Irony of the evolutionary belief

[YoursTrue]

Of course they do. Their work keeps getting more accurate. Why do you think that is a negative? That is a positive. The Bible on the other hand has only been shown to be wrong and every single year it is even more wrong.

Well, we'll see as to what happens. Now if you want to say my dear Dr. Hawking's conclusions or posits get more accurate -- well anyway he's not around to testify any more...or figure --
ooo --- ooo ---

Worried about Earth’s future? Well, the outlook is worse than even scientists can grasp

Humanity is destroying Earth’s ability to support complex life. But coming to grips with the magnitude of the problem is hard, even for experts.

theconversation.com

 

[YoursTrue]

So long for now --

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, we'll see as to what happens. Now if you want to say my dear Dr. Hawking's conclusions or posits get more accurate -- well anyway he's not around to testify any more...or figure --
ooo --- ooo ---

Worried about Earth’s future? Well, the outlook is worse than even scientists can grasp

Humanity is destroying Earth’s ability to support complex life. But coming to grips with the magnitude of the problem is hard, even for experts.

theconversation.com

Others will carry on his work. Does it bother you that of anyone in the world he is the most likely to be right?

 

[blü 2]

Well, we must admit that Dr. Hawking settled the issue when he said God is not needed for -- much of anything kind of, so to speak.

Perhaps he had in mind that the universe is something like 14 bn years old, while the God of the bible was a latecomer among the gods, appearing only some 2,500 years ago, easily more that a millennium later than the gods of Mesopotamia and of Egypt (and it seems reasonable to surmise that there was no shortage of gods and goddesses older than them).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are confusing evidence with “absolute and undeniable proof”

No, I'm not.

…… I am not saying that I have absolute proof of you being a father , but I do have evidence (your testimony)

No, you have my claim.

The hypothesis : “You are a father “ became more likely to be true given your testimony, than before such testimony ……. Therefore your testimony is evidence.

I have bridge for you to buy.
Apparently your standard of evidence is so low that the above became "more likely", merely because I claimed it.



You should learn the difference between claims and evidence.

In other words you testimony increased the probability of the hypothesis being true, therefore it is evidence.

But not only that, I would say that your testimony is strong evidence because:

1 you are a well informed person (you are in a position to know whether if you yourself are a father or not)

2 you made the testimony in a context where lies are improbable ¿why would you lie?

3 the intrinsic probability of the hypothesis is not too low (many persons fathers)

4 there is nothing that contradicts the hypothesis

5 any alternative hypothesis is demonstrably less likely to be true (unless new evidence comes in)

I have a million dollars.
I drive a lamborghini.
I date a model.

Hey, man... i'm a well informed person, why would I lie, many people have money, drive lambo's and date models, nothing contradicts my claims, alternatives thus are less likely.

Therefor my claims are "strong evidence of themselves"



This is like the definition of gullibility.

I can only repeat myself: learn the difference between claims and evidence.

Claims aren't evidence.
Claims require evidence.




I'm skipping the rest since it's just a repeat of the same ol' nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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………..

No.

What you are saying here is that in certain contexts you are willing to simply accept claims without evidence.

Like when a doctor diagnoses you with something without showing you evidence or explaining how he knows, you simply accept it trusting his expertise.
But that doesn't make the diagnosis evidence of its own accuracy.

It just means that you are believing the doctor on his word. That is all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Millions, not billions

...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?

Yes, idd, your strawman version of evolutionary history isn't correct.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your opponents take the opinions of others as "testimony" as if they were evidence.

No. And it's a small mystery how many more times it needs to be re-explained before it will sink in. Will it ever sink in, in fact?
It starts to look like it won't.

Many times those opinions are accepted only because of the titles of those who express them and not because they really have evidence.

Nope.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes I know……….. I honestly don’t understand why are they making such a big of a deal out of this………….obviously at least sometimes we al accept other people´s opinion or testimony as evidence

If a local person tells me that restaurant A is closer to my hotel than restaurant B, I will accept his testimony/opinion as evidence that A is closer than B. And so do everyone in this thread…………..it is more a case of “disagegreeng just for the sake of disagreeing”

Again: no.

In the case of the local person, you will just be believing that person on his word.
That doesn't magically make that person's word evidence.
It just means that you are willing to believe the bare claim without additional evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don’t understand the issue, the issue is not weather if he should present evince for a personal claim like being a father of 2 children

The issue is the absurdity of his position………….. his position is that testimonies /claims are never evidence…….such a radical view leads to many funny and absurd consequences.

There's nothing absurd about the statement that claims aren't evidence and that instead claims require evidence.

For example given that being a father is a common thing to be, given that he had no reason to lie and given that he would likely know if he is a father or not. I take his testimony as evidence of him being a father. In other words his testimony makes the hypothesis more likely to be true (this is why it is evidence)……………… but by his standards I should accept that testimony as evidence.

Again: if you believe my claim (for whatever reasoning you provide), it doesn't make the claim evidence.
It just means you are willing to take me on my word. Not because you have evidence. You deciding to believe my claim doesn't magically turn the claim into evidence.
It's still just a claim. It stays just a claim. Wheter you decide to believe it or not.

Even the testimony of his wife, or a legal document or a DNA test would be someone else’s testimony and therefore not evidence by his standards…………….. So as funny as this might sound, even in principle it is impossible to show evidence that supports him being a father.

A legal document or DNA test would be evidence.
Just because words are used to communicate said evidence doesn't make it "testimony"




How much longer are you going to keep up with this ridiculous charade?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Bbl p

@TagliatelliMonster claims that testimonies can not be evidence. You can ask him directly and see that this is not a word game

The problem is that you call literally everything that is communicated using words "testimony".

To such extent that communicating the results of a DNA test, you also call that "testimony".

It's beyond ridiculous.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would rather hear it from him than filtered by you. At times it does look as if you are deliberately trying to misunderstand others.

@leroy is playing his usual dishonest word games.

What I actually said is that bare testimony isn't evidence as those are mere claims which would require evidence.
"I saw a monster yesterday". That's a claim. Not evidence that a monster actually exists.

@leroy however then pretends as if using words to communicate the results of a DNA test is also "testimony".

It's the usual dishonest word games we have all come to expect from him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@leroy is playing his usual dishonest word games.

What I actually said is that bare testimony isn't evidence as those are mere claims which would require evidence.
"I saw a monster yesterday". That's a claim. Not evidence that a monster actually exists.

@leroy however then pretends as if using words to communicate the results of a DNA test is also "testimony".

It's the usual dishonest word games we have all come to expect from him.

Why am I not surprised? I know both him and you too well to take his comments about you as if it were gospel truth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I'm not.




No, you have my claim.



I have bridge for you to buy.
Apparently your standard of evidence is so low that the above became "more likely", merely because I claimed it.



You should learn the difference between claims and evidence.



I have a million dollars.
I drive a lamborghini.
I date a model.

Hey, man... i'm a well informed person, why would I lie, many people have money, drive lambo's and date models, nothing contradicts my claims, alternatives thus are less likely.

Therefor my claims are "strong evidence of themselves"



This is like the definition of gullibility.

I can only repeat myself: learn the difference between claims and evidence.

Claims aren't evidence.
Claims require evidence.




I'm skipping the rest since it's just a repeat of the same ol' nonsense.

I hope it is not the same imaginary model. That would be awkward.

I think there is a disconnect here due to testimonies being used as evidence in the courts. A testimony is a claim without evidence used as evidence in legal proceedings and that distinction is too subtle to understand for some. Or those that try to equate the scientific literature as merely testimony equal to any empty claim are hoping that subtlety is missed by everyone else and they buy the flawed equivalency.

 

[YoursTrue]

Others will carry on his work. Does it bother you that of anyone in the world he is the most likely to be right?

Does it bother you if he's not right?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

sometimes seem to accept that testimonies could be evidence, sometimes you seem to claim the opposite…………..so what should I do? Ask again?

No, no need. We're at that point where I'm not going to repeat a comment I've made twice to you already in this thread.

do you grant that atleast sometimes testimonies are evidence? Yes or no?

Already answered twice. If you want to know again, go back through the last several pages. Or search "testimony" and my screen name to be taken right to it. I've explained to you how to do that in the past, but as I recall, you never learned to do it and probably never tried.

Here's something I wrote to you last summer while trying to find where I tried to teach you how to do a search at Darwin's Illusion

"I've already covered all of this. You failed to address it then. You don't get second chances any more, Leroy. Since you can't remember what you read my posts, you refuse to do a digital search to retrieve them, you can't find them manually, and since you won't keep notes, you get one chance to address the contents of my posts - when you first see them. When you let that go by, well, it's gone for you. Those are my rules. You can adapt to them and we can have a mature discussion without all of hand-holding and your special needs, or not."

Also this:

"If you're not interested in paying that much attention to the words when you first see them, then you will miss many. I've explained this to you, and showed you how to do better, but as others note, the problem is your inefficient comprehension and retention, not that the information isn't being provided. You ask for your questions to be answered again and again, but you will be evaluating them with the same apparatus that missed the answers the first time. People aren't motivated to contribute to that."

if you say that testimony is not evidence, then why should I accept what you tell me (your testimony)?...........see the irony?

I didn't say that, and yes I see the irony, but probably not where you mean.

Strange given that I am not a creationist (assuming you mean YEC)

Do you believe that the world was created by an intelligent agent or do you accept the naturalistic alternative? Everybody who chooses the first option is a creationist.

I am willing to change, just tell me what word should I use instead of testimony

The proper word for what you're calling testimony is claim. Some claims are testimony, but some are much more. The two are not synonymous.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Does it bother you if he's not right?

None at all. Does it bother you that your belief in the Bible being factual might actually be wrong and where it is mostly fiction?

 

[leroy]

I would rather hear it from him than filtered by you. At times it does look as if you are deliberately trying to misunderstand others.

ok there you go.....from comments that you have read


@TagliatelliMonster doesn't ever accept testimony (claims) as evidence

1 a doctor telling you that you are sick (not evidence)

2 a local man telling you where the restorant is (not evidence)

3 your neighbor telling you that he has a son (not evidence)

You obviously disagree with him, so are you going to explain to him why is he wrong? Or are you going to support his mistake just because he is an atheist and part of your tribe.?

As for my DNA example I admit that I was wrong DNA test are more than just testimony

No.

What you are saying here is that in certain contexts you are willing to simply accept claims without evidence.

Like when a doctor diagnoses you with something without showing you evidence or explaining how he knows, you simply accept it trusting his expertise.
But that doesn't make the diagnosis evidence of its own accuracy.

It just means that you are believing the doctor on his word. That is all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok there you go.....from comments that you have read


@TagliatelliMonster doesn't ever accept testimony (claims) as evidence

1 a doctor telling you that you are sick (not evidence)

2 a local man telling you where the restorant is (not evidence)

3 your neighbor telling you that he has a son (not evidence)

You obviously disagree with him, so are you going to explain to him why is he wrong? Or are you going to support his mistake just because he is an atheist and part of your tribe.?

As for my DNA example I admit that I was wrong DNA test are more than just testimony

You forgot that he used a qualifier. You can reread his post, apologize to @TagliatelliMonster and then reformulate your question to me.

 

[leroy]

You forgot that he used a qualifier. You can reread his post, apologize to @TagliatelliMonster and then reformulate your question to me.

1 You would accept a phone call from your doctor as evidence that you are sick

2 tag wouldn’t accept that as evidence

Therefore you disagree with tag



Why is this so hard to understand?