see it goes beyond simply "deciding what the nature of a thing is by observing what it is". We actually do experiments to figure out positively(as in we pinpoint) what aspects of a thing lends itself to being able to do a certain thing. We postulate what it might be and then run countless controlled experiments to figure out if our hypothesis was correct or not.

None of that ever goes beyond observing that something happens or doesn't happen. The fact that "X only happens when Y and Z are present and I tug on my earlobe" doesn't change the fact that you are only observing that X happens, you aren't observing that it has to happen.

If you still think science can show us what has to happen then please explain it because I think you will be breaking serious ground.

the burden of proof is on you to prove that not having gills has NOTHING to do with my inability to breathe underwater because all evidence suggests that it's more than happenstance but is indeed THE reason

that doesn't prove that it's physically impossible.

proof? .............

Show, mean, entail, imply, demonstrate, provide evidence for, doesn't matter what word you want to put there.

i meant prove your claim about proving things

your theory is self-refuting because no matter what you say I can just say well simply because we haven't observed the opposite of your proof doesn't mean it's physically impossible

Belief that something is physically impossible is therefore not based on evidence.

therefore you have no evidence to make such a claim..since saying it's impossible to make such a claim cannot be backed w/ evidence.
thus the self-refuting nature

I never said anything was physically impossible. Therefore your argument fails.

Nice try though. You fooled Pepijn Sweep.

Inconsistent with which law of physiology?

Show, mean, entail, imply, demonstrate, provide evidence for, doesn't matter what word you want to put there.

you pretty much said that evidence can't prove something is physically impossible while not realizing you have no evidence for this, and, in fact, you can't use evidence since using evidence(apparently) cannot prove the opposite to be impossible according to your theory

thus the flaw in your logic. Pepijn obviously sees this and agrees

No one can prove that it is physically impossible for a man to have a baby. Not even if we can show he has none of the physical equipment?

In the grip of a theory.

That's logical impossibility, not physical impossibility. Again, you are wrong.



Again, what you define as the physical equipment is based on what does happen not what must happen. Why do you insist on arguing in circles? Don't you have anything new to say?



In the grip of ignorance.

That's logical impossibility, not physical impossibility. Again, you are wrong.

If something is logically impossible it CAN NOT be physically possible.

Pardon me if I'm wrong but if you agree with my reasoning for why something is logically self-refuting then how do you propose it NOT be physically self-refuting?

If something is logically impossible it CAN NOT be physically possible.

If something is logically self-refuting it CAN NOT be physically self-affirming.

The opposite does not follow though. Just because something is logically possible doesn't mean it's physically possible.

So in your mind I didn't demonstrate why your theory is physically impossible only logically impossible, that being the case it can not be physically possible.

Science is wrong and effects happen without cause. Circle squares are physically possible. Science is just an illusion it just happens to always be right, it actually isn't. Men can randomly become pregnant.

I AM RIGHT!!! NO ONE CAN MAKE ME THINK OTHERWISE!!!!!!!

Circle squares are physically possible.

For a king, all points on the edge of a chess board are equally distant from the centre, so you're correct, square circles are physically possible.