Irony of the evolutionary belief

[leroy]

@leroy
Ask chatGPT
Is testimony an appropriate word for research papers?

Why would I want to ask that ,,? Why is it relevant..... Have I ever claimed the opposite? When?

it answers:

1)Yes, "testimony" is not typically used in scientific papers. In scientific writing, it's more common to use terms like "evidence," "data," "findings," "results," or "observations" to describe the information presented. "Testimony" carries connotations of personal statements or declarations, often associated
with legal or subjective contexts, rather than the objective and empirical nature of scientific discourse.

2)
Yes, "testimony" isn't typically used in scientific papers. In scientific writing, terms like "evidence," "data," "findings," "results," or "observations" are more commonly used to describe the information presented. These terms emphasize the empirical nature of scientific research and the objective reporting of results rather than subjective accounts or personal testimonies.
3 / 3


interesting CYA responses.

Did I ever say something that horas against that quote? When ?

 

[Pogo]

In an other thread I claimed and supported the claim that there are non random mechanisms that can produce hereditable changes in the phenotype and the genotype

@F1fan disagreed

I am not sure if I understand your request.... Do you want a link to that thread?

Unfortunately that was not the context in which you made the claim. No-one was arguing that mutations could produce heritable (not hereditable) changes, nor that there are some ways in which they can be non-random. The disagreement was with your assertion that their existence was evidence for your idea that they were involved in the Prestin evolution. Whether you understand it or not, this was an example of you attempting to insert teleology into your argument.

 

[Pogo]

Why would I want to ask that ,,? Why is it relevant..... Have I ever claimed the opposite? When?



Did I ever say something that horas against that quote? When ?

Is Spanish your primary language or is your autocorrect set to Spanish because it appears that you randomly insert Spanish words into your texts? (horas for argues?)

Why would you want to phrase the question the way I did?

Because the way you asked it was biased towards getting the answer you wanted which was that testimony could include evidence. As the answer also made clear, testimony does not imply the existence of evidence, only the testifier's claim. Research papers specifically involve evidence/data etc. So I asked if it was appropriate to use testimony which does not imply evidence when discussing papers that do imply the existence of relevant evidence. As expected chatGPT agreed in it's non-committal way that as we have been trying to teach you, it is not a good word and there are better ones.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why would I want to ask that ,,? Why is it relevant..... Have I ever claimed the opposite? When?

Dude.........................................


You have just been spending post after post for several days calling scientific papers "testimony" as well as defending using that word when PLENTY of people have been calling you out on it...........................

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Becase Jesús sayas so

This i show I would elaborate my argument, (read the whole post before answering)
1 there are good arguments for the existence of God (I am talking about some generic type of God)
2 if God exist miracles every once in a while become probable (or atleast not very unlikely)
3 if miracles are not very unlikely, then the specific miracle of the resurrection becomes probable (especially given the historical evidence for this event)
4 if Jesus resurrected, then he is who he claimed to be (which means that he has authority)
5 we have multiple *reports* (I can´t use the word testimony anymore) from contemporary people that describe what Jesus said and did (including the promises)
6 these reports are historically reliable

Now, I don’t expect (nor whant) you to respond to all the points…………… my question is do you see any incoherence of flaw in that logic?.......... do you find any step to an insuperable obstacle?

I'm going to need to refer to those points to address the coherence of your argument.

You believe the promises attributed to Jesus because they appear in the Bible, and you believe the Bible because you believe there is a god because there are good arguments that one exists, and that therefore miracles can happen such as a resurrection. Also, the Bible contains reports of people having witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, and that therefore the promises attributed to him should be believed.

I'd say that even if I agreed that there are good arguments for the existence of a god, there aren't good arguments that it's that god specifically, nor that gods would likely perform miracles on earth, nor that if they did, that a resurrection of Jesus was among them, nor that the reports in the Bible are historically reliable, so I'll remain skeptical of those promises, especially given that the promises made that can be tested before death (prayer works, faith can move mountains) weren't kept.

And it's fine to use the word testimony where it applies, which is whenever somebody reports that they have seen, heard, or done something with or without corroboration, although the word implies a formal questioning as in a courtroom. The reports of people claiming to have witnessed a resurrection can be called testimony, but that's stretching the word a bit if they weren't asked whether they saw one. That's a fine point and nothing to quibble over. When you use the term to apply to the conclusions of a scientific paper, for example, that you've deviated from the most literal meaning of the word as in testimony given under oath by too much.

I know that you (plural) are in skeptic mode and would deny anything that contradicts your view

The skeptic's view is that an idea ought to be sufficiently supported with evidence before it is believed. You haven't done that. You claimed that there were good arguments to believe that a god exists without offering any and then assumed you knew which god that was and what it did because if there's a god, it might have resurrected Jesus, the evidence for that being the claims in biblical scripture. That's not enough for me to believe the promises Jesus is said to have made.

Is Spanish your primary language

I've wondered that, too. He just spelled Jesus "Jesús." Leroy doesn't like to discuss his personal life at all. I'd love to know what country he lives in, his native tongue, what other languages he speaks, his occupation, marital status, kids if any, or why he chose The Brain as his avatar, but he doesn't refer to such things. His profile says he's 35 yo.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Have you ever thought about what you would like to do if you could live for more than a thousand years on the planet and under what conditions you would like to carry out those activities?

This is what God promises in the Bible about the future:

Is. 65:19 (...) No more will there be heard in her the sound of weeping or a cry of distress.”
20 “No more will there be an infant from that place who lives but a few days,
Nor an old man who fails to live out his days.
For anyone who dies at a hundred will be considered a mere boy,
And the sinner will be cursed, even though he is a hundred years of age.
21 They will build houses and live in them,
And they will plant vineyards and eat their fruitage.
22 They will not build for someone else to inhabit,
Nor will they plant for others to eat.
For the days of my people will be like the days of a tree,
And the work of their hands my chosen ones will enjoy to the full.
23 They will not toil for nothing,
Nor will they bear children for distress,
Because they are the offspring made up of those blessed by Jehovah,
And their descendants with them.
24 Even before they call out, I will answer;
While they are yet speaking, I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
The lion will eat straw just like the bull,
And the serpent’s food will be dust.
They will do no harm nor cause any ruin in all my holy mountain,” says Jehovah.

Did you know that in the Bible you can read many promises from God similar to those about the future of humanity?

You're asking yourself questions now?

 

[F1fan]

OK, since you asked, and I don't particularly wish to go off on a tangent, the Bible offers hope within its pages that one day this earth is going to be a better place with humans that God allows to live forever.

I don't understand why anyone wants to believe this. If a person is afraid of death why not learn to accept it, instead of belief in immortality? I have seen how preachers exploit believers' fear and anxiety, and I find that immoral.

I appreciate what I have learned. As one of the Bible writers pointed out, there are some things hard to understand.* But the hope of everlasting life is something I can relate to.
*when I say hard to understand, I mean there are some things I cannot explain. Hope YOU understand that.

Why do you want immortality?

 

[F1fan]

The drive to survive is also likely from evolution. Animals that did not care if they died, probably died. Animals with an instinct to live passed on their genes. The fact of death runs contrary to that.

Most all animals evolved with the "fight or flight" response mechanism, and this helps them survive threats from predators. Same for humans. The humans that did not run from a predator were attacked and killed. The evolution of a larger brain allowed the invention of weapons and tools, and this allowed humans the ability to become predators themselves.

 

[F1fan]

But do you understand that GPT is much better as a source than mere claims from anonymous people in forums ?

Just use a dictionary. The question remains why you are so confused about the meanings of common words. And why you refuse to adjust your misapplication of words, and continue to post confusing comments due to your poor and inaccurate word choice. If English is your second language I can understand the confusion.

Do you understand why am I more inclined to accept GPTs definition over your (plural) definition?

Because you have some weird motive that has nothing with truth and knowledge.

In an other thread I claimed and supported the claim that there are non random mechanisms that can produce hereditable changes in the phenotype and the genotype

@F1fan disagreed

I am not sure if I understand your request.... Do you want a link to that thread?

You posted a link. You offered your personal interpration of what the link reported. I disagreed with your interpretation. You admit to not having any expertise, so why you think your opinion about findings in science is definitive, and superior to those with a better education, and better reasoning skill, and better language usage, supports what @Dan From Smithville said about not taking your psts seriously.

If you can't get science right, and can't get language right, then it's a you problem. It's not the rest of us.

 

[Pogo]

I'm going to need to refer to those points to address the coherence of your argument.

You believe the promises attributed to Jesus because they appear in the Bible, and you believe the Bible because you believe there is a god because there are good arguments that one exists, and that therefore miracles can happen such as a resurrection. Also, the Bible contains reports of people having witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, and that therefore the promises attributed to him should be believed.

I'd say that even if I agreed that there are good arguments for the existence of a god, there aren't good arguments that it's that god specifically, nor that gods would likely perform miracles on earth, nor that if they did, that a resurrection of Jesus was among them, nor that the reports in the Bible are historically reliable, so I'll remain skeptical of those promises, especially given that the promises made that can be tested before death (prayer works, faith can move mountains) weren't kept.

And it's fine to use the word testimony where it applies, which is whenever somebody reports that they have seen, heard, or done something with or without corroboration, although the word implies a formal questioning as in a courtroom. The reports of people claiming to have witnessed a resurrection can be called testimony, but that's stretching the word a bit if they weren't asked whether they saw one. That's a fine point and nothing to quibble over. When you use the term to apply to the conclusions of a scientific paper, for example, that you've deviated from the most literal meaning of the word as in testimony given under oath by too much.

The skeptic's view is that an idea ought to be sufficiently supported with evidence before it is believed. You haven't done that. You claimed that there were good arguments to believe that a god exists without offering any and then assumed you knew which god that was and what it did because if there's a god, it might have resurrected Jesus, the evidence for that being the claims in biblical scripture. That's not enough for me to believe the promises Jesus is said to have made.

I've wondered that, too. He just spelled Jesus "Jesús." Leroy doesn't like to discuss his personal life at all. I'd love to know what country he lives in, his native tongue, what other languages he speaks, his occupation, marital status, kids if any, or why he chose The Brain as his avatar, but he doesn't refer to such things. His profile says he's 35 yo.

Need to clean my screen, missed that one, but re Pinky and the Brain, he probably watched it aged 7-10 just like my kids and I and here is an interesting use of the stories in P+B re startups. It is very interesting how Leroy behaves just like the Brain.

In every episode Brain hatches a new plan in his never-ending quest to take over the world, which ultimately ends in failure. More often than not this is due to Pinky’s idiocy, the sheer impossibility of Brain’s plan, Brain’s own arrogance, or the fact that they are tiny mice trying to take over the world.

Using this as backdrop, let’s explore some lessons can learn from the world’s tiniest evil genius and his ever-faithful companion.

Know when to call it quits
Pinky: “Gee Brain, what are we gonna do tonight?” Brain: “The same thing we do every night — try to take over the world!”

There is no such thing as quitting for the Brain. No matter how many times his plans fail, which is every time, the mouse just won’t give up.

From

8 startup lessons from Pinky and the Brain​

 

[YoursTrue]

And that Adam would not have known what he was doing according to the myth. Haven't you ever read it? It is clear that you did not understand it. Tell me, can you describe the tree that they ate from in the myth? What did the tree do?

Who said Adam would not have known what he was doing?

 

[YoursTrue]

@Eli G is correct it is boring and useless to spend 100+ post with definitions

I said what I had to say multiple times



No these are not facts to me.

But I have a genuine desire to understand, why do you think that I would / should accept those claims as facts?

Because they are probably peer-reviewed claims or conclusions from data. Not testimony, of course. Because that isn't the right word for some. Although they could testify that those are their claims. I suppose maybe or maybe have a big verbal battle over what the word testimony means. In science, of course. Because in a court of law they might have to raise their right hand and proclaim it's the truth and nothing but.

 

[leroy]

Dude.........................................


You have just been spending post after post for several days calling scientific papers "testimony" as well as defending using that word when PLENTY of people have been calling you out on it...........................

Yes and I defined testimony as “what other people say or report”

So on that definition scientific papers would be the testimony (report) of the authors



My original claim was that at least sometimes testimonies (using that definition) can be evidence like for example trhe testimony of the authors of a scientific paper.

Therefore, worst case scenario, an appropriate reply would have been “yes Leroy that is true, but testimony is not the best possible word, I suggest you to use “claim” instead.

Not your straw man reply of “ohhhh Leroy says that testimonies of Alien abductions are on pair with scientific papers”

when PLENTY of people have been calling you out on it

Strange comment , given that you are the one who is sayign that I should never accept claims as evidnece……………why should I accept what other people say about the proper defitnion of testimony?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who said Adam would not have known what he was doing?

The Bible says that. You should read the story some day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But do you understand that GPT is much better as a source than mere claims from anonymous people in forums ?

Do you understand why am I more inclined to accept GPTs definition over your (plural) definition?

No, it is a tool of abuse by the ignorant right now. It can be led to make false statements for complex matters rather easily. It will both state that there is a God and that there is not. It may be more reliable than some anonymous schizophrenic person on the internet that is on both sides of a problem at all times, but it is far from being better than a random person because at least random people tend to be consistently right or wrong on a topic.

 

[leroy]

I'm going to need to refer to those points to address the coherence of your argument.

You believe the promises attributed to Jesus because they appear in the Bible, and you believe the Bible because you believe there is a god because there are good arguments that one exists, and that therefore miracles can happen such as a resurrection. Also, the Bible contains reports of people having witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, and that therefore the promises attributed to him should be believed.

I'd say that even if I agreed that there are good arguments for the existence of a god, there aren't good arguments that it's that god specifically, nor that gods would likely perform miracles on earth, nor that if they did, that a resurrection of Jesus was among them, nor that the reports in the Bible are historically reliable, so I'll remain skeptical of those promises, especially given that the promises made that can be tested before death (prayer works, faith can move mountains) weren't kept.

I am not saying that you shouldn’t remain skeptical, what I said is that given the existence of God (some generic God) the claim “miracles can occur” doesn’t sound like an extraordinary claim nor as something completely unexpected.

I am not saying that miracles logically and necessarily follow from the existence of a God, I am just saying that miracle would be “ridiculously improbable” Given the existance of God



As an analogy, assuming the existence of Aliens with super technology, with spaceships can travel at relativistic speeds, the claim “Aliens visited ancient Egypt” becomes a “not so improbable” claim to the point that if there were multiple ancient historians who consistently talk about spaceships and aliens we would consider these documents as valid evidence for such a claim-. (note that I didn’t say conclusive and irrefutable evidence, just valid evidence)

And it's fine to use the word testimony where it applies, which is whenever somebody reports that they have seen, heard, or done something with or without corroboration, although the word implies a formal questioning as in a courtroom. The reports of people claiming to have witnessed a resurrection can be called testimony, but that's stretching the word a bit if they weren't asked whether they saw one. That's a fine point and nothing to quibble over. When you use the term to apply to the conclusions of a scientific paper, for example, that you've deviated from the most literal meaning of the word as in testimony given under oath by too much.

No thanks, in this thread, it was established that testimony means “without evidence”………….. if I use that word people are going to say “ohhhh see Leroy is admitting that he has no evidence”

I've wondered that, too. He just spelled Jesus "Jesús." Leroy doesn't like to discuss his personal life at all. I'd love to know what country he lives in, his native tongue, what other languages he speaks, his occupation, marital status, kids if any, or why he chose The Brain as his avatar, but he doesn't refer to such things. His profile says he's 35 yo.

I apologize for that, ill try not to publish wrods in Spanish, I usually write in my cellphones while I am in the bus or the subway, (which is very hard) this is why I have so many typos, I´ll try to reduce the frequency my spelling mistakes.

I am from Mexico, I am 36 years old I have a 4yo daughter, the brain in my avatar is just a random image that I found in my computer.

 

[leroy]

You posted a link. You offered your personal interpration of what the link reported. I disagreed with your interpretation. You admit to not having any expertise, so why you think your opinion about findings in science is definitive, and superior to those with a better education, and better reasoning skill, and better language usage, supports what @Dan From Smithville said about not taking your psts seriously.

I did the best possible thing that I could have done , I quotes a scientific paper that explicitly says that nonrandom mutations seem to occur and that they play a role in the evolution of organisms.

And you did the worst possible thing “claim that I am wrong because you say so”

 

[leroy]

No, it is a tool of abuse by the ignorant right now. It can be led to make false statements for complex matters rather easily. It will both state that there is a God and that there is not. It may be more reliable than some anonymous schizophrenic person on the internet that is on both sides of a problem at all times, but it is far from being better than a random person because at least random people tend to be consistently right or wrong on a topic.

You have a bias in favor of “refuting me” GPT has no bias……for that reason alone I prefer that source.

Besides there is a big difference between asking GPT about deep and hard philosophical questions and the definition of a common word

And be honest…. Deep inside you know that my definition of testimony (what people say or report) is perfectly valid,

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have a bias in favor of “refuting me” GPT has no bias……for that reason alone I prefer that source.

Besides there is a big difference between asking GPT about deep and hard philosophical questions and the definition of a common word

And be honest…. Deep inside you know that my definition of testimony (what people say or report) is perfectly valid,

Sorry, but no, why your definition has not been valid has been explained to you far past the T-shirt point. You are merely abusing an undeveloped tool when you use GPT. Some day it will be much more reliable. Now, not so much. Here is the thing, if people reject your sources and you are trying to convince others then you need to find another more reliable source. That you cannot or will not do so tells others that you are wrong.

 

[Pogo]

I am not saying that you shouldn’t remain skeptical, what I said is that given the existence of God (some generic God) the claim “miracles can occur” doesn’t sound like an extraordinary claim nor as something completely unexpected.

I am not saying that miracles logically and necessarily follow from the existence of a God, I am just saying that miracle would be “ridiculously improbable” Given the existance of God



As an analogy, assuming the existence of Aliens with super technology, with spaceships can travel at relativistic speeds, the claim “Aliens visited ancient Egypt” becomes a “not so improbable” claim to the point that if there were multiple ancient historians who consistently talk about spaceships and aliens we would consider these documents as valid evidence for such a claim-. (note that I didn’t say conclusive and irrefutable evidence, just valid evidence)



No thanks, in this thread, it was established that testimony means “without evidence”………….. if I use that word people are going to say “ohhhh see Leroy is admitting that he has no evidence”





I apologize for that, ill try not to publish wrods in Spanish, I usually write in my cellphones while I am in the bus or the subway, (which is very hard) this is why I have so many typos, I´ll try to reduce the frequency my spelling mistakes.

I am from Mexico, I am 36 years old I have a 4yo daughter, the brain in my avatar is just a random image that I found in my computer.

Don't worry about the Spanish or even the sentence structure, we now know why it is happening and that they are not just random mistakes. In fact it appears that my hypothesis of a Spanish autocorrect is probably correct and explains the accents and Spanish spellings for similar words.
We are curious people and we notice things and try to work out why.