Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is truth or evidence more important in science and evolution?
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 4332 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


(1)
Message 1 of 55 (662343)
05-14-2012 10:25 PM


I have been in many discussions in the realm of evolution. In the scientific method the evidence is more important than finding the truth. Finding the truth is not important to science only observing and documenting evidence is.
Since there is no truth to be found inside of science does alot of circumstancial evidence make truth?
I personally do not think it does. But many I'm sure feel that all the evidence compels one to determine that it should be considered as truth.
I have no doubt that the scientific community is very skilled at thier craft and expertise. Though how can one obtain the skills to be considered a expert in the field of dating objects of considerable age?
Can and does a scientific evolutionary believing person actually want the truth? Or do they have previous beliefs in something and fit facts and adjust theory. This is alot like white lying. I agree that theories should be improved and evidnece collected. But not when the theory has limitless bounds continuing to add and take away to the point were a common man can not achieve the ability to comprehind it. A real good theory I propose is the origin of life is so easy to understand that a common man unknowable of science can achieve it. People are smart and chose to ignore that ability.
The real problem with all of evolution is not that evolution claims us as evolved from a previous species. Or that it doesnt not supply God with direct creation ability. But it out right denies the use of predicting and estimate work is heavily involved when evolution is concerned. If a palentologist, scientist, or evolutionist does not say up front that thier dating charts are in fact predicted at best from modern day samples, thier ability to observe age, and thier estimates of ages by the knowledge they have to work with is not truthful.
So the main question is for anyone and anybody.
Is learning the truth of origin more important?
Or is learning and predicting by the evidence collected more important?
Edited by ScottyDouglas, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines between paragraphs.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 05-14-2012 11:32 PM ScottyDouglas has not replied
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2012 11:52 PM ScottyDouglas has replied
 Message 5 by Theodoric, posted 05-15-2012 12:27 AM ScottyDouglas has replied
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2012 1:32 AM ScottyDouglas has replied
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 05-15-2012 2:12 AM ScottyDouglas has replied
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2012 2:40 AM ScottyDouglas has replied
 Message 21 by jar, posted 05-15-2012 9:32 AM ScottyDouglas has not replied
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2012 9:09 PM ScottyDouglas has replied

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 4332 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 6 of 55 (662351)
05-15-2012 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Theodoric
05-15-2012 12:27 AM


Truth:to me: Is the state of being in reality. Validated evidence.
Yes I have been shown what is truth by God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Theodoric, posted 05-15-2012 12:27 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Theodoric, posted 05-15-2012 8:36 AM ScottyDouglas has replied
 Message 20 by jar, posted 05-15-2012 9:19 AM ScottyDouglas has replied

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 4332 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 9 of 55 (662354)
05-15-2012 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
05-14-2012 11:52 PM


You have actually proposed a good topic.
Thank you.
Science does not claim to have "truth, Truth, TRUTH, TRVTH," or anything of that nature. That is left for religions to claim. Although the term "truth" is often used for scientific evidence and findings by the layperson, it is not technically correct.
Thank you again for the admission. Though I seek and many like myself seek the truth. We have not to much concern for physical evidence by your terms which simply is speclative. Or our billion year origin which also is speclative.
And you would be wrong, as you have not yet learned how these terms are used in science.
We both could be wrong.
I have no doubt that the scientific community is very skilled at thier craft and expertise.
Finally, you are correct in something!
Regardless of skill and expert opinion if speculation is involved a chunk of percentages are lost in the grand scheme.
I have some expertise in radiocarbon dating. I have been studying that field for over 30 years. And there are a lot of ways in which we can have some confidence in radiocarbon dates.
Im sure you do or you would not consider yourself a expert.
The main way of testing this dating method is by dating materials that occur in annular layers--tree rings, corals, glacial varves, etc.
How can you be sure that the layers aged as specified? I understand what you said. But how can you be 100% sure that you are accounting for everything needed for dating?
There are quite a few things that occur in annular fashion. Those items are deposited year after year, and by counting back the individual layers or rings we can come up with items which are known to be of a particular age. I understand this and know you are very well seasoned at it. But again how can you give 100% assuraties that you are accounting for everything needed for dating?
Those can then be radiocarbon dated, and a calibration curve can be constructed which corrects the radiocarbon method for atmospheric variation. Also, certain events such as volcanoes create short-term changes in climate. By correlating those changes with known volcanic eruptions through history we can get another check on the accuracy of the radiocarbon method. Finally, we can date items of a known age, from marine shells collected at known dates to Egyptian artifacts and grave goods from dated contexts. All of these allow us to check the accuracy of the radiocarbon method, and to correct for particular forms of variation. And the method is quite accurate!
Im sure the method results are very effeciant. The issue is not your technique or knowledge of the tests and how to collect them. The available unknown data that could cause much variance is flatout refused and denied.
Really, what is the use of a theory that does not accurately explain the facts it is supposed to explain? It is useless to us!
Does tons and tons endless amount of facts and evidence make what ever theory it is a truth?
Then, present your theory (actually an hypothesis) of the origin of life! But remember to bring evidence and to expect your hypothesis to be critically examined in light of your evidence and extant evidence. That's the way things are done in science.
Good Idea!
Forget truth! We are after scientific accuracy.
What is anything about in this life if you have all the evidence in the world and find no truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2012 11:52 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-15-2012 2:10 AM ScottyDouglas has not replied
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2012 7:31 AM ScottyDouglas has replied

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 4332 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 10 of 55 (662356)
05-15-2012 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tangle
05-15-2012 1:52 AM


I can accept that as being truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tangle, posted 05-15-2012 1:52 AM Tangle has not replied

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 4332 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 13 of 55 (662359)
05-15-2012 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
05-15-2012 1:32 AM


Re: science approximates reality
Every test brings us a little bit closer in our approximation, but we can never be sure that we have reached a "true" representation of reality.
Absolutely correct.
And personally I don't think you will find anyone who agrees with this.
Maybe you do not but many do.
Fraud is not like "white lying" it is outright lying. Lying and fraud are despised in science.
Thank you. I was being kind.
Scientists are smart and they are trained in specific fields to get a high degree of knowledge in those fields, but a biologist cannot necessarily understand a theory from physics, nor a physicist understand a theory in biology, because that is outside their area of expertise.
I do not doubt this.
When you come to understand that all science is a tentative understanding of reality, that all the tentative understanding of reality uses prediction and estimation to set goals for further testing
Again true.
When you see an age reported in a scientific article you will see a range of dates that represents the uncertainty of the dating method. That uncertainty has been established by testing the method against objective empirical evidence.
I have seen many. How can you be sure 100% that all knowledge is applied to determine age?
As there is no known way of determining truth, the best we can do is approximate reality by learning and prediction, by collecting objective empirical evidence, and by continuing to test our concepts of reality against the objective empirical evidence.
Agreed.And by all accounts the evolutionary theory can not be considered as truth, right?
Enjoy.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2012 1:32 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2012 2:45 AM ScottyDouglas has replied
 Message 16 by frako, posted 05-15-2012 2:59 AM ScottyDouglas has not replied
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2012 7:43 AM ScottyDouglas has not replied

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 4332 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 23 of 55 (662465)
05-16-2012 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by PaulK
05-15-2012 2:12 AM


To know truth you must apply all theories and evidence. Even ones that only are explainable in metaphysics or super natural. Science can not include such theories or apply such realities in conclusions. To people who do experience such phenomena feel as it is emperical. The actual term emperical can be different for many. As so science has done alot of good and knowledge. Dating is suspect and no way around it. Even if it is done by such experts who are the highest order of such they themselves are still at speculation.If super natural exist it supercedes any science or physics that we know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 05-15-2012 2:12 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2012 1:21 AM ScottyDouglas has replied
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2012 1:28 AM ScottyDouglas has replied
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2012 8:20 AM ScottyDouglas has not replied

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 4332 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 24 of 55 (662467)
05-16-2012 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Adequate
05-15-2012 2:40 AM


In the scientific method the evidence is more important than finding the truth. Finding the truth is not important to science only observing and documenting evidence is.
No. Finding the evidence is important because it makes our conclusions more likely to be the truth, less likely to be false. That's what the collection of the evidence is for.
What if the evidence of truth is uncollectable, which I feel is not true, but what if?
Since there is no truth to be found inside of science ...
There is probably lots. I agree that science has discovered alot that can be considered truth.
But many I'm sure feel that all the evidence compels one to determine that it should be considered as truth.
Provisionally considered as truth, yes. It is logical but doesnt make it the truth.
Can and does a scientific evolutionary believing person actually want the truth?
Of course. This is why we're interested in evidence and creationists are more interested in vacuous rhetoric with no connection to reality.
What if thier reality is not yours? And evidence for them it what you consider evidence? Can you deny expert opinions in that subject?
So the main question is for anyone and anybody.
Is learning the truth of origin more important?
Or is learning and predicting by the evidence collected more important?
Though it is fun to predict alot of things. Gambling for example. But in reality just the odds mean nothing to truth.
Edited by ScottyDouglas, : Correcting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2012 2:40 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 4332 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 25 of 55 (662469)
05-16-2012 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
05-15-2012 9:19 AM


Re: where's the evidence?
I experienced God when I was 8 years old. I did not know much about the Bible or really God at all, I heard about Jesus. My dad always has believed in Jesus. Many upon many Prechers and ministers have came from my family. But when I was 8 i knew nothing of any of this. I believed it and accepted it cause they were my family and what I heard but I was 8 I never thought about it that way or questioned it then. I went to a revival when I was 8 with my church it was out of town and while I was there,"I felt God come upon and tell me to ask for forgiveness and allow him to take over my soul. 'I was nervous but I did it and got saved and later baptised. I have been to jail and prisons alot in my youth 16-23. I still do alot wrong but I do alot of good and first and foremost have faith in my God and his word becasue He showed himself to me. I have many spiritual feeling and expaeriences throughout my life not like ghost or hauntings more like emotional and mental revelation. It can come any time and come in many ways and last hours or minutes. It doesnt to me personnally alot but it has and i know others it does that is emperical to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 05-15-2012 9:19 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-16-2012 10:09 AM ScottyDouglas has replied

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 4332 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 26 of 55 (662471)
05-16-2012 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
05-15-2012 7:31 AM


Razd, I do not deny scientific measures applied to physics. Though there is more to life than physics and anything science can offer. If you have not experienced any as the such I can not show that to you. You must choose which God you wish to reveal himself and actually try to do such.
Edited by ScottyDouglas, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2012 7:31 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 4332 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 28 of 55 (662473)
05-16-2012 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by NoNukes
05-15-2012 9:09 PM


"But the scientific method itself requires evidence, and the use of evidence is what assures us that we have found the truth."
WHAT IF THE TRUTH IS OUTSIDE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE? WHAT IF PARTS OF FINDING TRUTH REQUIRE MEASURES OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE?
"What I question is why such a thing should be controversial? Why should the need to question and probe assertions for their truth be an indictment? "
IT IS CONTROVERSIAL BECAUSE SCIENCE DOES NOT MEASURES ALL THINGS. THERE ARE NONPHYSICAL AND SCIENCE CAN NOT ENTERTAINMENT SUCH PROPOSITION BECAUSE IT IS OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL. EVEN WHEN THE PHYSICAL APPEARS IT IS UNKNOWN WHEN OR WHERE. JUST THE PHYSICAL THAT DOES APPEAR DOESNT DEFINE IT ENTIRELY. IT IS OUTSIDE OF KNOWING. THERE SCIENCE IS OUTSIDE OF KNOWING AND THE SEARCH FOR SUCH IS IMPOSSIBLE BUT NOT WRONG. THE ASSERTION AND PORTRAIL OF SCIENCE AND SCIENTIST THEREIN CLAIMING OR PREDICTING SUCH IS THE PROBLEM. i ALSO KNOW SCIENCE AND SCIENTIST CAN NOT HELP WHO BELIEVES IN SUCH EITHER.
"1.But it [evolution?] out right denies the use of predicting and estimate work is heavily involved when evolution is concerned. (I am not sure what the antecedent for "it" is meant to be, but I cannot come up with one that would make this statement factual."
EVOLUTIONIST. WE AGREE IT IS A CALCULATED PREDICTION.
2. But not when the theory has limitless bounds continuing to add and take away to the point were a common man can not achieve the ability to comprehind it. (I interpret this to mean that only theories which men like ScottyDouglas can understand are worth improving and collecting evidence on. Presumably this rules out even a possibility that quantum mechanics and general relativity are useful)
SO YOU ASSERT MEN WHO DO NOT KNOW SCIENTIFIC TERMS AND THEORIES AND FACTS THEREOF ARE UNCAPABLE OF KNOWING THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE? SOMEONE WHO NEVER HEARD ANYTHING FOUND INSIDE OF SCIENCE CAN NOT KNOW SUCH THINGS?
3. Though how can one obtain the skills to be considered a expert in the field of dating objects of considerable age? (I interpret this as an assertion that there cannot be expertise in determining the dates of objects)
NO.IM SURE THERE ARE CLEARLY.AND BECAUSE YOU ARE A EXPERT AND I CAN NOT PROVE BY PHYSICAL MEANS THAT YOU ARE WRONG DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE NOT.IT IS EASY TO COMPREHIND, BILLIONS OF YEARS, MAN RECORDING LIFE 10,000 YEARS, MAN AT THE MOST HAS 10,000 YEARS CAN DATE BILLIONS.WHY 4.3?WHY 10 BILLION YEARS?BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU SEEN IN YOUR MAGIC BALL?THAT IS WHAT SOME GUY IN COLLEGE AND YOUR PROFESSION TAUGHT YOU?NO MAN EVER HAS OR MOST CERTAINLY EVER NOW ALL THAT HAS BEEN ON THIS EARTH.THIS IS WHY SCIENCE CAN NOT COMMIT TO TRUTH BUT ONLY EVIDENCE AND A THEORY THAT REFLECTS SUCH BECAUSE IT CAN NEVER ACHIEVE THE TYPE OF TRUTH WHICH IS BEING DISCUSSED, WHICH IS,"ORIGIN OF LIFE."
"4. Since there is no truth to be found inside of science. (No interpretation needed)"
IM SURE THERE IS. BUT IT IS ASSUMED.
5. Is learning the truth of origin more important? Or is learning and predicting by the evidence collected more important? (I take this as a have you stopped beating your wife yet question that falsely asserts that there is a dichotomy between learning the truth and applying the scientific method.)
NO I ASSERT THAT THERE ARE TRUTHS OUTSIDE OF SCIENCES BOUNDS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2012 9:09 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 4332 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 30 of 55 (662476)
05-16-2012 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by PaulK
05-16-2012 1:21 AM


"If you were interested in the truth you would need better reasons for your suspicions."
IVE READ ALOT OF REASONS WHY THEY ARE AND WHY THEY ARE NOT RELIABLE. IVE READ HOW THEY CALCULATE DATES. THE END RESULT IS, IT IS GUESSES BY THEORY AND MODERN EVIDENCE. SOME HOW YOU THINK THIS IS KNOW ALL BE ALL.
No, it's more than speculation. It's solid evidence - more solid than anything you've produced.
IT IS SPECULATION.WHAT DO I SUPPOSE TO PRODUCE?SCIENCE,EVOLUTION, AND PALENTOLOGY ALL KNOW IT IS SPECULATION.YOU MAT CONDUCT ENORMOUS EVIDENCE AND SOUND THEORIES, IT IS STILL NOT CONSIDERED AS THE TRUTH AND AT BEST JUST A PART OF TRUTH. IT IS A THEORY WITH WELL DOCUMENTED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT IS SUSPECTS TRUTH. IT IS STILL SPECULATIVE.
"While supernatural entities - if any existed - might be capable of mounting such a thorough deception there's no good reason to assume that that is true."
WHY WOULD DEITIES NEED TO DECIEVE? AND CLEARLY THE BIBLE SAID EVIL WOULD DECIEVE. I THINK MEN HAVE DECIEVED MAYBE INFLUENCED BY DEITIES BY DEITIES THEMSELVES IDK.
In fact if you do assume that that is the case we are left with no way to find the truth at all. If you throw out dating evidence you are left with nothing."
THIS MOST POSSIBLY IS THE CASE. DATING IS THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE. DARWINISM'S EVOLUTION AND ITS CONTINUAL PERFECTING THEORY ITSELF IS ANOTHER. SUPERNATURAL.
THE MADNESS OF THE DEAD MAKING LIFE. EVOLVED SPECIES OR MEN AND ANIMAL HYBRIDS? I CAN GO ON AND I WILL ANOTHER TIME.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2012 1:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2012 2:07 AM ScottyDouglas has replied
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2012 2:29 AM ScottyDouglas has replied

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 4332 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 31 of 55 (662477)
05-16-2012 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Coyote
05-16-2012 1:28 AM


Re: Wrong again
That is absolute nonsense.
IT IS THE TRUTH. AND ALSO IS OBJECTIVE AS SCIENCE SHOULD BE.
RAZD has been trying to get you to take a look at his correlations threads, but you haven't gone there, have you? Afraid?
I'VE LOOKED. I WILL AGAIN. I MITE HAVE MISSED SOMETHING.
If you had checked those threads you'd know better than to regurgitate fundamentalist nonsense that has long since been shown to be wrong.
BUT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN RIGHT BY BEING LABELED AS A FACT AND THERE FOR TRUTH.
Your belief is getting in the way of you actually learning something.
NO WHAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND MY FAITH AND GOD AND HIS WORD HAS GIVEN ALL THE KNOWLEDGE I REALLY NEED. I NEED TO LEARN WHAT YOU KNOW TO KNOW WHAT?REALITY.I HAVE MY OWN.YOUR THEORIES?I DO NOT NEED THEM.HOW YOU FIND YOUR THEORIES?BY GUESSING BY WHAT YOU KNOW.I CAN DO THAT TOO.
But to relate this directly to the topic: the dating methods we are using are directly tied to empirical evidence, and have been tested against known phenomena as well as against each other, as opposed to the scripture, dogma, revelation and other squishy "evidence" you are relying on.
I RELY ON GOD AND YES HIS WORD.MY COMMON SENSE. AND NOT A EDUCATED MANS BELIEVING WHAT I SHOULD BELIEVE. AND YOUR EVIDENCE IS NOT AS EMPERICAL AS YOU THINK IT RELIES YOU TO HAVE A WITNESS AT THE PERIODS YOU DATE.YOU KNOW A 4.5 BILLION YEAR OLD? NOT TO MENTION ONE FEW HUNDRED, EMPERICAL MY SKINS.
Edited by ScottyDouglas, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2012 1:28 AM Coyote has not replied

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 4332 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 33 of 55 (662480)
05-16-2012 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Adequate
05-15-2012 2:45 AM


Re: science approximates reality
it is only how you perceive. Perception is not limited to physical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2012 2:45 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 4332 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 34 of 55 (662482)
05-16-2012 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coyote
05-16-2012 2:07 AM


Re: Sorry
Sorry to have to tell you this, but...
Your posts show a complete lack of understanding of science and how it works, as well as an unhealthy tendency to substitute ancient tribal mythology for reality.
MYTH TO YOU! LETS MAKE THAT CLEAR! UNPROVABLE! I UNDERSTAND SCIENCE VERY WELL ACTUALLY.
"Theory and modern evidence" -- I fail to see what's wrong with that. Sure beats bronze age tribal mythology when you want to get real answers, as opposed to superstition and fairy tales.
AGAIN IF YOU DO NOT SEE IT OR EXPERIENCE IT IT IS FALSE?NOTHING IS WRONG WITH IT, IF IT APPLIES IN MODERN TIMES. DO YOU KNOW EVERYTHIN GTHAT HAS HAPPENED? IF THINGS THAT HAS HAPPENED YOU DO NOT KNOW CAN EFFECT EVIDENCE? IF THINGS JUST DO NOT AGE AS YOU OR ANYBODY CAN PREDICT? THESE ARE UNKOWABLE THINGS AND CAN NOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR I UNDERSTAND. BUT THIS MUST BE A FACT IN HINDSIGHT AND THAT LEADS TO ANY AND ALL PREDICTIONS TO BE LABELED UNKNOWABLE.AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have claimed several times now that dating is "guesses" and "speculation." I'm challenging you on that one.
Go over to one of the threads that RAZD has recommended to you and support your claims, or admit that you can't do so.
It is time to put up or shut up.
OK I ACCPET AND WILL SHOW!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2012 2:07 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Panda, posted 05-16-2012 5:50 AM ScottyDouglas has not replied

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 4332 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 36 of 55 (662485)
05-16-2012 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
05-16-2012 2:29 AM


NO YOU ARE THE SCIENTIST AND HAVE NO PURPOSE FOR TRUTH JUST EVIDENCE THAT CANT OR CAN DISPROVE YOUR THEORY. HARDLY MAKES IT THE ULTIMATE TRUTH!
Edited by ScottyDouglas, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2012 2:29 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2012 3:25 AM ScottyDouglas has not replied
 Message 38 by Tangle, posted 05-16-2012 3:28 AM ScottyDouglas has not replied
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-16-2012 11:38 AM ScottyDouglas has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024