I'm talking about the dichotomy between these two views

if you aren't taking a position this dialogue is meaningless alex

and i said you made a claim

but i am

I made an explanation to evidence we all have

its a dialogue

prsent new evidence

you say something, now prove it

thats how it works in real science

when did u explain? you just stated something

how would someone prove the canyon was naturally formulated

And get more evidence

i dont know that it was

than what we have now

the way we already have

you said it happend 2 years ago

so prove it

ok Alex I am making a claim about a hypothesis explaining two pieces of evidence

ok... what evidence?

The hypothesis of last thursdayism fits in with the evidence

it has been proved, now disprove it by making a claim, and present evidence to disprove that first claim

we observe a world, it looks old

this also fits in with the hypothesis of natural formation

dude... i get ure point but ure still just claiming stuff not proving stuff

last thursdayism is the most absurdly lazy ideology

you cant prove stuff 100% in science

eh... what?

no one said you could???

@inky you clearly don't understand the purpose last thursdayism is meant to display

@Alexxx science doesn't prove things 100%....

Experiment is rather synonymous with experience. We know the world is older than 2 years. Come on now.

purpose doesnt matter

yeah i do get it but ure using stuff that equates to red herrings

???

u do know what a red herring is, right?

I'm trying to figure out how we value 2 hypothesises that both fit the evidence

but yours has no evidence...

u havent provided any

you just made a subjective observation

I'm trying to figure out how we value 2 hypothesises that both fit the observations

Is that better