Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Pogo]

Well I was not aware of the fact that testimony necessarily (or almost always) means a subjective and unverified claim……….and quite frankly it seems to me that you are making this up because the alternative is to admit that I have always been correct.

The good news is that we are talking about testable and falsifiable stuff…………… we could find a random sample of sentences that uses the term “testimony” if we find out that in 90%+ cases testimony means “subjective and unverified” I would be wrong……. if we find out that in a relevant portion say 10% or more the word testimony refers to objective and verifiable claim……….I would be correct.

Do you accept this methodology?

If we run the test and happens to be the case that I am correct, would you make a comment admitting that I was correct?

Tripling down on your "your not listening to me" tantrum is not helping your position either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I may not use the right terms, but, as others have expressed, you and those with you do not explain yourselves. Rather you just say we're ignorant, need education, we're wrong, and so forth. All very bad arguments. As far as I am concerned, obviously not as far as you and some others are concerned. You may cite what scientists say, but even they know

If you did not understand only one person you might have a valid claim. But when person after person tries to explain your errors to you and you constantly refuse to learn about them then it is highly unlikely that others are at fault. The fault probably lies with you. You appear to be unwilling to learn due to your superstitious beliefs.

 

[leroy]

Yeah, what an amazing extremist idea that claims aren't evidence of themselves and actually require independent evidence for verification....

What a wild extremist radical idea that is............

Yes, claims/testimonies from well informed people in a context where lies are improbable are evidence. Otherwise you would have to deal with a whole bunch of absurdities………..

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wow, that is radical

It's really not.

 

[shunyadragon]

I may not use the right terms, but, as others have expressed, you and those with you do not explain yourselves. Rather you just say we're ignorant, need education, we're wrong, and so forth. All very bad arguments. As far as I am concerned, obviously not as far as you and some others are concerned. You may cite what scientists say, but even they know their theories can change.

Terms are not the issue whether you use technical or layman terms. The actual scientific knowledge is the issue for your whole history of your posts, and misrepresentation of scientists.

In a previous series of posts you misrepresented the concept of Quantum nothing and Hawkingconcereninhis beliefs and science.

Hawking did not change anything before his death.

 

[leroy]

Language is a mutually agreed upon set of conventions, not a set of rules handed down in a book.
Insisting on using a word in a manner inconsistent with the normal usage in a given field is not something to be proud of and marks one as someone to be dismissed. Doubling down as you do then gets you marked as arrogant.
You are now at the point that if you ever had any intention of having a productive conversation you have squandered the good will of everyone here.
All because you seem to lack the humility to actually listen to others. Your loss.

Why would I lisen to you (or others) didn’t you say that testimonies/claims are not evidence? ……….why should I accept your claims? See the irony

 

[leroy]

If you did not understand only one person you might have a valid claim. But when person after person tries to explain your errors to you and you constantly refuse to learn about them then it is highly unlikely that others are at fault. The fault probably lies with you. You appear to be unwilling to learn due to your superstitious beliefs.

The problem is that “explaining” is not enough……….. you have to actually support your claims

 

[SkepticThinker]

You just wrote about keeping things civil. The discussion among those here has not been too civil, and that includes snipes and snide remarks thought to be clever or funny by some of those on the forum. And instead of explaining things, some people just revert to what the other one said, take a course, etc.

I'll tell you why people have given up explaining things. Because the same questions keep being asked by the same posters over and over again as though they've never been explained so many times before and it becomes exhausting and frustrating to have to repeat the same things to the same posters over and over and just keep spinning your wheels only to have to answer the same question from the same posters, day after day after day. That's why people just give up and instead implore these posters to get out and get themselves an education on the subject matter.

And to emphasize my point even further, I've explained this very problem several times before already.

 

[leroy]

I have no doubt that you are interested in nature and in science. But you have personal biases that you entertain with a vigorous tenacity and little if any serious scholarship from what I have seen. All your efforts here are to twist scientific explanations and conclusions to fit your personal religious views. Understandably, a typical effort from a creationist position that is a priori correct by fiat, but not logically or scientifically valid.

Have you considered taking some sort of adult education class in basic science? I'd recommend something on the study of logic as well. I think you might enjoy it and your understanding and knowledge in these debates and discussions would benefit.

Just a thought for a practical next step.

So far I haven’t been corrected in any scientific nor logical issue, all I have are corrections of straw man arguments and perhaps (very unlikely) a vocabulary mistake.

I Said

Well supported testimonies from experts and corroborated by his peers (like in scientific papers) are evidence.

Stawman reply form almost all atheist in this thread

Ohhhh Leroy is saying that scientific papers are on pair with Alien abduction testimonies……..so if anything your atheist friends are the ones who need some education in logic, so that they no longer make logical fallacies like straw man fallacies.



Worst case scenario even assuming that I am wrong in the vocabulary, an appropriate reply would have been “yes Leroy you are correct Well supported testimonies from experts and corroborated by his peers (like in scientific papers) are evidence, it is just that in this context the term “testimony” is not the best possible word that you could have used.

 

[leroy]

My comment was, "Leroy's one of several creationists that gets beaten up by the scientifically literate when he makes his creationist arguments and whose net effect is to reassure those people that they made a good choice rejecting a literalist view of scripture and zealous religion." I guess that you didn't understand that. Batten and beaten are different words, and the scientifically literate and the scientific literature aren't the same, either.

ok my mistake (See how easy it is to admit mistakes)

We've discussed this tendency of yours where the ideas intended by words morph into something else in their comprehension. You also forget the past easily and continually ask to be shown where you did this or that. They're both tedious.

Because you make things up, that is why I always say “quote anywhere where I did X”………….and I usually don’t get a reply

What's your purpose here? What are you trying to accomplish? You get a lot of rebuking, which can't be pleasant, and there's no evidence that you're learning or teaching, but there is evidence that your efforts are counterproductive to any constructive purpose you might imagine for them. So why do this?

My purpose here in this forum is to learn, and share ideas, my specific purpose in this thread was to determine an objective and useful criteria that would allow us to determine what counts as evidence. ……….specifically when do testimonies count as evidence.

You are correct in this case my efforts where counterproductive, but I didn’t know that I was going to fail , my hypothesis is that internet atheist (as oppose to atheist scholars) tend to avoid a direct expiation on what evidence is, because they know deep inside that any coherent definition of evidence would result in the fact that there is at least some evidence in favor of views that go against their own view


see it is very easy to answer questions directly

It's relevant to me to know why you are focusing on something like testimony if I'm to engage you or read you engaging others, because presently, nothing you've said there is interesting or useful. I would want to know what part it plays in your larger creationist message.

you have received answers multiple times.

If you (plural) grant that at least sometimes testimonies are evidence…………..you could no longer avoid hard question by saying “ohhh those are just testimonies”…………. But rather you would be forced to interact with the argument and explain what is wrong with that particular testimony


If we get to a point where we agree on an objective metric to determine whether if a testimony is good evidence or not , then all I have to do provide an example of that testimony, and you would be forced to accept it as evidence.

So that is my hidden motive and my hidden agenda

But it is obvious that I failed, it is obvious that you (plural) would rather to keeo things vague and ambiguous so that you can always pull the “it´s not evidence because I say so card”

Why do you think it's relevant to call scientific knowledge testimony

What I said is that scientific knowledge comes largely from testimonies……(what other people say)…not that scientific knowledge itself is testimony

and point out that sometimes testimony is evidence?

Because @TagliatelliMonster and many others have claimed that testimonies are never evidence. I am just correcting them


I simply used scientific papers as an extreme and obvious example of testimonies that we all count as evidence

I am defining “testimony ” as things that people say or report ………… this definition doesn’t exclude well supported and well documented reports,

My alleged mistake is that the word “testimony” necessarily (or almost always) refers to subjective and unsupported assertions so my definition of testimony is incorrect ………… but honestly I am not convinced that this is a mistake.

I'd also like to know why my words seem to have no impact on your posting. If they did, you wouldn't have written those words. I've already done that twice.

In general terms, because you have an annoying tendency of making irrelevant comments and sometimes I simply ignore them .

Do you want me to quote specific examples? (unlike you I can support my claims and accusations)

 

[Pogo]

ok my mistake (See how easy it is to admit mistakes)


Because you make things up, that is why I always say “quote anywhere where I did X”………….and I usually don’t get a reply


My purpose here in this forum is to learn, and share ideas, my specific purpose in this thread was to determine an objective and useful criteria that would allow us to determine what counts as evidence. ……….specifically when do testimonies count as evidence.

You are correct in this case my efforts where counterproductive, but I didn’t know that I was going to fail , my hypothesis is that internet atheist (as oppose to atheist scholars) tend to avoid a direct expiation on what evidence is, because they know deep inside that any coherent definition of evidence would result in the fact that there is at least some evidence in favor of views that go against their own view


see it is very easy to answer questions directly


you have received answers multiple times.

If you (plural) grant that at least sometimes testimonies are evidence…………..you could no longer avoid hard question by saying “ohhh those are just testimonies”…………. But rather you would be forced to interact with the argument and explain what is wrong with that particular testimony


If we get to a point where we agree on an objective metric to determine whether if a testimony is good evidence or not , then all I have to do provide an example of that testimony, and you would be forced to accept it as evidence.

So that is my hidden motive and my hidden agenda

But it is obvious that I failed, it is obvious that you (plural) would rather to keeo things vague and ambiguous so that you can always pull the “it´s not evidence because I say so card”



What I said is that scientific knowledge comes largely from testimonies……(what other people say)…not that scientific knowledge itself is testimony


Because @TagliatelliMonster and many others have claimed that testimonies are never evidence. I am just correcting them


I simply used scientific papers as an extreme and obvious example of testimonies that we all count as evidence

I am defining “testimony ” as things that people say or report ………… this definition doesn’t exclude well supported and well documented reports,

My alleged mistake is that the word “testimony” necessarily (or almost always) refers to subjective and unsupported assertions so my definition of testimony is incorrect ………… but honestly I am not convinced that this is a mistake.


In general terms, because you have an annoying tendency of making irrelevant comments and sometimes I simply ignore them .

Do you want me to quote specific examples? (unlike you I can support my claims and accusations)

You have a lot of growing up to do.

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[leroy]

Because report is a more accurate word. Testimonies tend to be personal whereas report is objective.

The real question is why you insist on using unusual and inaccurate wording. Language is a sort of social contract, the definitions come about through the evolution of usage and dictionaries will update entries to expand definitions. But there has to be some sort of standard of common usage for a word, and new meanings, to be accepted. You have a habit of using odd wording that is disruptive. I think I asked you if English was your first language and that was because of your odd word usage.

The common use is report. Just use it. What is your motive to prefer an inaccurate word?

It's the wrong word. Just use correct language. Is there a problem that you don't want to?

What was that about arrogant?

Just use the correct language. Why do you have to fight and defend being wrong?

Just use the correct language. Why do you have to fight and defend being wrong?

Because I am not convinced that my usage of the term testimony is incorrect and I wont change my mind, just because you say so.


But worst case scenario, you (plural) should have answered………….Yes Leroy you are correct in all your points, just “testimony” is not the best possible word to use in this context.

 

[F1fan]

Well I was not aware of the fact that testimony necessarily (or almost always) means a subjective and unverified claim……….and quite frankly it seems to me that you are making this up because the alternative is to admit that I have always been correct.

The good news is that we are talking about testable and falsifiable stuff…………… we could find a random sample of sentences that uses the term “testimony” if we find out that in 90%+ cases testimony means “subjective and unverified” I would be wrong……. if we find out that in a relevant portion say 10% or more the word testimony refers to objective and verifiable claim……….I would be correct.

Do you accept this methodology?

No. You’re making all this nonsense up to try to justify poor language use. Oddly, add poor reasoning skill to the list, along with poor comprehension of science.

Most other members aren’t debating you, they are pointing out your errors. And you are defiant for some reason, perhaps due to religious influence.

If we run the test and happens to be the case that I am correct, would you make a comment admitting that I was correct?

Right don’t you get right on it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you make things up

So you have said before. No, I don't. Why would I?

But you tend to not acknowledge things written to you and need to be told the same thing repeatedly. In the past, there was a thread where I simply refused to repost the same comment a third or fourth time, admonished you for never acknowledging seeing it in your response much less rebutting it if you disagreed, and I told you that I simply wasn't going to be playing that game anymore. You accused me of lying about having answered already as you did again here.

I don't expect that to ever change in our discussions. I expect it ALWAYS to go that way, where eventually we get to a point where you want me to show you something I've posted, and I will eventually refuse again, and you will accuse me of "making things up." I'm good with that. When we get to that point, it will perfectly OK with me that you think I'm lying.

you have an annoying tendency of making irrelevant comments and sometimes I simply ignore them .

You ignore most of what I write to you, which is part of the problem I just outlined. In this case, I answered you twice about testimony and evidence, and then you posted as if you'd never seen that. And the reason you gave for that is your words above.

My purpose here in this forum is to learn, and share ideas

Do you think you're learning? I don't I see evidence of that. Your comments don't evolve to reflect new understanding.

As far as sharing ideas, how are those being received? Do you think others learn from you? What do you think you've accomplished in this thread beside annoying a few people? It seems to me that your position is that all claims are testimony as if the two words were synonymous, and that testimony is sometimes evidence, which I've disagreed with (twice), but I'm pretty sure that you can't say how.

So has this been a success for you? Are you happy with your results?

I simply used scientific papers as an extreme and obvious example of testimonies that we all count as evidence

And you've been told repeatedly why scientific knowledge is not testimony. Perhaps if you had been a little more responsive to the things others were telling you, you would have switched to the proper word: claim. Had you used that word every time you wrote testimony, perhaps whatever you purpose was would have been accomplished.

Incidentally, I don't believe that you're here to learn or teach. You're here to preach creationism. I say preach because that's what I call it when one keeps expressing his opinions while ignoring what others tell him, and thought you've not mentioned creationism, that's what you're selling. This is but a small part of a larger argument that I've recently outlined for you in this thread. You didn't address that at the time much less agree or attempt to correct it if you thought it wrong, which generally means that you have no idea to what I refer and will likely eventually accuse me of making that claim up.

My alleged mistake is that the word “testimony” necessarily (or almost always) refers to subjective and unsupported assertions so my definition of testimony is incorrect ………… but honestly I am not convinced that this is a mistake.

I am as are several others. Look at all of the time wasted because you used a word that was incorrect long after you were told how and why.

If you (plural) grant that at least sometimes testimonies are evidence…………..you could no longer avoid hard question by saying “ohhh those are just testimonies”…………. But rather you would be forced to interact with the argument and explain what is wrong with that particular testimony

I don't recall anybody saying that. What I sometimes say is that a claim is insufficiently supported to be believed. I have also said that the biblical scriptures which report others reporting seeing a resurrection, which you've called testimony, is also insufficient reason to believe either that anybody saw anything that could be mistaken for a resurrection or that anybody actually did that, that the Bible writer didn't falsely allege that that had been reported.

it is obvious that you (plural) would rather to keeo things vague and ambiguous so that you can always pull the “it´s not evidence because I say so card”

Obvious? You're wrong. There is nothing vague or ambiguous in my posting, but there is in yours. If you don't understand me, ask me to clarify.

What I said is that scientific knowledge comes largely from testimonies……(what other people say)…not that scientific knowledge itself is testimony

I don't see a distinction there. Also, you are incorrect as you have been told. Nobody has testified any science to me ever.

Because I am not convinced that my usage of the term testimony is incorrect and I wont change my mind, just because you say so.

Great plan. This has been working so well for you, so why change anything, right?

 

[F1fan]

Because I am not convinced that my usage of the term testimony is incorrect and I wont change my mind, just because you say so.

It’s not my say so. It’s knowing the dictionary definitions and applying them properly. And it’s not just me pointing out your errors. You have a habit of defying science, and now proper word usage. What is the motivation for such rebellion? How is it working for you?

But worst case scenario, you (plural) should have answered………….Yes Leroy you are correct in all your points, just “testimony” is not the best possible word to use in this context.

But it isn’t.

 

[Eli G]

If the change from ape to human lasted billions of years, and each previous change lasted the same...

...taking into account that each species change, one by one, must have been successive with respect to the immediately preceding change of the anterior species...

When you add up all the billions of years it took from a single-celled organism to humans, from each species to the next one until humans, doesn't that seem too much for the age calculated for our entire universe?

 

[leroy]

No. You’re making all this nonsense up to try to justify poor language use. Oddly, add poor reasoning skill to the list, along with poor comprehension of science.

Most other members aren’t debating you, they are pointing out your errors. And you are defiant for some reason, perhaps due to religious influence.

Right don’t you get right on it.

Ok I will ignore the fact that you run away from an objective test that could objectively have proven ether of us wrong (why are you afraid)

Supposedly I wrongly defined Testimony as “what other people claim or report” …………. What word do you think should have been used instead of testimony?

You what evidence for supernatural powers? Watch me…. I can predict the future and I will not get a direct answer from you

 

[leroy]

It’s not my say so. It’s knowing the dictionary definitions and applying them properly. And it’s not just me pointing out your errors. You have a habit of defying science, and now proper word usage. What is the motivation for such rebellion? How is it working for you?


But it isn’t.

What is the motivation for such rebellion?

I am not in a rebellion, I´ll use any term that you tell ask me to use

if not testimony what term should I use for this defintion “what other people say or report”

 

[Eli G]

I am not in a rebellion, I´ll use any term that you tell ask me to use

if not testimony what term should I use for this defintion “what other people say or report”

You don't need to be so demanding of yourself... Your opponents take the opinions of others as "testimony" as if they were evidence. Many times those opinions are accepted only because of the titles of those who express them and not because they really have evidence.

 

[F1fan]

If the change from ape to human lasted billions of years, and each previous change lasted the same..

It didn’t. Apes and humans have shared ancestors.

.

...taking into account that each species change, one by one, must have been successive with respect to the immediately preceding change of the anterior species...

When you add up all the billions of years it took from a single-celled organism to humans, from each species to the next one until humans, doesn't that seem too much for the age calculated for our entire universe?

We have experts who we can trust in investigating how things are. Non-experts have nothing to contribute.