a theory is whatever you feel like asserting.
What makes you think so?
I would like.
Do you imagine someone said it is?
Yes you haven't even made the attempt. Why is that?
I haven't. Reread.
No. It's just that you're stuck on this bizarre notion that only religion uses supporting evidence --a notion you've made no attempt to support.
