Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

scientific pruf of God found

jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 6:04:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://witscience.org...

tHE SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD HAS BEEN FOUND CHECKMATE ATHEISTS. aTHEISTS ARE SO DUM DUM LOL.
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 7:16:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
When you see the phrase "scientific proof", you're dealing with sensationalists. Science does not subscribe to the concept of "proof", aside from maths and alcohol. Check the About page for W.I.T. where they claim responsibility for saving the world from the Y2K "virus". It wasn't a virus. It was short-sightedness in coding decisions, wherein only two digits were allocated to hold year information, rather than four. It was nothing close to a virus. You might think if anyone was responsible for "saving the world" from this coding short-sightedness, that they might understand the difference between a short-sighted coding decision and a "virus" which would cause "airliners to drop out of the sky".

I think I'll wait to hear what some credible research facilities have to say (if they ever say anything about these claims at all), before giving it much weight.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 7:18:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 6:04:38 PM, jh1234l wrote:
http://witscience.org...

tHE SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD HAS BEEN FOUND CHECKMATE ATHEISTS. aTHEISTS ARE SO DUM DUM LOL.

And the claims are exposed as a fraud here;
http://antiviral.gawker.com...
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 7:53:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 7:18:01 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 6:04:38 PM, jh1234l wrote:
http://witscience.org...

tHE SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD HAS BEEN FOUND CHECKMATE ATHEISTS. aTHEISTS ARE SO DUM DUM LOL.

And the claims are exposed as a fraud here;
http://antiviral.gawker.com...

One of the people commenting mentioned debate.org.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 7:55:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 7:16:21 PM, Beastt wrote:
When you see the phrase "scientific proof", you're dealing with sensationalists. Science does not subscribe to the concept of "proof", aside from maths and alcohol.

Yes, it does. Yet another sweeping statement from you that is .... false.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 10:11:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 7:55:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:16:21 PM, Beastt wrote:
When you see the phrase "scientific proof", you're dealing with sensationalists. Science does not subscribe to the concept of "proof", aside from maths and alcohol.

Yes, it does. Yet another sweeping statement from you that is .... false.

You're completely full of bullcrap, Anna. Science methodology insists that all conclusions be supportable with evidence, and thusly, that new evidence can yield new conclusions. The idea of a "proof" is that there can be no change in conclusions, therefore, contradicting science methodology.

DON'T talk about things you know nothing about. And you've made it very clear that you know nothing about science.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 10:15:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 7:55:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:16:21 PM, Beastt wrote:
When you see the phrase "scientific proof", you're dealing with sensationalists. Science does not subscribe to the concept of "proof", aside from maths and alcohol.

Yes, it does. Yet another sweeping statement from you that is .... false.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...
- "One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called "scientific proofs." Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof."

Apologize!

(Christians Understand No Truth!)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 10:21:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 10:15:46 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:55:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:16:21 PM, Beastt wrote:
When you see the phrase "scientific proof", you're dealing with sensationalists. Science does not subscribe to the concept of "proof", aside from maths and alcohol.

Yes, it does. Yet another sweeping statement from you that is .... false.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...
- "One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called "scientific proofs." Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof."

Apologize!

(Christians Understand No Truth!)

LOL I don't care what some knucklehead might say. It is a scientific fact, proved over and over, that red blood cell is spherical. Scientists have proved it. It has been proven that the FeLK virus is the major cause of feline leukemia in cats. And on and on.

All you - and whoever wrote that article - is doing is playing upon semantics.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 10:42:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 10:21:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:15:46 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:55:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:16:21 PM, Beastt wrote:
When you see the phrase "scientific proof", you're dealing with sensationalists. Science does not subscribe to the concept of "proof", aside from maths and alcohol.

Yes, it does. Yet another sweeping statement from you that is .... false.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...
- "One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called "scientific proofs." Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof."

Apologize!

(Christians Understand No Truth!)

LOL I don't care what some knucklehead might say.
No one should. The thing to note here is that you're the knucklehead. You don't even understand the basic principles of science methodology.

It is a scientific fact, proved over and over, that red blood cell is spherical.
Wrong again, Anna!

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu...
- "Red blood cells are round with a flattish, indented center, like doughnuts without a hole."

I've never seen a spherical red blood cell, and obviously, neither have the authoritative experts (though that doesn't rule out the possibility of anomalous shapes, or new shapes in various species.) Clearly, red blood cells are usually flat, with a rounded edge at the circumference.

Scientists have proved it. It has been proven that the FeLK virus is the major cause of feline leukemia in cats. And on and on.
No, Anna; scientists have provided "conclusive evidence" consistent with the claim that the FeLK virus is a major cause of leukemia in cats. But all it takes is for a new cause, which is even more likely to cause feline leukemia, and suddenly, your "proof" isn't proof.

Read this again... "new evidence can yield new conclusions". Therefore, science does not subscribe to the concept of facts, nor does it claim to produce facts. It produces conclusions consistent with the known pertinent evidence. That's why confirmed scientific explanations are known as "theories". Didn't they teach you ANYTHING when you were "buying" your doctorate?

All you - and whoever wrote that article - is doing is playing upon semantics.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 10:55:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 10:42:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:21:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:15:46 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:55:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:16:21 PM, Beastt wrote:
When you see the phrase "scientific proof", you're dealing with sensationalists. Science does not subscribe to the concept of "proof", aside from maths and alcohol.

Yes, it does. Yet another sweeping statement from you that is .... false.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...
- "One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called "scientific proofs." Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof."

Apologize!

(Christians Understand No Truth!)

LOL I don't care what some knucklehead might say.
No one should. The thing to note here is that you're the knucklehead. You don't even understand the basic principles of science methodology.

It is a scientific fact, proved over and over, that red blood cell is spherical.
Wrong again, Anna!

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu...
- "Red blood cells are round with a flattish, indented center, like doughnuts without a hole."

I've never seen a spherical red blood cell, and obviously, neither have the authoritative experts (though that doesn't rule out the possibility of anomalous shapes, or new shapes in various species.) Clearly, red blood cells are usually flat, with a rounded edge at the circumference.

Scientists have proved it. It has been proven that the FeLK virus is the major cause of feline leukemia in cats. And on and on.
No, Anna; scientists have provided "conclusive evidence" consistent with the claim that the FeLK virus is a major cause of leukemia in cats. But all it takes is for a new cause, which is even more likely to cause feline leukemia, and suddenly, your "proof" isn't proof.

Read this again... "new evidence can yield new conclusions". Therefore, science does not subscribe to the concept of facts, nor does it claim to produce facts. It produces conclusions consistent with the known pertinent evidence. That's why confirmed scientific explanations are known as "theories". Didn't they teach you ANYTHING when you were "buying" your doctorate?

All you - and whoever wrote that article - is doing is playing upon semantics.

As stated, all you are doing is playing upon semantics, quibbling over the common usages of words. By your borderline ridiculous standards, you can't even prove that you are alive, can you? Nor can you really prove that George Washington or Abe Lincoln is dead.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 11:10:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What?? They're dead? But they're pictures are on our money and you tell me they're dead. It's like there's no gold behind the value of the bills and coins. What is this world coming to? Lava...burning lava loogies..they're coming!
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 11:19:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 10:55:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:42:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:21:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:15:46 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:55:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:16:21 PM, Beastt wrote:
When you see the phrase "scientific proof", you're dealing with sensationalists. Science does not subscribe to the concept of "proof", aside from maths and alcohol.

Yes, it does. Yet another sweeping statement from you that is .... false.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...
- "One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called "scientific proofs." Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof."

Apologize!

(Christians Understand No Truth!)

LOL I don't care what some knucklehead might say.
No one should. The thing to note here is that you're the knucklehead. You don't even understand the basic principles of science methodology.

It is a scientific fact, proved over and over, that red blood cell is spherical.
Wrong again, Anna!

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu...
- "Red blood cells are round with a flattish, indented center, like doughnuts without a hole."

I've never seen a spherical red blood cell, and obviously, neither have the authoritative experts (though that doesn't rule out the possibility of anomalous shapes, or new shapes in various species.) Clearly, red blood cells are usually flat, with a rounded edge at the circumference.

Scientists have proved it. It has been proven that the FeLK virus is the major cause of feline leukemia in cats. And on and on.
No, Anna; scientists have provided "conclusive evidence" consistent with the claim that the FeLK virus is a major cause of leukemia in cats. But all it takes is for a new cause, which is even more likely to cause feline leukemia, and suddenly, your "proof" isn't proof.

Read this again... "new evidence can yield new conclusions". Therefore, science does not subscribe to the concept of facts, nor does it claim to produce facts. It produces conclusions consistent with the known pertinent evidence. That's why confirmed scientific explanations are known as "theories". Didn't they teach you ANYTHING when you were "buying" your doctorate?

All you - and whoever wrote that article - is doing is playing upon semantics.

As stated, all you are doing is playing upon semantics, quibbling over the common usages of words. By your borderline ridiculous standards, you can't even prove that you are alive, can you? Nor can you really prove that George Washington or Abe Lincoln is dead.

Once again, Anna - you don't seem to even understand the conversation. This is about science methodology. Not what I can or can't do. But the point can still be made. Can you "prove" that Earth is a spheroid? Can you "prove" to a devout flat-Earther?

I can demonstrate evidence of chemical reactions in by body consistent with the chemical process we call "life". Does that mean that new evidence added to that demonstration can't alter the conclusion? Of course it can. Therefore, it's not "proof". Unlike religion, science actually cares about being accurate and being honest. It doesn't claim more than it can support. So it's not about semantics. But words do have specific meanings. And if you make the statement that a claim has been determined absolutely and unalterably true, and then it changes, then your statement was untrue, and dishonest. Science doesn't do that. So science doesn't subscribe to the concept of "proofs". Therefore, there is no such thing as 'scientific proof". There are only conclusions consistent with all known pertinent evidence.

It would be really nice if you could try to learn not to have to be beaten half way through the Earth's crust before you'll finally admit that you were wrong. But you can't admit it. And since the author of the first article to which I linked was writing for a psychology magazine, I'm sure he'd have some very interesting insights based on your complete inability to ever admit when you're wrong.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 11:43:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 11:19:39 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:55:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:42:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:21:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:15:46 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:55:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:16:21 PM, Beastt wrote:
When you see the phrase "scientific proof", you're dealing with sensationalists. Science does not subscribe to the concept of "proof", aside from maths and alcohol.

Yes, it does. Yet another sweeping statement from you that is .... false.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...
- "One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called "scientific proofs." Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof."

Apologize!

(Christians Understand No Truth!)

LOL I don't care what some knucklehead might say.
No one should. The thing to note here is that you're the knucklehead. You don't even understand the basic principles of science methodology.

It is a scientific fact, proved over and over, that red blood cell is spherical.
Wrong again, Anna!

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu...
- "Red blood cells are round with a flattish, indented center, like doughnuts without a hole."

I've never seen a spherical red blood cell, and obviously, neither have the authoritative experts (though that doesn't rule out the possibility of anomalous shapes, or new shapes in various species.) Clearly, red blood cells are usually flat, with a rounded edge at the circumference.

Scientists have proved it. It has been proven that the FeLK virus is the major cause of feline leukemia in cats. And on and on.
No, Anna; scientists have provided "conclusive evidence" consistent with the claim that the FeLK virus is a major cause of leukemia in cats. But all it takes is for a new cause, which is even more likely to cause feline leukemia, and suddenly, your "proof" isn't proof.

Read this again... "new evidence can yield new conclusions". Therefore, science does not subscribe to the concept of facts, nor does it claim to produce facts. It produces conclusions consistent with the known pertinent evidence. That's why confirmed scientific explanations are known as "theories". Didn't they teach you ANYTHING when you were "buying" your doctorate?

All you - and whoever wrote that article - is doing is playing upon semantics.

As stated, all you are doing is playing upon semantics, quibbling over the common usages of words. By your borderline ridiculous standards, you can't even prove that you are alive, can you? Nor can you really prove that George Washington or Abe Lincoln is dead.

Once again, Anna - you don't seem to even understand the conversation. This is about science methodology. Not what I can or can't do. But the point can still be made. Can you "prove" that Earth is a spheroid? Can you "prove" to a devout flat-Earther?

I can demonstrate evidence of chemical reactions in by body consistent with the chemical process we call "life". Does that mean that new evidence added to that demonstration can't alter the conclusion? Of course it can. Therefore, it's not "proof".

Therefore, you at least hold out the possibility, no matter how remote, that you are dead right now? It's "yes" or "no", so be sure and tell us.

I'd like to quote you on this one.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 12:33:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 11:43:31 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 11:19:39 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:55:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:42:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:21:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:15:46 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:55:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:16:21 PM, Beastt wrote:
When you see the phrase "scientific proof", you're dealing with sensationalists. Science does not subscribe to the concept of "proof", aside from maths and alcohol.

Yes, it does. Yet another sweeping statement from you that is .... false.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...
- "One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called "scientific proofs." Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof."

Apologize!

(Christians Understand No Truth!)

LOL I don't care what some knucklehead might say.
No one should. The thing to note here is that you're the knucklehead. You don't even understand the basic principles of science methodology.

It is a scientific fact, proved over and over, that red blood cell is spherical.
Wrong again, Anna!

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu...
- "Red blood cells are round with a flattish, indented center, like doughnuts without a hole."

I've never seen a spherical red blood cell, and obviously, neither have the authoritative experts (though that doesn't rule out the possibility of anomalous shapes, or new shapes in various species.) Clearly, red blood cells are usually flat, with a rounded edge at the circumference.

Scientists have proved it. It has been proven that the FeLK virus is the major cause of feline leukemia in cats. And on and on.
No, Anna; scientists have provided "conclusive evidence" consistent with the claim that the FeLK virus is a major cause of leukemia in cats. But all it takes is for a new cause, which is even more likely to cause feline leukemia, and suddenly, your "proof" isn't proof.

Read this again... "new evidence can yield new conclusions". Therefore, science does not subscribe to the concept of facts, nor does it claim to produce facts. It produces conclusions consistent with the known pertinent evidence. That's why confirmed scientific explanations are known as "theories". Didn't they teach you ANYTHING when you were "buying" your doctorate?

All you - and whoever wrote that article - is doing is playing upon semantics.

As stated, all you are doing is playing upon semantics, quibbling over the common usages of words. By your borderline ridiculous standards, you can't even prove that you are alive, can you? Nor can you really prove that George Washington or Abe Lincoln is dead.

Once again, Anna - you don't seem to even understand the conversation. This is about science methodology. Not what I can or can't do. But the point can still be made. Can you "prove" that Earth is a spheroid? Can you "prove" to a devout flat-Earther?

I can demonstrate evidence of chemical reactions in by body consistent with the chemical process we call "life". Does that mean that new evidence added to that demonstration can't alter the conclusion? Of course it can. Therefore, it's not "proof".

Therefore, you at least hold out the possibility, no matter how remote, that you are dead right now? It's "yes" or "no", so be sure and tell us.

I'd like to quote you on this one.

It's nice to see how completely idiotic you can be. This is about striving for the most accurate and honest language, Anna. Define "living". Although you don't seem to be aware of this, the definition isn't always consistent. Some things straddle the line. But again, the point here is to use the most accurate and honest language possible. And "proof" doesn't fit within that selection of language because...
... NEW EVIDENCE CAN LEAD TO NEW CONCLUSIONS! And that rules out claiming anything as "proof" (aside from maths and alcohol.)

And I really don't care how much you dislike me for showing you up. I'm not exactly fond of your obstinate, self-righteous, ignorant butt either. Continuing to argue when you've already been shown to be wrong only demonstrates your insecurity. It's never going to make you an less wrong.

http://grist.org...
- "There is no "proof" in science " that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence."
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 12:36:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 12:33:45 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 11:43:31 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 11:19:39 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:55:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:42:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:21:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:15:46 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:55:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:16:21 PM, Beastt wrote:
When you see the phrase "scientific proof", you're dealing with sensationalists. Science does not subscribe to the concept of "proof", aside from maths and alcohol.

Yes, it does. Yet another sweeping statement from you that is .... false.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...
- "One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called "scientific proofs." Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof."

Apologize!

(Christians Understand No Truth!)

LOL I don't care what some knucklehead might say.
No one should. The thing to note here is that you're the knucklehead. You don't even understand the basic principles of science methodology.

It is a scientific fact, proved over and over, that red blood cell is spherical.
Wrong again, Anna!

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu...
- "Red blood cells are round with a flattish, indented center, like doughnuts without a hole."

I've never seen a spherical red blood cell, and obviously, neither have the authoritative experts (though that doesn't rule out the possibility of anomalous shapes, or new shapes in various species.) Clearly, red blood cells are usually flat, with a rounded edge at the circumference.

Scientists have proved it. It has been proven that the FeLK virus is the major cause of feline leukemia in cats. And on and on.
No, Anna; scientists have provided "conclusive evidence" consistent with the claim that the FeLK virus is a major cause of leukemia in cats. But all it takes is for a new cause, which is even more likely to cause feline leukemia, and suddenly, your "proof" isn't proof.

Read this again... "new evidence can yield new conclusions". Therefore, science does not subscribe to the concept of facts, nor does it claim to produce facts. It produces conclusions consistent with the known pertinent evidence. That's why confirmed scientific explanations are known as "theories". Didn't they teach you ANYTHING when you were "buying" your doctorate?

All you - and whoever wrote that article - is doing is playing upon semantics.

As stated, all you are doing is playing upon semantics, quibbling over the common usages of words. By your borderline ridiculous standards, you can't even prove that you are alive, can you? Nor can you really prove that George Washington or Abe Lincoln is dead.

Once again, Anna - you don't seem to even understand the conversation. This is about science methodology. Not what I can or can't do. But the point can still be made. Can you "prove" that Earth is a spheroid? Can you "prove" to a devout flat-Earther?

I can demonstrate evidence of chemical reactions in by body consistent with the chemical process we call "life". Does that mean that new evidence added to that demonstration can't alter the conclusion? Of course it can. Therefore, it's not "proof".

Therefore, you at least hold out the possibility, no matter how remote, that you are dead right now? It's "yes" or "no", so be sure and tell us.

I'd like to quote you on this one.

It's nice to see how completely idiotic you can be. This is about striving for the most accurate and honest language, Anna. Define "living". Although you don't seem to be aware of this, the definition isn't always consistent. Some things straddle the line. But again, the point here is to use the most accurate and honest language possible. And "proof" doesn't fit within that selection of language because...
... NEW EVIDENCE CAN LEAD TO NEW CONCLUSIONS! And that rules out claiming anything as "proof" (aside from maths and alcohol.)

And I really don't care how much you dislike me for showing you up. I'm not exactly fond of your obstinate, self-righteous, ignorant butt either. Continuing to argue when you've already been shown to be wrong only demonstrates your insecurity. It's never going to make you an less wrong.

http://grist.org...
- "There is no "proof" in science " that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence."

Through all of that, you neglected to answer:

"Therefore, you at least hold out the possibility, no matter how remote, that you are dead right now? It's "yes" or "no", so be sure and tell us."

Can't even "prove" you are alive, can you? Answer the question.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 12:59:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 12:36:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/8/2014 12:33:45 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 11:43:31 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 11:19:39 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:55:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:42:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:21:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:15:46 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:55:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:16:21 PM, Beastt wrote:
When you see the phrase "scientific proof", you're dealing with sensationalists. Science does not subscribe to the concept of "proof", aside from maths and alcohol.

Yes, it does. Yet another sweeping statement from you that is .... false.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...
- "One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called "scientific proofs." Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof."

Apologize!

(Christians Understand No Truth!)

LOL I don't care what some knucklehead might say.
No one should. The thing to note here is that you're the knucklehead. You don't even understand the basic principles of science methodology.

It is a scientific fact, proved over and over, that red blood cell is spherical.
Wrong again, Anna!

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu...
- "Red blood cells are round with a flattish, indented center, like doughnuts without a hole."

I've never seen a spherical red blood cell, and obviously, neither have the authoritative experts (though that doesn't rule out the possibility of anomalous shapes, or new shapes in various species.) Clearly, red blood cells are usually flat, with a rounded edge at the circumference.

Scientists have proved it. It has been proven that the FeLK virus is the major cause of feline leukemia in cats. And on and on.
No, Anna; scientists have provided "conclusive evidence" consistent with the claim that the FeLK virus is a major cause of leukemia in cats. But all it takes is for a new cause, which is even more likely to cause feline leukemia, and suddenly, your "proof" isn't proof.

Read this again... "new evidence can yield new conclusions". Therefore, science does not subscribe to the concept of facts, nor does it claim to produce facts. It produces conclusions consistent with the known pertinent evidence. That's why confirmed scientific explanations are known as "theories". Didn't they teach you ANYTHING when you were "buying" your doctorate?

All you - and whoever wrote that article - is doing is playing upon semantics.

As stated, all you are doing is playing upon semantics, quibbling over the common usages of words. By your borderline ridiculous standards, you can't even prove that you are alive, can you? Nor can you really prove that George Washington or Abe Lincoln is dead.

Once again, Anna - you don't seem to even understand the conversation. This is about science methodology. Not what I can or can't do. But the point can still be made. Can you "prove" that Earth is a spheroid? Can you "prove" to a devout flat-Earther?

I can demonstrate evidence of chemical reactions in by body consistent with the chemical process we call "life". Does that mean that new evidence added to that demonstration can't alter the conclusion? Of course it can. Therefore, it's not "proof".

Therefore, you at least hold out the possibility, no matter how remote, that you are dead right now? It's "yes" or "no", so be sure and tell us.

I'd like to quote you on this one.

It's nice to see how completely idiotic you can be. This is about striving for the most accurate and honest language, Anna. Define "living". Although you don't seem to be aware of this, the definition isn't always consistent. Some things straddle the line. But again, the point here is to use the most accurate and honest language possible. And "proof" doesn't fit within that selection of language because...
... NEW EVIDENCE CAN LEAD TO NEW CONCLUSIONS! And that rules out claiming anything as "proof" (aside from maths and alcohol.)

And I really don't care how much you dislike me for showing you up. I'm not exactly fond of your obstinate, self-righteous, ignorant butt either. Continuing to argue when you've already been shown to be wrong only demonstrates your insecurity. It's never going to make you an less wrong.

http://grist.org...
- "There is no "proof" in science " that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence."

Through all of that, you neglected to answer:

"Therefore, you at least hold out the possibility, no matter how remote, that you are dead right now? It's "yes" or "no", so be sure and tell us."

Can't even "prove" you are alive, can you? Answer the question.

I did answer your question. Apparently, you lack the intellect to recognize the answer when you see it. I can demonstrate consistency between the standards for defining "life", and the bio-chemical processes in my body. Whether or not that "proves" I'm alive, is up to the subjective assessment of the observer.

For example; I can offer conclusive evidence that God does not exist. Are you convinced by that evidence? No! Just like a flat-Earther, you can observe the objective evidence, but you make your assessment subjectively. So does it "prove" anything? No! No, it doesn't. The idea of "proof" is that it is a form of evidence so absolutely conclusive that it would induce agreement in any who observe that evidence. And that kind of thing doesn't exist, because people tend to assess evidence SUBJECTIVELY, not objectively. Therefore (ONCE AGAIN), there is no such thing as "proof" aside from maths and alcohol).
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire