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.
. If you don't understand me, ask me to clarify.
ok then I will ask for clarification
your answers have not been clear to me. sometimes seem to accept that testimonies could be evidence, sometimes you seem to claim the opposite…………..so what should I do? Ask again?
Using my definition of testimony (what other people say or report)………… do you grant that atleast sometimes testimonies are evidence? Yes or no?
And before you get upset………………yes I acknowledge that you have answered this before…………I take the blame, I am the one who fails to understand which is why I am asking again ……………..you don’t have to answer with a long and ambiguous comment………….all you need to do is answer yes or no
Do you think you're learning? I don't I see zero 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?
yes and yes.............. Obviously they won’t admit it, but I can give specific examples of things that other people have learned.
It seems to me that your position is that all claims are testimony as if the two words were synonymous,
sure claims and testimony are synonymous
So has this been a success for you? Are you happy with your results?
No as I told you before and admitted, i failed in my attempt to establish a clear and useful definition of evidence
And you've been told repeatedly why scientific knowledge is not testimony.
It all depends on what you mean by “testimony”……. But yes given my definition (what other people say or report) I would say that scientific knowledge is largely dependent on testimony (which is ok)
But if you say that testimony is not evidence, then why should I accept what you tell me (your testimony)?...........see the irony?
(this comment should be ignored if you grant that at least sometimes testimony is evidence it all depends on how you answer the previous question )
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.
I don’t think so………..If I were to bet, I´ll say that we would be having the exact same conversation regardless if I switch the word testimony for claims
I imagine this conversation
1 Me: at least sometimes claims are evidence. Like for example the well supported claims made in a scientific paper are evidence.
2 you (plural) ohhhh seeeeee Leroy thinks that scientific papers are just mere unsupported claims, he thinks that scientific papers are on pair with Alien Abduction claims…………… can´t you see the difference between science and mere claims?
Incidentally, I don't believe that you're here to learn or teach. You're here to preach creationism
Strange given that I am not a creationist (assuming you mean YEC)…………. But this predisposing of believing that everything is a hidden pro creationist propaganda is telling
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.
Well you (plural) are guilty of that waste of time.
You are focusing on a minor detail (correct vocabulary) instead of focusing on the issue, the issue being weather if at least sometimes testimonies (
what other people say or report) or if testimonies are never evidence.
If you think that testimony is not appropriate, just tell me what word should I use to match the definition (I red letters)
I don't recall anybody saying that. What I sometimes say is that a claim is insufficiently supported to be believed.
well I have seen many atheist in this forum repeating the meme
claims/testimonies are not evidence.
If we establish that least sometimes they could be evidence, then you can´t simply repeat that meme…………but rather you would need more justification
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.
Disagree, but different topic
I don't see a distinction there. Also, you are incorrect as you have been told. Nobody has testified any science to me ever.
No scientists makes his discoveries from zero, they always rely on what other scientists have reported in the past (testimony according to my definition )
So under that basis I am affirming that scientific papers depend largely on testimony.
If you have a different understanding on what testimony is, then my comment simply doesn’t apply
Great plan. This has been working so well for you, so why change anything, right?
I am willing to change, just tell me what word should I use instead of testimony
