Show me, and I do hope it's relative and in context, and not another waste of time.
I don't have the time or the energy to look it up. I'm just agreeing with Speedwell. I do remember distinctly you refering to bloodtypes stuff to make points about how "science proves things".
Pay attention, I said I already demonstrated it
You did not.
, and wasn't going to waste my time with his chosen way.
His "chosen way" is not some trivial arbitrary choice.... Instead, it is just the
correct way of how one demonstrates things.
I'm very satisfied science does prove and I have backed my claim and made it as simple as possible for you all
And every time you did, we pointed out the flaws in your reasoning as well as your misunderstandings.
Which you consistently ignored or just rejected at face value.
I can't even count the amount of times that I had to explain to you how
theories in science are never "proven" or considered "proven" - only ever
supported by evidence.
IOW, "You have to go through the trouble to prove it my way or you lose",
Again, not "my way". But just "the correct way".
Then just prove them until they do change
That makes absolutely zero sense.
Something that is "proven", will not change - since it is
proven true. As in: correct, certain, the Truth (capital 'T').
The "until they do change" means that what was considered "proof", wasn't "proof" at all, since it turned out incorrect.
See?
, and forget about the "might change" ploy
Intellectual honesty, prevents rational people to "forget about" that.
That's a crock and just and excuse to claim something is a fact but you don't have to prove it, because you cannot.
Theories aren't facts. Theories
explain facts.
How bout this, for now, at least until things change, and you "reevaluate it" prove evolution. Prove it for the time being.
Again, this makes no sense.
Evidence
supports theories.
Evidence doesn't
prove theories.
Theories are
never proven.
Because future evidence might force you to re-evaluate.
How many times must it be repeated, before it will sink in?
Theories that have no basis cannot be proven because they aren't provable
There's no such thing as a "theory without a basis".
A theory in science is a
well tested, well supported hypothesis.
It is the
graduation stage of a scientific hypothesis. Theories don't get "promoted" to fact or law or what-have-you.
Theory is the end of the line for any
explanation in science.
And it will either hold up in light of new evidence or it won't.
I have a theory that if I put my hand in the fire, it will be burned
That's not a theory.
As I have also explained to you many times. Yet, here you are again... repeating the same nonsense that's been exposed as invalid many times over.
A theory is a well-tested, well-supported hypothesis which explains a set of facts and laws within a well-defined scope.
Your "fire burns hand" thing, is nothing like that.
I'm sorry that you can't seem to wrap your head around that.
But it is what it is.....
What you are presenting here is a complete joke and anyone that buys that nonsense excuse, deserves to believe the silly evolution the silly excuse protects.
The only "silly" thing here, is people like you continueing to repeat utter nonsense which has been exposed as such many times over.
Common sense? You mean the common sense that says science proves nothing when it is so simple to prove to the contrary....ooookay.
If you would actually understand, or take the time to learn, how science is actually done, it would prevent you from making such stupid statements. And, just to make it clear, I'm not calling YOU stupid. I'm calling your statement stupid.
Even geniuses can say stupid things ;-)
The common sense that doesn't allow enough common sense to just prove it for now, and let the chips fall where they may if things change?
There's no such thing as "just proving it for now".
Something is either proven, or it isn't. And if it is, then it results in factual certainty.
If it later turns out that it was wrong anyway, then it was never "proven".
