No common ancestor between man and ape has been found.

[Kenny'sID]

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.

Only those that descended from apes would be awaiting another shoe.

Your point?

 

[miknik5]

[

Nope... instead, there I am again, responding to what you literally said.
Those are your words in the quotes, not mine. Nore did I alter them.

show me where I literally said that anyone who disagrees with me must not be a CHRISTIAN

I said that the poster was not referring to a physical image when he said I thought we were created in the image of GOD

Although now I can see another side of his/her post in that possibly in sarcasm he/she was poking fun at the idea that we evolved from apes and rhetorically and sarcastically said I thought we were created in the image of GOD

That was a side I didn’t initially see

But they certainly do not believe the image of GOD which we were supposed to have been created in had anything to do with physical outward appearance

 

[sfs]

You have the genetic evidence, but dont have the proteins. Without the proteins(collagen) remains, your "genetic evidence" is just a wish.

Sorry, but that still makes no sense. You don't know what the genetic evidence is, but you want to ignore it because some other kind of evidence doesn't exist. Sorry, but just because you're closing your eyes, the evidence doesn't go away.

 

[Kenny'sID]

[

show me where I literally said that anyone who disagrees with me must not be a CHRISTIAN

You will eventually stop even reading/responding his posts, at least until it becomes irresistible to occasionally show him his many unfounded twists and turns of the post to which he replies, something one might do on a boring rainy day.

 

[bhsmte]

Sorry, but that still makes no sense. You don't know what the genetic evidence is, but you want to ignore it because some other kind of evidence doesn't exist. Sorry, but just because you're closing your eyes, the evidence doesn't go away.

He desperately, needs it to go away though.

 

[miknik5]

You will eventually stop even reading/responding his posts, at least until it becomes irresistible to occasionally show him his many unfounded twists and turns of the post to which he replies, something one might do on a boring rainy day.

I care more about his false accusations of what I have said or what I have meant than I care about his confusion

So if he continues to put words in my mouth that I have never said or never meant

I probably won’t stop

 

[miknik5]

I’m sorry. Forgive what I am about to say since it is off topics.


But doesn’t anyone know anything about women

 

[Speedwell]

[

show me where I literally said that anyone who disagrees with me must not be a CHRISTIAN

I said that the poster was not referring to a physical image when he said I thought we were created in the image of GOD

Although now I can see another side of his/her post in that possibly in sarcasm he/she was poking fun at the idea that we evolved from apes and rhetorically and sarcastically said I thought we were created in the image of GOD

That was a side I didn’t initially see

But they certainly do not believe the image of GOD which we were supposed to have been created in had anything to do with physical outward appearance

In all fairness, many of our creationst friends believe exactly that: the second person of the Trinity has existed from before time with the human form of the incarnate Jesus of Nazareth, and that is the "image of God" in which we were created.

 

[miknik5]

And that is like saying to learn the meaning of Jesus one looks it up in the dictionary...

Do you see now?

The obstacle that prevents one from doing exactly that is the hardness of ones heart

That’s why the prophecy of Isaiah remains.

If one “fell in love” they would want to lean everything they can about the one they love

 

[miknik5]

In all fairness, many of our creationst friends believe exactly that: the second person of the Trinity has existed from before time with the human form of the incarnate Jesus of Nazareth, and that is the "image of God" in which we were created.

the poster was being facetious due to the subject of this thread

 

[bhsmte]

I’m sorry. Forgive what I am about to say since it is off topics.


But doesn’t anyone know anything about women

Why do you ask?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I care more about his false accusations of what I have said or what I have meant than I care about his confusion

So if he continues to put words in my mouth that I have never said or never meant

I probably won’t stop

Oh, I get it.

I guess I see it as only having so much time, and albeit amusing at times, spending too much of it correcting one person gets old to me. Besides when one has to twist and turn someones post as he does, in order to to make a point, it shows they haven't much of a point at all, so not very challenging either.

 

[sfs]

The obstacle that prevents one from doing exactly that is the hardness of ones heart

Your message said you were quoting me, but what you quoted wasn't by me.

 

[Jimmy D]

Why are you even asking me that?

Are you saying the dictionary, in saying....

provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

....is not referring to science, or their "experiment" would not be a proper experiment and they have no clue what they are talking about by referring to verifiable as provable? You people need to contact Websters and tell them a thing or two. at least get on the same page.

Anyway, I'd love to hear your idea on what it entails.

"The hardest part about understanding scientific theories and hypotheses seems to be this: a hypothesis is never proven correct, nor is a theory ever proven to be true. Words like prove, correct, and true should be removed from our vocabulary completely and immediately."

"One source of confusion about the status of the science or theory of evolution stems from the difference between the "everyday" meaning of the word "theory" and the scientific meaning the word.

Below we list some common misconceptions about the term "theory" and describe a classroom activity that can help students rethink their understanding of this term.

NSTA News


.................................


Misconception 1 "Evolution is 'just a theory'".

Misconception 2 "Theories become facts when they are well supported and/or proven."

There are three important misconceptions propagated in the above statements. The first statement implies that a theory should be interpreted as just a guess or a hunch, whereas in science, the term theory is used very differently. The second statement implies that theories become facts, in some sort of linear progression. In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts. The third misconception is that scientific research provides proof in the sense of attaining the absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision should new evidence come to light."

https://ncse.com/library-resource/theory-

......................................

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

......................................

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Albert Einstein

......................................

 

[Jimmy D]

I guess I see it as only having so much time, and albeit amusing at times, spending too much of it correcting one person gets old to me

How many times has it been explained why your "proof" thing is incorrect?

 

[bhsmte]

How many times has it been explained why your "proof" thing is incorrect?

It will never be enough.

 

[Larniavc]

I’m sorry. Forgive what I am about to say since it is off topics.


But doesn’t anyone know anything about women

I do.

What would you like to know?

 

[Kenny'sID]

"The hardest part about understanding scientific theories and hypotheses seems to be this: a hypothesis is never proven correct, nor is a theory ever proven to be true. Words like prove, correct, and true should be removed from our vocabulary completely and immediately."

Seems everyone is not on the same page with that, including myself.

Allowing evolution into the door without proper credentials, then having the audacity to say we should not expect those credentials (proof) to be provided because some people who needed and excuse say so, not only does not make evolution fact, but it makes those proponents look a bit ridiculous, and a little shady as well..

 

[Kenny'sID]

How many times has it been explained why your "proof" thing is incorrect?

Are you kidding me? Do I really have to repeat, "saying it far from makes it so"? I mean saying that gets as old as me using the term "ridiculous", and, yes, it's true but why do you all keep asking for it?

How many times must I explain requiring proof IS correct and is done all the time in science. Providing proof is the very thing science is used for...one thing that makes your stance so unbelievably hilarious...not to mention...ridiculous.

 

[HitchSlap]

I’m sorry. Forgive what I am about to say since it is off topics.


But doesn’t anyone know anything about women

Please, don't take offense, but I assumed you were a women.

My apologies. Yes, I know women.