Not to worry, I only popped in briefly myself over Christmas.
I asked because the direction of the discussion seemed to run contrary to the original post, which seemed (on the face of it, at least) an open invitation to discuss the issue. Maybe it would help to re-read the thread and try and recall what you wanted out of it.
Posting your infraction messages is not going to impress anyone. It will simply encourage a further infraction for trolling, which will edge you closer to being automatically banned.
You can remove "instead of" and everything that follows it from that sentence. Falsification of one hypotheses does not inherently lend support to another hypothesis.
To answer your question, you would falsify the accepted theory by designing an experiment that breaks its predictions.
See below!
I personally don't think that the Ghandi and Martin Luther King examples do the job. Sure, they influenced the degree to which society allowed that hate to dictate public policy (marginalisation), but they did not remove or "fix" the people with the hate problem.
Or is that not what you meant ParanoiA? I may have taken your comment a bit literally.
There are social effects on selection as well, in a species such as ours. It would be very interesting to observe those over a few thousand years, but of course none of us will be able to do that
Bearing in mind that this has been discussed extensively and accurately in previous threads, I don't see the point.
Falling through the Earth, Gravity at the centre of the Earth, Why wouldn't a hole through the Earth work?, Hole in Earth?, If there was a hole..., and several others.
I don't think it can be explained in simpler terms.
Regardless, the fault does not lie with me but with you, so it is not my explanation to give. You are the one who needs to explain why your fallacious statement has any bearing on this discussion.
If you can't then I suggest that you don't try, because you can't afford any more infractions. Refer to the site rules if you are in any doubt as to why infractions are given out.
I am not about to teach you Logic 101. If you don't understand its structure or purpose you should not be making sweeping statements about it.
You identify an attribute of A and then point out that B does not have that attribute, without showing any necessity for B to have that attribute.
Ergo, a false comparison.
In any case, your statement was utterly meaningless since most forms of logic are formalisations of reason.
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.