Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[YoursTrue]

I just gave it. You need some to practice patience. Especially considering how rude you have been. Wrong and obnoxious is always rude.

You don't see yourself as rude and obnoxious?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is in response to your accusation of me: You said, "I have a problem with you using terms that you do not understand. You do not understand what "proof" is or what evidence is. That is what I am trying to correct right now.

I really don't care for your "explanations" since until you understand at the very least what is and what is not evidence they are of no value at all.

Now can you be honest and deal just with the scientific method right now?"

How can I deal with the scientific method you talk about, when you say I do not understand what proof or evidence is. So can you explain what proof or evidence is?

Let me put it this way, you either do not know what proof and evidence is or you are blatantly lying. That is why I have been trying to help you to learn what the concepts are.

If you wish to go back to the scientific method that is fine with me, but scientific evidence will be part of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok, @sz: what proof or evidence supports the idea (hypothesis) that life came about in humans, birds, and apes by evolution?

Let's nail down your understanding of the scientific method and scientific evidence first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't see yourself as rude and obnoxious?

Not really. When people are rude and obnoxious I can be rather curt with them. For example abusing smileys may even be against the rules hear since it could be considered goading.

 

[YoursTrue]

Let me put it this way, you either do not know what proof and evidence is or you are blatantly lying. That is why I have been trying to help you to learn what the concepts are.

If you wish to go back to the scientific method that is fine with me, but scientific evidence will be part of it.

You're the one telling me I don't know what proof and evidence is, so that is why I ask YOU to give definitions. (Since you keep telling me I don't know what they are. So you tell me.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Not really. When people are rude and obnoxious I can be rather curt with them. For example abusing smileys may even be against the rules hear since it could be considered goading.

I didn't know that. Although it does reflect my smiling persona as I speak to you. It's ok. But I find it rather interesting that while you call me rude and obnoxious, you don't see yourself in that category. (No smileys written out.) I wouldn't think of my smileys as goading, but when you say I am curt and obnoxious, don't know what I'm talking about and lying, yet you don't offer an explanation of what proof and evidence you really have, well -- (no smileys again) - that's the way it is.
P.S. You may offer what you consider as proof or evidence, but unless you explain it thoroughly in your own words so it is understandable to me, it doesn't really add up. To me. Not saying it doesn't add up to you. I am sure it does. But again -- you offer no real proof except that of conjecture and filling in the missing pieces for what you say is evolution.
And, now that we're up to that point, yes -- it would be beneficial for you to say what evolution is. And how life go started. I find it interesting also, as a side point, to note that mutations of many sorts (such as two-headed snakes & humans) are not considered as sustainable, they are considered as problematic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're the one telling me I don't know what proof and evidence is, so that is why I ask YOU to give definitions. (Since you keep telling me I don't know what they are. So you tell me.)

I have been. The definition of evidence I gave and linked a.source. Haven't you been paying attention?

An apology would be nice since you just made another false accusation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't know that. Although it does reflect my smiling persona as I speak to you. It's ok. But I find it rather interesting that while you call me rude and obnoxious, you don't see yourself in that category. (No smileys written out.) I wouldn't think of my smileys as goading, but when you say I am curt and obnoxious, don't know what I'm talking about and lying, yet you don't offer an explanation of what proof and evidence you really have, well -- (no smileys again) - that's the way it is.
P.S. You may offer what you consider as proof or evidence, but unless you explain it thoroughly in your own words so it is understandable to me, it doesn't really add up. To me. Not saying it doesn't add up to you. I am sure it does. But again -- you offer no real proof except that of conjecture and filling in the missing pieces for what you say is evolution.
And, now that we're up to that point, yes -- it would be beneficial for you to say what evolution is. And how life go started. I find it interesting also, as a side point, to note that mutations of many sorts (such as two-headed snakes & humans) are not considered as sustainable, they are considered as problematic.

I have been more than patient with you. That entitles me to at least a little bit of an attitude.

And please, since you are a science denier you have no idea what proof is. Let's work on your basic skills first.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have been more than patient with you. That entitles me to at least a little bit of an attitude.

And please, since you are a science denier you have no idea what proof is. Let's work on your basic skills first.

I am not a science denier.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not a science denier.

When one denies the science that one does not understand one is a science denier.

But don't worry. You can still learn.

EDIT: I used to be a science denier in regards to AGW. But one thing that I did differently from most science deniers was that I investigated the claims of those saying that man made global warming was a real threat. I kept finding their sources much more reliable than the ones that I used. I eventually realized my error.

 

[YoursTrue]

Let's nail down your understanding of the scientific method and scientific evidence first.

So what proof or evidence supports the idea (hypothesis) that life came about in humans, birds, and apes by evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what proof or evidence supports the idea (hypothesis) that life came about in humans, birds, and apes by evolution?

I posted some quite a while ago. But without getting into specifics the fossil record is evidence for the theory of evolution. Do you understand why?

 

[YoursTrue]

When one denies the science that one does not understand one is a science denier.

But don't worry. You can still learn.

You are not really talking about science. You are talking about conjecture based on what might be based on what is there. For instance, you might be talking about life coming about because some gases and elements combined and later breath was formed,well then -- that is not science. I worked in a lab under the guidance of a professor. He experimented with analyzing certain substances. The students were involved in separating and combining these substances. They detailed the outcomes. That's one aspect of science.
Similarly, analyzing other elements in combination or extraction and measuring them is also science. Guessing what something might be based on the experiments does not constitute proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are not really talking about science. You are talking about conjecture based on what might be based on what is there. For instance, you might be talking about life coming about because some gases and elements combined and later breath was formed,well then -- that is not science. I worked in a lab under the guidance of a professor. He experimented with analyzing certain substances. The students were involved in separating and combining these substances. They detailed the outcomes. That's one aspect of science.
Similarly, analyzing other elements in combination or extraction and measuring them is also science. Guessing what something might be based on the experiments does not constitute proof.

So you still have no clue as to what the scientific method is or what evidence is.

But let's play it your way. You claimed it was "conjecture". That puts the burden of proof upon you. You need to be able to prove that it is conjecture. Your word is not good enough, especially since you do not know what is and what is not evidence.

Can you prove that it was conjecture or were you lying again? You have been corrected enough times that you have to know that by claiming something so ridiculous that you put the burden of proof upon yourself. I await your proof that it is "conjecture".

EDIT: And your strawman also confirms that you have no understanding of the scientific method.

There is a reason that I tried to teach you the basics first.

 

[nPeace]

I didn't know that. Although it does reflect my smiling persona as I speak to you. It's ok. But I find it rather interesting that while you call me rude and obnoxious, you don't see yourself in that category. (No smileys written out.) I wouldn't think of my smileys as goading, but when you say I am curt and obnoxious, don't know what I'm talking about and lying, yet you don't offer an explanation of what proof and evidence you really have, well -- (no smileys again) - that's the way it is.
P.S. You may offer what you consider as proof or evidence, but unless you explain it thoroughly in your own words so it is understandable to me, it doesn't really add up. To me. Not saying it doesn't add up to you. I am sure it does. But again -- you offer no real proof except that of conjecture and filling in the missing pieces for what you say is evolution.
And, now that we're up to that point, yes -- it would be beneficial for you to say what evolution is. And how life go started. I find it interesting also, as a side point, to note that mutations of many sorts (such as two-headed snakes & humans) are not considered as sustainable, they are considered as problematic.

Do you feel goaded?
How about now?
Girl. Go ahead and use your smileys. It beats being grumpy, and bullyish any day.
Besides RF put them there to be used. I haven't seen you misuse them.

 

[nPeace]

@Sharikind I hope you caught that one.
See how he tried to get out of answering your questions.
That's a primary tactic they use. No the burden of proof is on him, to show that you are wrong. He hasn't even addressed your question yet, although you repeated it... I lost count.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you feel goaded?
How about now?
Girl. Go ahead and use your smileys. It beats being grumpy, and bullyish any day.
Besides RF put them there to be used. I haven't seen you misuse them.

Proper use of them is fine. But any tool may be abusesd.

What I would like to see is people trying to learn instead of running away. Look at what happened when I took her claim of conjecture seriously. She realized it was indefensible and ran away.

How about you? Do you think that you can learn enough so that you can support your beliefs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Sharikind I hope you caught that one.
See how he tried to get out of answering your questions.
That's a primary tactic they use. No the burden of proof is on him, to show that you are wrong. He hasn't even addressed you question yet, although you repeated it... I lost count.

What? Now you are lying. I never tried to get out of answering questions. She made a false claim. By making her support her claim I am not shifting the burden of proof. I have supported my claims. All that I get are ignorant and dishonest denial in response. That is why I have been trying to teach her the basics. So far she has only run away and has made no serious attempt at all to understand the basics of science.

 

[nPeace]

@Sharikind some person is saying something about running away. You observed for yourself that I responded to said person and they did not address the information. What is the term for that, would you say? I am not talking to someone who thinks they can ignore my posts, and only choose to respond to the ones that they can say anything they like. Am I being unreasonable?

 

[YoursTrue]

When one denies the science that one does not understand one is a science denier.

But don't worry. You can still learn.

EDIT: I used to be a science denier in regards to AGW. But one thing that I did differently from most science deniers was that I investigated the claims of those saying that man made global warming was a real threat. I kept finding their sources much more reliable than the ones that I used. I eventually realized my error.

Hmmm, reading this statement of yours, you are telling me that you don't think global warming is a threat? (Talk about conjecture ... but anyway ... thank you for mentioning that, because at this point I think our discussion about your views vs my views about what constitutes evidence & proof is basically over. It has been rather pleasant talking to you, and thank you again ((Bye for now...)) I might answer you in the future, I probably will, but again, thanks for the discussion. No smileys, even though I'm laughing.) Oh, and here is one reason I believe in God, because HE SAYS that the earth will be rescued before mankind completelyl destroys it.