Successful cloning of rhesus macaque

[Jimmy D]

Very.

Why is just posting it so hard to do, that way there is no confusion, or do you think building confusion will help hide the fact you are wrong?

You had your chance, be contrary if it works for you.

I "had my chance"? What does that mean? I've posted the quote two or three times now and I'm not prepared to waste any more time on this so let's just recap on the "converstation".

Me: "Bit hypocritical isn't it, coming from someone who claims that the scientific community is involved in a scheme to "prove God a conspiracy", whatever that means, and that scientific evidence is a "lie"."

You: Now show me were I said it was a conspiracy, and I'll show you were I said it was likely not. something a tad different than what you present.

Me: As for your conspiracy nonsense, it’s right here...

If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

I await your apology.

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

Notice that there is a link there? I assume that you clicked on it, but if you didn't it leads to your post where you said.......


"Also. they try to prove God is a conspiracy, while creationists try to prove evolution or animals form nowhere, evolved from nothing to what we have to date is also conspiracy. Creationist job is easy, while "scientists" have their work cut out for them, as the most unlikely of the two scenarios will take the most convincing.

Just keep in mind what we have always heard, one lie begets another, and so forth, so that in itself is plenty to keep the evolutionary scientist busy. "

Your words Kenny, do you want me to use the quote format? Because here it is again....

Also. they try to prove God is a conspiracy, while creationists try to prove evolution or animals form nowhere, evolved from nothing to what we have to date is also conspiracy. Creationist job is easy, while "scientists" have their work cut out for them, as the most unlikely of the two scenarios will take the most convincing.

Just keep in mind what we have always heard, one lie begets another, and so forth, so that in itself is plenty to keep the evolutionary scientist busy.

Do I need to quote your words again or are you still going to pretend that you didn't say them?

Kenny said: "Also. they try to prove God is a conspiracy, while creationists try to prove evolution or animals form nowhere, evolved from nothing to what we have to date is also conspiracy. Creationist job is easy, while "scientists" have their work cut out for them, as the most unlikely of the two scenarios will take the most convincing.

Just keep in mind what we have always heard, one lie begets another, and so forth, so that in itself is plenty to keep the evolutionary scientist busy. "

And here's the link to your words again, just in case you missed it again....

If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

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

So we can see that you did actually say that.

Now, there is just the small matter of you accusing me of being dishonest. As you have trouble recalling exactly what you say it's right here..

Same to you coming from someone who has a tough time with telling the truth, and reaches for whatever untruth works for them when they run out or reasonable argument.

Now show me were I said it was a conspiracy, and I'll show you were I said it was likely not. something a tad different than what you present.

So what did I do that was dishonest exactly? That's a rhetorical question because I don't expect you to start acting honestly now. I have no wish to derail the thread further, but I don't appreciate being called a liar.

Oh, and one more time, in case you didn't see it again....

Also. they try to prove God is a conspiracy, while creationists try to prove evolution or animals form nowhere, evolved from nothing to what we have to date is also conspiracy. Creationist job is easy, while "scientists" have their work cut out for them, as the most unlikely of the two scenarios will take the most convincing.

Just keep in mind what we have always heard, one lie begets another, and so forth, so that in itself is plenty to keep the evolutionary scientist busy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why are you telling me that?

Because the post I was replying to (as well as all other posts you write on the subject) was kind of a giveaway that you aren't one of the people who has a good grasp on what evolution theory really is all about.

Oh, you mean the arrogant posts that ask you to prove evolution, something you cannot do, so you then naturally strike back that I'm being arrogant.

After you've been explained post after post after post, as early as 2016, that scientific theories are never "proven"? Ow yes, that's idd extremely arrogant... to continue for more then 2 years with demanding things that have been explained to you to being an invalid demand...

To ignore what people tell you and keep on coming back with the same old condescending undertone....

Yep, that's absolutely extremely arrogant.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And?

Exactly.... "and?".

That's the problem here. People inform you that you are incorrect about what you think evolution is all about, and your response is "and?".

Only to continue repeating the same mistakes...

Yep. Exactly the problem.

Sheer willfull ignorance.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Only that you cannot prove it.

No scientific theory can be proven.

As people have been explaining to you since at least 2016.

And I guess that's you're fault since you claim it.

Nope. It's not our fault that you keep making the same mistake and completely ignore everyong that points it out.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then you aren't going to quote it, as I asked?

He already did.

 

[Kenny'sID]

lol

 

[Kenny'sID]

Nope. It's not our fault that you keep making the same mistake and completely ignore everyong that points it out.

After you've been explained post after post after post, as early as 2016, that scientific theories are never "proven"? Ow yes, that's idd extremely arrogant... to continue for more then 2 years with demanding things that have been explained to you to being an invalid demand...

To ignore what people tell you and keep on coming back with the same old condescending undertone....

Yep, that's absolutely extremely arrogant.

Evolution has been explained to me as a fact as well, and I don't buy that either.

And I have been explaining for some time how your blurb, science proves nothing/doesn't prove theory, is grossly self serving hogwash.

You all couldn't stand the fact I showed that it does prove theory, and science does "prove" in general. Then I got all kinds of oddball excuses, from, it wasn't a proper experiment to harping on extenuating circumstance as if they were the norm or made a bit of difference in the experiment.

For the umpteenth time, that is not a fact, and one needs no special education, if any at all, to figure that out. I do simple experiments all the time to prove things. The blurb simply gives you permission to not have to prove something you know you cannot prove. Then you have the audacity to expect everyone is small minded enough to buy such a ridiculous concept...and you get on to me when the residual comes off as "condescending/arrogant"??

How arrogant is an attitude that would expect others to buy such clearly made up nonsense?

Considering that... you have put yourself in a very unreal place where you cannot understand something so simple, as why I would definitely "ignore" such nonsense, and the condescending attitude is very likely how you read the undertone of disgust, that anyone would try to pull such a lie off. It's insulting.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I "had my chance"? What does that mean? I've posted the quote two or three times now and I'm not prepared to waste any more time on this so let's just recap on the "converstation".

Me: "Bit hypocritical isn't it, coming from someone who claims that the scientific community is involved in a scheme to "prove God a conspiracy", whatever that means, and that scientific evidence is a "lie"."

You: Now show me were I said it was a conspiracy, and I'll show you were I said it was likely not. something a tad different than what you present.

Me: As for your conspiracy nonsense, it’s right here...

If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

I await your apology.

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

Notice that there is a link there? I assume that you clicked on it, but if you didn't it leads to your post where you said.......


"Also. they try to prove God is a conspiracy, while creationists try to prove evolution or animals form nowhere, evolved from nothing to what we have to date is also conspiracy. Creationist job is easy, while "scientists" have their work cut out for them, as the most unlikely of the two scenarios will take the most convincing.

Just keep in mind what we have always heard, one lie begets another, and so forth, so that in itself is plenty to keep the evolutionary scientist busy. "

Your words Kenny, do you want me to use the quote format? Because here it is again....



Do I need to quote your words again or are you still going to pretend that you didn't say them?

Kenny said: "Also. they try to prove God is a conspiracy, while creationists try to prove evolution or animals form nowhere, evolved from nothing to what we have to date is also conspiracy. Creationist job is easy, while "scientists" have their work cut out for them, as the most unlikely of the two scenarios will take the most convincing.

Just keep in mind what we have always heard, one lie begets another, and so forth, so that in itself is plenty to keep the evolutionary scientist busy. "

And here's the link to your words again, just in case you missed it again....

If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

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

So we can see that you did actually say that.

Now, there is just the small matter of you accusing me of being dishonest. As you have trouble recalling exactly what you say it's right here..



So what did I do that was dishonest exactly? That's a rhetorical question because I don't expect you to start acting honestly now. I have no wish to derail the thread further, but I don't appreciate being called a liar.

Oh, and one more time, in case you didn't see it again....

All that and still no direct answer to my question.

Let me try this, what sentence exactly says I said what you claim?

None, so you'll not be posting one now or ever.

Now I can repeat that a lot like you, in order to create an illusion there really is a point there but I have no need to salt the post with that stuff, it's all here in back and white what I said, a real point.

I did not say what you claimed I said. But I get it, once we get in so far over our heads, it can be a tendency to do whatever it takes to make it look other wise, while often, as in this case, only making the problem worse. It happens, so not a big deal, until you made it one.

Had another doing the same thing here, and honestly, I eventually don't even find it laughable funny, but odd funny, because it's so sad to see that type desperation come from any one.

So if this: means you're done with this, then I say good for you, that is certainly your best bet. Wish I could say it's good you quite while you're ahead, but....

 

[HitchSlap]

Evolution has been explained to me as a fact as well, and I don't buy that either.

And I have been explaining for some time how your blurb, science proves nothing/doesn't prove theory, is grossly self serving hogwash.

You all couldn't stand the fact I showed that it does prove theory, and science does "prove" in general. Then I got all kinds of oddball excuses, from, it wasn't a proper experiment to harping on extenuating circumstance as if they were the norm or made a bit of difference in the experiment.

For the umpteenth time, that is not a fact, and one needs no special education, if any at all, to figure that out. I do simple experiments all the time to prove things. The blurb simply gives you permission to not have to prove something you know you cannot prove. Then you have the audacity to expect everyone is small minded enough to buy such a ridiculous concept...and you get on to me when the residual comes off as "condescending/arrogant"??

How arrogant is an attitude that would expect others to buy such clearly made up nonsense?

Considering that... you have put yourself in a very unreal place where you cannot understand something so simple, as why I would definitely "ignore" such nonsense, and the condescending attitude is very likely how you read the undertone of disgust, that anyone would try to pull such a lie off. It's insulting.

Evolution is a fact.

Creationism is based on myths.

Move on.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Sheer willfull ignorance.

Na, just hard to take the word of someone who not only thinks they should not even be expected to prove what they say, but they have rules that out of sheer willful ignorant they actually believe that is true.

I mean how can I take seriously someone who believes/touts such other nonsense as that.

 

[Speedwell]

Na, just hard to take the word of someone who not only thinks they should not even be expected to prove what they say, but they have rules that out of sheer willful ignorant they actually believe that is true.

I mean how can I take seriously someone who believes/touts such other nonsense as that.

This whole dust-up started when you demanded "proof" for something that a scientist would require "confirmation" for. We can't figure out why you are demanding "proof." The only way what you are demanding makes sense is if you are insisting on the collloquial meaning of proof, rather than the technical meaning more appropriate to a forum like this.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Evolution is a fact.

Creationism is based on myths.

Move on.

More thought provoking ironclad proof. lol

 

[HitchSlap]

More thought provoking ironclad proof. lol

Lol

 

[Kenny'sID]

We can't figure out why you are demanding "proof."

Seriously?

That, while I cannot figure out why so many do not ask for it, and why others demand they shouldn't have to prove it, or that they cannot because it's essentially non provable because they claim/make up the hogwash it cannot be proven,

Yeah, sure buddy, it's the guy who asks for proof that is the problem here. How unreasonable can he get? He should be reasonable like us and not expect proof because we have told him 1,000 times we have no way to prove it....the audacity for him to expect such a thing.

lol, If I was an AI, I'd a short circuited a long time ago from the illogical nonsense being promoted here.

 

[Jimmy D]

All that and still no direct answer to my question.

Let me try this, what sentence exactly says I said what you claim?

None, so you'll not be posting one now or ever.

Now I can repeat that a lot like you, in order to create an illusion there really is a point there but I have no need to salt the post with that stuff, it's all here in back and white what I said, a real point.

I did not say what you claimed I said. But I get it, once we get in so far over our heads, it can be a tendency to do whatever it takes to make it look other wise, while often, as in this case, only making the problem worse. It happens, so not a big deal, until you made it one.

Had another doing the same thing here, and honestly, I eventually don't even find it laughable funny, but odd funny, because it's so sad to see that type desperation come from any one.

So if this: means you're done with this, then I say good for you, that is certainly your best bet. Wish I could say it's good you quite while you're ahead, but....

LOL

 

[Speedwell]

Seriously?

That, while I cannot figure out why so many do not ask for it, and why others demand they shouldn't have to prove it, or that they cannot because it's essentially non provable because they claim/make up the hogwash it cannot be proven,

Yeah, sure buddy, it's the guy who asks for proof that is the problem here. How unreasonable can he get? He should be reasonable like us and not expect proof because we have told him 1,000 times we have no way to prove it....the audacity for him to expect such a thing.

lol, If I was an AI, I'd a short circuited a long time ago from the illogical nonsense being promoted here.

Did you read the rest of my post? I was merely pointing out a source of possible confusion. It appears to me that what you mean by "proof" is "evdence which supports the proposition" which is, more or less, the colloquial meaning of the term. With respect to scientific theories, that kind of "proof" is called "confirmation."

 

[Jimmy D]

That, while I cannot figure out why so many do not ask for it, and why others demand they shouldn't have to prove it

Maybe they understand the nuances of language and it’s usage?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Maybe they understand the nuances of language and it’s usage?

And you?

Maybe not?

 

[Kenny'sID]

LOL

I'm sorry it's still so tough to bear. Give it some time.

 

[Jimmy D]

Let me try this, what sentence exactly says I said what you claim?

This is your sentence Kenny, do you deny typing it?

"Also. they try to prove God is a conspiracy, while creationists try to prove evolution or animals form nowhere, evolved from nothing to what we have to date is also conspiracy. Creationist job is easy, while "scientists" have their work cut out for them, as the most unlikely of the two scenarios will take the most convincing.

Just keep in mind what we have always heard, one lie begets another, and so forth, so that in itself is plenty to keep the evolutionary scientist busy. "

Here it is where you originally typed it....If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

Are you going to expose yourself as a liar by denying it again?