Seismology is a pseudoscience

In this round I will address the affirmation's new definition, introduce new rebuttals and restate my past arguments. I have no further contentions or definitions at this time. Definitions: The affirmation defined pseudoscience as the following: "...something that is presented as science but it doesnt[sic] use the scientific method and it either doesnt[sic] work at all or it works but only due to experience of the "scientist" and not due to any data that prooves it is right" There are some problems with the use of this definition. Though I have researched it, I have found that the affirmative has no source. Therefore, this is an informal definition. My definition should stand on that ground alone, however, I will address his definition as if it does stand. Addressing the affirmation's definition of "pseudoscience": Seismology does not fall under that definition. While I don't know if it explicitly follows the scientific method, seismology does work and least partially, it works for a population of scientists instead of an individual and it does have data. In fact, I mentioned all of this is my second and third contentions. To restate, "Much of what is known about the Earth's interior, from the uppermost crust to the central core, has been learned by painstaking analysis of the waves generated by earthquakes and, recently, by large explosions that are recorded by seismographs." We use it to locate oil. We use it to detect the use of nuclear warheads. There are several uses of seismology that have worked and have explained. I have already stated that seismology is not practiced by individuals. The Seismological Society of America collects data on a global scale. New Rebuttals: Rebuttal 4 The affirmation claims that "Seismologyis[sic] a pseudoscience since it is clear it can neither determine the possibility of a place to have an earthquake nor the impossibility of it." In reality, this statement is clearly false. Not only does my opponent fail to back this (or any of his arguments, at this point) with evidence, but he is making a claim that goes against mine. In the previous round, I cited the Seismological Association of America. Seismologists have been able to recognise patterns and they use those patterns to predict where earthquakes are most likely to occur in the future. "...can neither determine the possibility of a place to have an earthquake..." "...locations at which earthquakes occurred most commonly in the past--and therefore are expected to be most likely in the future." To the judges, who's word will you take? The affirmation's or the Seismological Society of America's? Arguments being revisited: Rebuttal 2 (the part relating to cellular biology): The affirmation defends himself against this rebuttal, claiming that the condition of albinism can only be passed down from the parents and how hereditary interactions (this one in particular) is binary. Unfortunately, his defence makes little to no sense. Firstly, he explains that seismology is unrelatable to cellular biology because there are only two available outcomes, where as in cellular biology there are multiple. While I understand that cellular biology/genetics/hereditary interactions have more than one potential items to study (If my opponent is refering to this. again, I am slightly confused by purpose of the argument), so too does seismology. Again, just three examples besides earthquakes are the contents of inner Earth, the location of oil, and the detonation of nuclear warheads. Secondly, though he claims that seismology has only two results (as congruent with most sciences, ex: true or false), he refutes it with an example that he claims is binary. The affirmation then claims that, if only one parent of an individual carries the gene for albinism, you will either be a carrier or not. You do not exhibit albinism. This is a perfect example of the Non Sequitur fallacy. The affirmation claims that, because seismology and hereditary interactions both result in either or scenarios, they cannot be compared. This claim leaves me puzzled. Third, the affirmation falls also victim to the Straw Man fallacy. He attacks a subject similar to mine, but not the same. I claimed that cellular biology is similar to seismology in that you cannot predict when and where a new mutation will happen, just like you cannot predict when and where a new earthquake will occur. You address this using an example from herettitaty interactions. In addition, the notion that 'you will or will not be a carrier' is also completely false. Albinism is the result of a mutation [1]. You can be albino even if neither of your parents are carriers, let alone just one. In most if not all situations an individual cannot predict when and where a mutation will happen, as previously stated. Even if the probability of two mutations on the gene refered to as tyrosinase is low, improbability is not impossibility. The field of genomics is not as simple as a two by two Punnet Square. This defence has at least three problems with it, including two fallacies. It does not stand. Contentions 1, 2, and 3, Rebuttal 1, and the rest of Rebuttal 2. I'd like to point out explicitly that the rest of rebuttal 2 and all of rebuttal 1 has been left untouched. the affirmation's first argument is still failing because it is failing the truth test for its major and minor premises. All my contentions remain untouched and carry. I await the affirmation's response. [1] https://www.genome.gov...