-
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.
- Thread starter UCDavis
- Start date
- Status
Show me, and I do hope it's relative and in context, and not another waste of time.
Pay attention, I said I already demonstrated it, and wasn't going to waste my time with his chosen way. No one ran away but him, as of yet. I'm very satisfied science does prove and I have backed my claim and made it as simple as possible for you all, but he had to switch gears and hope that I wouldn't bother with his way in order to pretend a leg up.
IOW, "You have to go through the trouble to prove it my way or you lose", and I refused, not playing the game when Ive' already done my part, he never, as of yet, did his.
Then just prove them until they do change, and forget about the "might change" ploy. 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. How bout this, for now, at least until things change, and you "reevaluate it" prove evolution. Prove it for the time being.
Theories that have no basis cannot be proven because they aren't provable. I have a theory that if I put my hand in the fire, it will be burned, I can prove that out, it's a logical theory to begin with. and I just prove it, I don't hem haw around, tell you, oh, but, uh, in the future my hand may not burn in the fire so we really don't consider that proof. 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.
I don't care what he thinks still, as in he's not going to change my mind, what did you think I meant in the original statement? Let me try again to help you here. You say, for instance I think evolution is true, I say I don't care what you think, I believe it is not true. then I continue a debate on the matter, that still doen't mean I care what you think in the context it was used, in that that you aren't going to change my mind. If that doesn't help you out, think what you like, I don't care,
not even sure why I spent this much time on something so petty.Common sense? You mean the common sense that says science proves nothing when it is so simple to prove to the contrary....ooookay. The common sense that says science proves nothing because there is a chance, ever so slim, if any at all, that things might change? 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?
It never has been before.
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,626
- 82
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
And the word scientists use for "just prove it for the time being and let the chips fall where they may if things change later." is confirmation. Perhaps because scientists also have to do with things mathematical they like to restrict the use of the word "proof" to its strict technical meaning, "logical deduction from axioms."
It is convenient for them to have two different words. After all, there are two different processes. On the one hand, some propositions are tested by logical deduction from axioms; on the other hand, some propositions are tested by empirical evidence. You do see the difference, don't you, even though you want to use "proof" to describe both?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Larniavc
"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."
- Jul 14, 2015
- 14,875
- 9,089
- 52
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
To not reply with a stunningly witty reposte is nearly physical pain to some.
So they keep coming back to the thread, digging a hole until they can post something that makes them think they have ‘won’.
Upvote
0
Larniavc
"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."
- Jul 14, 2015
- 14,875
- 9,089
- 52
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
This is why you don’t have the knowledge to discuss this.
You could look it up in any science text book aimed at 16-18 year old to check if you like.
Given how much you obviously care about this I’m surprised that you haven’t.
Upvote
0
Some are verified with proof and some not.
Same crock, different post.
empirical
[em-pir-i-kuh l]
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2.
depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3.
provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
Upvote
0
I'm thinking that shoe is on the other foot. Some of you are really starting to sound quite silly with the games on the simple term proof, and seriously trying to convince me science proves nothing while SW, unknowingly, just showed us that science does prove. It's hilarious.
And you could look at the dictionary..
Or maybe you are just catching on to the fact I don't. Better late than never.
Upvote
0
"They" do, don't they....precisely what you just did, what is more sad than funny, you couldn't see it.
Upvote
0
HitchSlap
PROUDLY PRIMATE
Show me, and I do hope it's relative and in context, and not another waste of time.
Pay attention, I said I already demonstrated it, and wasn't going to waste my time with his chosen way. No one ran away but him, as of yet. I'm very satisfied science does prove and I have backed my claim and made it as simple as possible for you all, but he had to switch gears and hope that I wouldn't bother with his way in order to pretend a leg up.
IOW, "You have to go through the trouble to prove it my way or you lose", and I refused, not playing the game when Ive' already done my part, he never, as of yet, did his.
Then just prove them until they do change, and forget about the "might change" ploy. 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. How bout this, for now, at least until things change, and you "reevaluate it" prove evolution. Prove it for the time being.
Theories that have no basis cannot be proven because they aren't provable. I have a theory that if I put my hand in the fire, it will be burned, I can prove that out, it's a logical theory to begin with. and I just prove it, I don't hem haw around, tell you, oh, but, uh, in the future my hand may not burn in the fire so we really don't consider that proof. 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.
I don't care what he thinks still, as in he's not going to change my mind, what did you think I meant in the original statement? Let me try again to help you here. You say, for instance I think evolution is true, I say I don't care what you think, I believe it is not true. then I continue a debate on the matter, that still doen't mean I care what you think in the context it was used, in that that you aren't going to change my mind. If that doesn't help you out, think what you like, I don't care,
Common sense? You mean the common sense that says science proves nothing when it is so simple to prove to the contrary....ooookay. The common sense that says science proves nothing because there is a chance, ever so slim, if any at all, that things might change? 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?
It never has been before.
Upvote
0
VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
Do you know what a scientific term entails and how terms in science is defined?
If you think you do, think again.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
And you didn't even notice how mature the post I replied to was? Of course not, they are on your side.,
How mature is that, lol!
Upvote
0
Wasn't it this thread I said I realized some were related to apes/were apes? I've had proof of that for some time now.
Upvote
0
Didn't I just show you I did? Logical deduction is not proof, it's assumption....who's logic? That leaves room for anything, true to absurd.
So, now you are agreeing science offers proof?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
