Successful cloning of rhesus macaque

[DogmaHunter]

Seriously?

That, while I cannot figure out why so many do not ask for it,

Perhaps because all those people actually already understand what the rest of us have been trying to explain to you for more then 2 years now....

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,

No, that's not the reason. The actual reason has been explained to you countless times for over 2 years now. I don't see the point in repeating it, because clearly you aren't interested. You are only interested in dishonest trolling it seems.

Yeah, sure buddy, it's the guy who asks for proof that is the problem here.

No. The problem is the guy who's continuing to ask the same invalid question over and over and over again, while the people he's asking have been explaining to him exactly why his question is invalid for over 2 years now.

The problem, is that guy's wilfull ignorance, dishonesty and the total lack of intellectual integrity.

Yes, that is an accusation. After more then 2 years of trying to talk some sense into you, I feel like that accusation is justified.

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....

No, that's not what people have been telling you.

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

No. An AI actually engages in learning. An AI doesn't need to be explained over and over and over again for more then 2 years what the problem with its question is.
An AI would need to be told only once and it would remember.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Perhaps because all those people actually already understand what the rest of us have been trying to explain to you for more then 2 years now....



No, that's not the reason. The actual reason has been explained to you countless times for over 2 years now. I don't see the point in repeating it, because clearly you aren't interested. You are only interested in dishonest trolling it seems.



No. The problem is the guy who's continuing to ask the same invalid question over and over and over again, while the people he's asking have been explaining to him exactly why his question is invalid for over 2 years now.

The problem, is that guy's wilfull ignorance, dishonesty and the total lack of intellectual integrity.

Yes, that is an accusation. After more then 2 years of trying to talk some sense into you, I feel like that accusation is justified.



No, that's not what people have been telling you.



No. An AI actually engages in learning. An AI doesn't need to be explained over and over and over again for more then 2 years what the problem with its question is.
An AI would need to be told only once and it would remember.

Why would I even reply to a post that insinuates asking for proof of evolution is an invalid question, much less finish reading it? I know all I need to about your stance...go convince someone else they should believe what already sounds ridiculous, and on top of that believe it without proof..

Convenient, to say the least.

 

[Speedwell]

...and on top of that believe it without proof .

Without "proof," but not without confirmation.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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?

I still think it funny you won't pick out a specific sentence like I asked for. I mean it's easy to see why, but still funny.

I've known that was the paragraph from the start, and nowhere there do I say evolution is a conspiracy....not even close. Nothing there can even be confused as such. If you wish to continue saying I did, and being the liar you just charged me with being, and here where all can see, that is completely up to you. I don't recommend it, but, whatever. As I already said, I understand.

Now you all have tried to get me/others to say that so you could make fun, so I get the fact you really want that to happen but it just did not, and continuing to say it did, won't make it so any more than clicking your heels together and repeating "Kenny said evolution was a conspiracy"

 

[Speedwell]

I've known that was the paragraph from the start, and nowhere there do I say evolution is a conspiracy....not even close.

No, you say in clear, unequivocal language that creationists try to prove that it's a conspiracy.

"...while creationists try to prove evolution or animals from nowhere, evolved from nothing to what we have to date is also conspiracy."

What's the difference? Are you not a creationist?

 

[Jimmy D]

I still think it funny you won't pick out a specific sentence like I asked for. I mean it's easy to see why, but still funny.

I've known that was the paragraph from the start, and nowhere there do I say evolution is a conspiracy....not even close. Nothing there can even be confused as such. If you wish to continue saying I did, and being the liar you just charged me with being, and here where all can see, that is completely up to you. I don't recommend it, but, whatever. As I already said, I understand.

Now you all have tried to get me/others to say that so you could make fun, so I get the fact you really want that to happen but it just did not, and continuing to say it did, won't make it so any more than clicking your heels together and repeating "Kenny said evolution was a conspiracy"

I didn’t say that you called “evolution a conspiracy” where did you get that from?

If you read back you’ll note that I was careful to use your exact words.

You’re making a fool of yourself now.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I didn’t say that you called “evolution a conspiracy” where did you get that from?

If you read back you’ll note that I was careful to use your exact words.

You’re making a fool of yourself now.

If it vindicates you to say I'm a fool, fine...do I sound like it bothers me?

If there is still a misunderstanding, why not show me exactly what you did say, and let's get it straightened out, or are you going to go shy on me again? I have no problem admitting I'm wrong or that there was a misunderstanding, but when you shy away like you have, get contrary, drag things out, and even now say I didn't get it right, but you never showed me what right was, what do you expect me to think?

Stop being contrary and let's get to the bottom of it, as it stands you're wasting a lot of our time on something that can't possible be the big deal it's being made out to be. This is something you should have made clear long ago

What was the charge, EXACTLY

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, you say in clear, unequivocal language that creationists try to prove that it's a conspiracy.

"...while creationists try to prove evolution or animals from nowhere, evolved from nothing to what we have to date is also conspiracy."

What's the difference? Are you not a creationist?

I expected better from you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why would I even reply to a post that insinuates asking for proof of evolution is an invalid question, much less finish reading it?

And it just continues................................................................

I know all I need to about your stance...go convince someone else they should believe what already sounds ridiculous, and on top of that believe it without proof..

Mountains of evidence back the theory of evolution.
No theory in science is ever considered proven.


Now go ahead and ignore it again and come back asking for "proof", like you always dishonestly do

 

[Jimmy D]

If there is still a misunderstanding, why not show me exactly what you did say,

Fine, as you well know, I said...

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".

I was referring to this statement...

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 hso forth, so that in itself is plenty to keep the evolutionary scientist busy.

That's my last post on the matter and I apologise to everyone else for derailling the thread. I don't appreciate having my integrity called into question but hopefully that matter is settled now.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Fine, as you well know, I said...

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".

I was referring to this statement...

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.

Kenny'sID said: ↑
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.

That's my last post on the matter and I apologise to everyone else for derailling the thread. I don't appreciate having my integrity called into question but hopefully that matter is settled now.

First, I hope it was worth all of that.

Secondly, early on, I not only all but begged you more than once to post exactly what you meant, but I cited I did not do what I thought you meant, right here for you too see it and for that very reason, to get you to see what I thought it was/give opportunity to straighten things out. But you never once corrected it. I made several attempts. and did all I could to get it straightened out...yet.

Third, if that last quote/the following in bold, was supposed to be me calling you the liar,(the only reason I can see you would post it, and unless you say otherwise, I'll assume it a fact) you were mistaken. I put both paragraphs after this one so it can be seen in context. The bold was talking about the scientists In the previous paragraph , as in one lie about evolution begets another....had nothing whatsoever to do with calling you a liar.

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.

Kenny'sID said: ↑
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.

What a waste of time, with something that with just a tad of cooperation could have been fixed early on.

 

[Jimmy D]

First, I hope it was worth all of that.

Secondly, early on, I not only all but begged you more than once to post exactly what you meant, but I cited I did not do what I thought you meant, right here for you too see it and for that very reason, to get you to see what I thought it was/give opportunity to straighten things out. But you never once corrected it. I made several attempts. and did all I could to get it straightened out...yet.

Third, if that last quote/the following in bold, was supposed to be me calling you the liar,(the only reason I can see you would post it, and unless you say otherwise, I'll assume it a fact) you were mistaken. I put both paragraphs after this one so it can be seen in context. The bold was talking about the scientists In the previous paragraph , as in one lie about evolution begets another....had nothing whatsoever to do with calling you a liar.

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.

Kenny'sID said: ↑
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.

What a waste of time, with something that with just a tad of cooperation could have been fixed early on.

Sorry Kenny, quote tags ended up in the wrong place, fixed it now.