4th Century St.Augustine Exposes Ape-To-Man Hoax.

[Kenny'sID]

Hahaha. Seems you need to take your own advice. Read the post I quoted - it's the only one that matters in this context. Then come back and admit you're wrong.

Nothing new there.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I can't wait to see the quotes of scientists saying that science actually proves things. This should be good. Ready when you are......

Been done already...search the board.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Been done already...search the board.

No. I want you to provide those quotes which you claim exist. It's your claim, you need to support it.

Of course, if you can't be bothered then that's your choice, but it would be very strong evidence (I won't call it proof) that your claim is empty.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Nothing new there.

Is that an admission of your error?

Well done!

 

[Kenny'sID]

Is that an admission of your error?

Well done!

Seriously? You're trying to taunt me? And over this? lol

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Seriously? You're trying to taunt me? And over this? lol

It's not a taunt - I just wonder why it is you choose to avoid admitting an error which everyone can see you made. This constant ducking, diving and avoidance is really childish. Be an adult and use some integrity for a change.

 

[USincognito]

Well will you look at you, you dug up some posts that agree with you...

No Kenny, I found people who know what they're talking about averring, correctly, that science doesn't prove things and there's no such thing as scientific proof.

Do you really think I can't do the same, as a matter of fact, we did this quite a while back.

You cannot find any scientist or scientific authority saying that science proves things or that scientific proof is a thing. And we did no such thing because you can't find anyone authoritative to support your "position" on this.

You really should know that means nothing.

I learned quite early on that you think your opinion or your limited understanding somehow trumps actual knowledge, facts and authority, so yeah, I know that people who know they're talking about don't impress you as much as you impress yourself.

I agree very bizarre. But when it comes to denial, I've learned to expect anything, and be surprised by nothing.

I'm sorry, but was this talking in circles supposed to have anything to do with what I wrote (other than to be unintentionally ironic)?

 

[sesquiterpene]

That never ceases to not bring on a giggle, and not only that, it so clearly discredits the evolution those who claim it, are trying to support. I love it.

T'is you that is unable to comprehend... the use of science is exactly what *does* prove things.

I realize how convenient it can be to, instead of proving something you cannot prove because it isn't a fact, you go with some silly idea that it cannot be proven, even though you've been shown time and time again how that is exactly what science does. I mean you all constantly claim the almighty science says evolution is no longer a theory, but when asked to use that same science to actually show us how it's a fact, you draw a blank, and make ridiculous claims such as this. You can't have it both ways...either science does or it does not.

And honestly, I feel for those who actually believe "science proves nothing" as a means to cop out of proving evolution, but I have to say, to those who buy that, me personally, I'd be embarrassed to make the claim science doesn't "prove". If for no other reason, because there are some reasonably intelligent people that read this stuff, not to mention they can see flat out what the purpose of the silly claim is.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, in a public setting such as this, even if I did believe those who tout science proves nothing, I'd keep it to myself.

I recently retired from a career doing various types of chemistry for a couple different pharmaceutical companies, my job descriptions never once containing the word "evolutionist". I also never once used the phrase "I/We proved X is true", for the same reason people have tried to explain to you over and over and over again. It simply is considered unprofessional for scientists.

In reports included for regulatory approval we used the phrase "The data is consistent with conclusion X", and if we wanted to emphasize that we were really sure of the conclusion, we would say "*All* of the data is consistent with conclusion X".

For NMR and Mass Spec data comparisons to reference spectra we would simply say "spectrum X compares favorably with spectrum Y" because the data is dependent on which instrument was used.

Your repeated inability to understand this simple concept, that science doesn't prove anything, means you will most likely remain incompetent to discuss any science, much less evolutionary biology. I find that rather sad.

 

[USincognito]

link to post

Nah. He still just cannot comprehend what not being proven means, why science doesn't prove things, how future potential falsification plays a role in not being proven, etc. In his mind all he can understand is:
proven = true
not proven = false
Anything more sophisticated than that appears to be beyond him.​

-------------------------------------
I'd like everyone to please take the link back to Kenny's post and note that in his reply to me he dishonestly excises the part in bold.

ink to post

That never ceases to not bring on a giggle, and not only that, it so clearly discredits the evolution those who claim it, are trying to support. I love it.

T'is you that is unable to comprehend... the use of science is exactly what *does* prove things.

I realize how convenient it can be to, instead of proving something you cannot prove because it isn't a fact, you go with some silly idea that it cannot be proven, even though you've been shown time and time again how that is exactly what science does. I mean you all constantly claim the almighty science says evolution is no longer a theory, but when asked to use that same science to actually show us how it's a fact, you draw a blank, and make ridiculous claims such as this. You can't have it both ways...either science does or it does not.​

Notice how he's actually demonstrating my point that he can't wrap his head around the nuance involved with "proof" and why science doesn't prove things. As in the bold part above, he can only handle "proven = true" "not proven = false".

And honestly, I feel for those who actually believe "science proves nothing" as a means to cop out of proving evolution, but I have to say, to those who buy that, me personally, I'd be embarrassed to make the claim science doesn't "prove". If for no other reason, because there are some reasonably intelligent people that read this stuff, not to mention they can see flat out what the purpose of the silly claim is.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, in a public setting such as this, even if I did believe those who tout science proves nothing, I'd keep it to myself. ​

This is still more irony as you demonstrate my point for me. We have more evidence that evolution is a fact that that plate tectonics cause of earthquakes and are why volcanoes form. We have more evidence that evolution is real than we do that the iron core of the earth generates the magnetic field. We have more evidence of how evolution works than we do of how gravity works.

Like we keep telling you, your problem is you cannot grasp that "not proven" =/= false.

 

[USincognito]

I recently retired from a career doing various types of chemistry for a couple different pharmaceutical companies, my job descriptions never once containing the word "evolutionist". I also never once used the phrase "I/We proved X is true", for the same reason people have tried to explain to you over and over and over again. It simply is considered unprofessional for scientists.

In reports included for regulatory approval we used the phrase "The data is consistent with conclusion X", and if we wanted to emphasize that we were really sure of the conclusion, we would say "*All* of the data is consistent with conclusion X".

For NMR and Mass Spec data comparisons to reference spectra we would simply say "spectrum X compares favorably with spectrum Y" because the data is dependent on which instrument was used.

Your repeated inability to understand this simple concept, that science doesn't prove anything, means you will most likely remain incompetent to discuss any science, much less evolutionary biology. I find that rather sad.

Oh look! That Kenny arrogantly can tell they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Aman777]

Martyr complex - Wikipedia

I guess that explains a few things...

Don't give up your day job in hopes of becoming a shrink.

 

[Aman777]

Now, if you actually want to discuss something on-context, do you agree with Aman777's theological views? Do you also believe that the first humans traveled to Earth in a space ship from an alternate dimension?

Correction: Adam's firmament appeared in Lake Van, Turkey 11,000 years ago and History recorded the event. The FIRST Human farming began in the valleys just SW of the mile high Lake in Northern Mesopotamia. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

Adam's firmament was NOT a spaceship since it had no engine and Adam's firmament was made inside the present Multiverse. God took Jesus and John the Revelator to the 3rd Heaven and back safely showing that to travel between universes can be instantaneous. Please correct your misconceptions.

 

[Aman777]

Ooo! Someone to finally answer my challenge. I'm going to propose three different origins for life on earth. Please tell me how any of them would effect evolution.
1. Abiogenesis
2. Panspermia
3. God creating life by fiat.

1. False since it is nothing but magical chemical generation and unrepeatable.
2. False or it would be repeated but has not.
3. False since you don't seem to know that God the Son and God the Trinity BOTH create. More study is recommended.

 

[Speedwell]

1. False since it is nothing but magical chemical generation and unrepeatable.
2. False or it would be repeated but has not.
3. False since you don't seem to know that God the Son and God the Trinity BOTH create. More study is recommended.

But that doesn't answer USIncognito's question. Hint: He didn't ask you to rate any of those options as "true" or "false."

 

[Aman777]

But that doesn't answer USIncognito's question. Hint: He didn't ask you to rate any of those options as "true" or "false."

I rated them false to show that they did NOT have any affect on evolution, as you call it, since it is a big lie dreamed up by people who have rejected God's Truth in Genesis. God's Truth shows descent with modifications within a population over time. No magical evolution needed.

 

[Speedwell]

I rated them false to show that they did NOT have any affect on evolution, as you call it, since it is a big lie dreamed up by people who have rejected God's Truth in Genesis. God's Truth shows descent with modifications within a population over time. No magical evolution needed.

I think that the point was that it would have no effect on evolution whether any of them were true or false. You can read into #3 what ever form of divine creation you favor.

 

[pitabread]

Adam's firmament was NOT a spaceship since it had no engine and Adam's firmament was made inside the present Multiverse.

What if it did have an engine, huh? You can't know for certain that it didn't.

Besides, I kinda like the idea of the first humans on Earth zooming around in an inter-dimensional space craft, traveling through time, solving mysteries.

You could create an entire TV series around that concept.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What if it did have an engine, huh? You can't know for certain that it didn't.

Besides, I kinda like the idea of the first humans on Earth zooming around in an inter-dimensional space craft, traveling through time, solving mysteries.

You could create an entire TV series around that concept.

It's amazing the assertions one will make about things one could not possibly know. It's kinda ... like ... lying.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed for review.​

 

[Bumble Bee]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has been permanently closed as it has devolved into flaming again after the last thread clean and mod hat.
MOD HAT OFF​