• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

No common ancestor between man and ape has been found.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Francis Drake

Returning adventurer.
Apr 14, 2013
4,002
2,519
✟200,275.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Independence-Party
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."
Jul 14, 2015
14,883
9,093
52
✟388,648.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Science rules out the supernatural, and only accepts the natural.
Wrong. Science does not and cannot study the supernatural.

A bit like how sociology does not study and cannot study quantum mechanics but does not rule it out.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

majj27

Mr. Owl has had quite enough
Jun 2, 2014
2,120
2,835
✟97,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Wrong. Science does not and cannot study the supernatural.

A bit like how sociology does not study and cannot study quantum mechanics but does not rule it out.

Although Quantum Sociology is a fascinating, if baffling, field of inquiry. The big trick is figuring out whether or not all those tiny, tiny people exist or not.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."
Jul 14, 2015
14,883
9,093
52
✟388,648.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
it was an homo species. not an ape.

Homo sapiens = ape, primate, mammal, vertebrate, animal, eukaryote,...

exactly. so this is evidence for common descent of human with...an ancestral human.

And the other great apes.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
this is just a belief. and not a great one.

It's not. As is shown by the evidence of chromosomal fusion in ancestral human lineage.

And that's just one example.
There are thousands of others independent lines of others, all converging on the exact same conclusion.


But we already know that you do your outmost best to stay clear of all of them.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."
Jul 14, 2015
14,883
9,093
52
✟388,648.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Although Quantum Sociology is a fascinating, if baffling, field of inquiry. The big trick is figuring out whether or not all those tiny, tiny people exist or not.
Quantum Sociology
[kwon-tuh msoh-see-ol-uh-jee, soh-shee-]
noun
  1. the study of human belief phase states or people’s belief units (quantum sociological phase states) as they remain completely isolated from external information from the outside world.

    Also the study of how they continue to exist in a definite phase relation between different sociological phase states (beliefs). Here the system is said to be coherent.

    As the belief phase states are exposed to external information and then they decohere into incoherence.
 
Upvote 0

majj27

Mr. Owl has had quite enough
Jun 2, 2014
2,120
2,835
✟97,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Quantum Sociology
[kwon-tuh msoh-see-ol-uh-jee, soh-shee-]
noun
  1. the study of human belief phase states or people’s belief units (quantum sociological phase states) as they remain completely isolated from external information from the outside world.

    Also the study of how they continue to exist in a definite phase relation between different sociological phase states (beliefs). Here the system is said to be coherent.

    As the belief phase states are exposed to external information and then they decohere into incoherence.

...it's an actual thing? Well, frakk. There goes my joke.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."
Jul 14, 2015
14,883
9,093
52
✟388,648.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
...it's an actual thing? Well, frakk. There goes my joke.
Nah. I mocked it up in my lunch break.

Sounds good though, dunnit?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
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".



You did not.



His "chosen way" is not some trivial arbitrary choice.... Instead, it is just the correct way of how one demonstrates things.



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.



Again, not "my way". But just "the correct way".



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?



Intellectual honesty, prevents rational people to "forget about" that.




Theories aren't facts. Theories explain facts.



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?



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.




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.....



The only "silly" thing here, is people like you continueing to repeat utter nonsense which has been exposed as such many times over.



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 ;-)



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".

If you don't have the time/energy to prove your accusations, then I don't have the desire to read your post. Not much point when you are essentially saying you can make false accusation then play the "no time" card when asked to prove those accusations.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And that is like saying to learn the meaning of Jesus one looks it up in the dictionary...

Do you see now?

Actually one could do that for starters...to get the basics. That's what a dictionary does.

This is yet another reason you lack the education to be involved in this conversation: half of the examples used are beyond your level of education.

Any opportunity, eh? You really are clutching at straws now. lol
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
If you don't have the time/energy to prove your accusations, then I don't have the desire to read your post. Not much point when you are essentially saying you can make false accusation then play the "no time" card when asked to prove those accusations.

Okay, I owe you an apology.

I wasn't going to let you get away with ignoring all the points raised with such a silly excuse so I decided to look it up anyway.

I found the discussion that I was remembering (and it was easier then I expected as well). Perhaps it was the same discussion Speedwell remembered as well, as he too was involved in it. And it was indeed about the same topic you keep going on about, that being about how science does or doesn't prove things.

Only, the poster engaged there wasn't you. It was omega2xx.

So you can safely ignore the first 3 sentences of that post and reply to the rest. :)
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
LOL, How insecure are you people? :)
LOL! We're just getting antsy waiting for the other shoe to drop, but now I don't think it's going to. The business of whether or not science "proves" anything is part of a threadbare old creationist equivocation "gotcha" game, but I am beginning to be of the opinion that you're not actually playing it.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.