Replies

so "proof" doesn't mean proof .... because those that didn't like the definition decided to change it's meaning for their application and

"Is" doesn't mean is because Clinton and his defenders didn't like the definition and the way it was being applied.

Nope. You missed it. “Evidence” does not mean “proof.” “Evidence” is a great thing to have; the more the better. But it doesn’t amount to proof. As far as Clintonian declensions of “is,” I will leave those to you.

It's so simple ..... now I understand. Everything is relative depending upon what you choose to believe. There are no absolutes, you can change them anytime you want you've just got to get enough people to agree with you.

I didn’t say that, I didn’t imply that, and I don’t believe that.

Thank you so much for your reading and comprehension lesson.

You’re welcome. I hope I’ve been of some help.

You wrote:
I am suspicious because if you were really working in a scientific field, you wouldn't be confusing “proof” with “evidence” and implying that a “theory” might become a “proof”. In post 124 to my, you said, “They only become proofs when they are proven by the facts,” remember? I’m using your own words as the basis for my doubt. Thus far, you’ve offered no, um, proof to demonstrate that I was wrong.

three things .... first) I could care less about your suspicions.

Really? I would have guessed otherwise.

I'm not a real scientist because I have the audacity to question theory....yea right.

Oops. Missed it again. Real scientists are expected to question theory. They’re also expected to know what one is.

You couldn't work a year in my company.

Nor would I want to.

They want people who can prove what they are working on. No doubt you'd release a new drug to the general population because you had a theory it might work.

That’s technology you’re talking about. How you get from “a scientific theory is never proved” to “you’d release a new drug to the general population because you had a theory it might work” is a profound mystery.

Give me a break, who you trying to kid. Oh that's right, by your words ..... Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered.

Well I’ll be … you can catch on when you want to.

In certain fields, we like to avoid those wishy washy theories as much as possible and so do most people using our products. Our company tends to stay in business longer that way.

What “un-disprovable-even-in-theory" theory are you using? If it’s a theory that has no potential disproof, it’s not science. That's not wishy-washy, that's the nature of science. Proving the efficacy of a drug, say, is not proving the theory under which it was developed.

Second) If you would have bothered to read the original post you would have seen it was "THEORIES" only become "PROOFS" when they are supported by the facts.

The first post I responded to was 103, which doesn’t contain that statement. I will, however, believe you when you say you posted it. Why not? It’s as off the beam as everything else you’ve asserted.

Third) I'm not trying to prove Evolution is fact, you are so I don't need to show you proof your[sic] wrong. Your[sic] suppose[sic] to providing[sic] proof that Evolution is right. Once again, the evolutionist tries to redirect the argument.

How? You asked for a fact and I provided it. You ignored what I provided. So who's redirecting? You posted, “Please post / list one "FACT" that supports evolution.” I went to the trouble of providing a fact about evolution in my last post to you, and now it’s just as though the fact was in some other room in the Senate Office Building that you never quite got around to visiting, or something. Here is the relevant portion again:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.

On another line in your reply, let's just make this as simple as possible, Flowers produce flowers. Despite all of man's intervention, they still produce just flowers. Yes, they can make prettier ones and uglier ones but they are still just flowers. Salamanders produce Salamanders (see another post I was responding to) and Dogs produce dogs.

Show me the flower that produces moss or better yet an amoeba, then I'll believe that evolution is possible.

If I could show you such a flower, that would utterly destroy the Theory of Evolution. Perhaps you should be the one out looking for one. Funny, one would expect a scientist, and a pretty good one at that, would know this. Notice, I did not say a scientist would have to believe it. But a scientist would know it.

Till then I find it much more plausible that there is a supreme being who used common building blocks/designs to "Create" everything we see.

Funny, one would expect a scientist to know that no scientific theory addresses the supernatural.