The Monkey argument: Valid? not valid?

[Sarkus]

So by the same argument some bright mathematicians will say people are confused about walking. I'll point out that people do walk. You'll say walking is simple, proves nothing.

I’m fairly sure that walking doesn’t have particularly different notions of what it means in different contexts. So thanks for your counter example, just a pity it’s a fail.

And I've made abundantly clear though you never pay much attention that I'm discussing validity as most people understand it, not as mathematicians understand it, so your whole point about that is just irrelevant.
Sorry I'm kind of busy and can't spend my time replying to your longer and longer and mostly irrelevant explanations.
EB

Oh, I’m aware, but it just confirms that your entire reason for thread is, as was suspected, a straw man, based on the assumption that mathematicians, in their criticisms (criticisms that you have yet to actually provide examples of, btw), are using the same notion of validity as you are. Different notions, different results, different claims etc. Not a difficult matter to get one’s head around, is it?
So you’ve set up a test to help you prove something that it can’t prove due to the different notions of validity being used by either side. And you put yourself up as not being stupid? And understanding logic, perchance?

 

[Saint]

A small lesson on dating illustrates how off evolutionary dating is: a man brought some bones to a scientist and asked him to date the bones; the scientist determined they were about 10,000 years old. That’s funny, said the man; this is a chicken I bought at the grocers only weeks before.

 

[paddoboy]

A small lesson on dating illustrates how off evolutionary dating is: a man brought some bones to a scientist and asked him to date the bones; the scientist determined they were about 10,000 years old. That’s funny, said the man; this is a chicken I bought at the grocers only weeks before.

Do you have a reference for that?
Personally, I think it is total bullshit.

 

[billvon]

A small lesson on dating illustrates how off evolutionary dating is: a man brought some bones to a scientist and asked him to date the bones; the scientist determined they were about 10,000 years old. That’s funny, said the man; this is a chicken I bought at the grocers only weeks before.

You are reposting creationist lies again Saint! What website did you copy that from?

Edited to add - found it. Saint plagarized that from Rick Wellman. He was replying to an essay by Rick Plasterer, a writer at a religious institute. Here's Rick's entire response:

========
Long ago I dismissed the theory of evolution as not only incompatible with the Bible but also seriously lacking in scientific evidence, which consistently points toward belief in the Biblical account, and not in other ‘hominid’ species preceding modern man. Neanderthals were most likely fully human and descended from Adam, therefore Christ died for them. Evolution’s dates are out of whack and Neanderthals could not have preceded Adam, not more than 10,000 years ago. A small lesson on dating illustrates how off evolutionary dating is: a man brought some bones to a scientist and asked him to date the bones; the scientist determined they were about 10,000 years old. That’s funny, said the man; this is a chicken I bought at the grocers only weeks before.
=========

So interesting claim there - Adam and Eve were Neanderthals!

 

[paddoboy]

You are reposting creationist lies again Saint! What website did you copy that from?

Thanks for that confirmation. So we have another dishonest christian/religious person.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Saint has been warned for plagiarism.

One would expect a university academic to know better than to do that.