No common ancestor between man and ape has been found.

[miknik5]

[

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

My apologies. Yes, I know women.

Oh Maybe that’s why you do what you do?

Maybe another woman would let you speak for them and not correct you but I don’t like that. And I definitely will say something

HitchSlap?

Don’t try it

Don’t try, after incorrectly suggesting what I say and mean to now try and imply that I am worse than other females

That other females would just simply go along with your antics and since I won’t, I must be a bad breed

I apologize. I didn’t realize that now I’m being slandered by another person

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

Einstein didn’t convince you? What can I say?

 

[bhsmte]

Oh Maybe that’s why you do what you do?

Maybe another woman would let you speak for them and not correct you but I don’t like that. And I definitely will say something

Are you going to answer the questions?

 

[HitchSlap]

HitchSlap?

Don’t try it

Don’t try, after incorrectly suggesting what I say and mean to now try and imply that I am worse than other females

That other females would just simply go along with your antics and since I won’t, I must be a bad breed

I honestly have no idea what you’re even trying to convey most of the time. May have to do with the fact you insert yourself into threads about which you have no idea about.

 

[Kenny'sID]

On topic and for the occasion.

 

[miknik5]

That doesn't clarify it for me.

Are you a woman? Do you think all women are like you?

Are you going to answer the questions?

Are you referring to the questions above?

If so.....

why?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Allready did. Here it is again:

No he wasn’t. If he was a Christian physical appearances have nothing to do with what is meant by being created in GOD’s IMAGE

The emphasis on the word "if" is also yours, not mine.

​

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

And I informed you that that is an incorrect assessment, since the "created in god's image" statement was done to argue against evolution. He objected to the idea that the evolutionary process "created" our physical bodies and genetics.

If the "in god's image" thingy is not about the physical body, then why would he use that statement as an "argument" against an explanation for the physical body?

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

Then using the statement to argue against the physical process of evolution, is meaningless. And nonsensical.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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 actually motivate what I write down.

All you people are doing is basically responding with "na-ha!!!"

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

I have absolutely no problem with people writing things down and then clarifying what they actually meant, if it turns out misunderstood.

But you're not clarifying anything. You're not even acknowledging your own posts - eventhough I'm quoting them word for word. No adding, no altering. Just literal quotes.

Again, it's fine if you wish to retract statements and/or reformulate them in case you were misunderstood or whatever. No problem at all.

But writing "black" and then insisting that you actually wrote "white", without acknowledging that you actually wrote "black".... Not seeing the point of that....

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

No. The post was simply replying to exactly what was written in certain posts.

If those people meant something else then what they actually wrote down, they should clarify instead of denying their own words when they are questioned.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are you kidding me? Do I really have to repeat, "saying it far from makes it so"?

Actually, most people here that I've seen engage you on that topic, including myself, have gone through great length to EXPLAIN it to you - not just assert it with a one liner.

I know, because I was one of them.
I've gone through great lengths to explain to you why explanations in science are never considered "proven".

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.

We have all gone to great lengths to make it clear to you that this is not true.
In fact, when it comes to explanations, science is actually used for DISPROVING then for proving.

Science can't prove a theory. But it sure can disprove it, if it is wrong.

Science can show you what is absolutely false.
It can not show you what is absolutely correct.

 

[Astrophile]

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..

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.

Why do you insist on having proof of evolution? Why do you think that the evidence for evolution is not sufficient for you to accept it provisionally, like any other scientific theory? As any book on the subject will explain, there are enormous amounts of evidence for evolution, chiefly from genetics, but also from comparative anatomy, taxonomy, embryology, biogeography and the fossil record. What alternative explanation would you propose for all this evidence?

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

LOL.

Yeah.

The National Science Teachers Association - Wrong
KennysID - Correct

National Centre for Science Education - Wrong
KennysID - Correct

Einstein - Wrong
KennysID - Correct

Sounds feasible doesn't it?

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

Karl Popper -

"In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory".

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

Jack Fraser, Master's Physics, University of Oxford -

“Proof” implies that there is no room for error — that you can be 100% sure that what you have written down on the piece of paper is 100% representative of what you are talking about."

And quite simply, that doesn’t exist in the real world.

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

National Science Foundation

Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.

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

Please stop acting like a troll.

 

[bhsmte]

Are you referring to the questions above?

If so.....

why?

If it is that difficult, nevermind.

 

[Kenny'sID]

LOL.

Yeah.

The National Science Teachers Association - Wrong
KennysID - Correct

National Centre for Science Education - Wrong
KennysID - Correct

Einstein - Wrong
KennysID - Correct

Sounds feasible doesn't it?

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

Karl Popper -

"In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory".

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

Jack Fraser, Master's Physics, University of Oxford -

“Proof” implies that there is no room for error — that you can be 100% sure that what you have written down on the piece of paper is 100% representative of what you are talking about."

And quite simply, that doesn’t exist in the real world.

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

National Science Foundation

Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.

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

Please stop acting like a troll.

All that and no Geometry either...appalling ain't it?

"I'm sorry son, we are smart and you aren't, so you have no right to argue with us, just believe us and run along."

Again, are you kidding? Now there is your LOL...and you know better. Pretty pitiful when we only believe someone because of their credentials, and not on what they say.

Don't thank me, always happy to help even the descended class, that BTW also has a right to argue in spite of where they are on their evolutionary scale.

 

[VirOptimus]

All that and no Geometry either...appalling ain't it?

"I'm sorry son, we are smart and you aren't, so you have no right to argue with us, just believe us and run along."

Again, are you kidding? Now there is your LOL...and you know better. Pretty pitiful when we only believe someone because of their credentials, and not on what they say.

Don't thank me, always happy to help even the descended class, that BTW also has a right to argue in spite of where they are on their evolutionary scale.

Sometimes, ignorance is not bliss.

 

[miknik5]

Dogmahunter?

You’re worse than I am
You’re a badger


At this point I’ll have to agree with Kenny and completely stop posting and responding to you regardless that you can’t understand GOD’s input in this matter ....

 

[bhsmte]

Dogmahunter?

You’re worse than I am
You’re a badger


At this point I’ll have to agree with Kenny and completely stop posting and responding to you regardless that you can’t understand GOD’s input in this matter ....

What God?

 

[miknik5]

By the way from your posts I gather that the two of you really don’t know women

 

[bhsmte]

By the way from your posts I gather that the two of you really don’t know women

You can "gather" what you like.