|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 07/21/2007 : 15:28:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.The 1638 meaning is the one scientists use today, as has been explained to you several times already.
|
That definition does not equate to fact. |
And no one here has ever said that a theory is the same as a fact, you infuriating fucktard. You were told that there are certain things which are facts and you were told that there are theories to explain those facts. You were also given several crystal clear examples.
| Why would science; which is precise in its terms, use the same word in the same conversation to mean different things? |
Because scientists tend to be intelligent people and aren't confused by the simple things which seem to confound you. Just resign yourself to living in the dark, Jerome. You lack the minimum intelligence required to participate in even the most basic scientific discussions.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/21/2007 15:29:02 |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 15:34:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by filthy
That has been given to you ad nauseum and you've chosen to ignore it. Up yours Jerome; fucking look it up for yourself.
|
Then why does science use the same term in the same conversation with two meanings?
Science tends to be precise; why in this case is science presenting a two words with different definitions in the context of one conversation.
|
Research it; look it up, you shiftless oaf.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 15:39:00 [Permalink]
|
| Okay, I've got it now. Jerome is really antisemantic… |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 15:40:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
you infuriating fucktard. |
Nice use of middle school insults to make your point.
Because scientists tend to be intelligent people and aren't confused by the simple things which seem to confound you. Just resign yourself to living in the dark, Jerome. You lack the minimum intelligence required to participate in even the most basic scientific discussions.
|
You are making the argument I said was made. Do you not read the posts?
Do you understand that using the same term with different meanings in the same context is not precise and gives the appearance of dishonesty?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 15:43:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
That definition does not equate to fact. |
Who said it had to? You're just continuing to make up problems.| Why would science; which is precise in its terms, use the same word in the same conversation to mean different things? |
The context is different, Jerome. Scientists understand whether they're discussing the existence of evolution or the explanation of evolution. It's quite simple to do. Just like I understood your two different uses of the word 'to' very easily.
You also complained:| This done not done with not only one word, it is done with two words concerning the science of evolution. |
No, you just refuse to accept that within the context of biology, the word "theory" has one and only one meaning. And the meaning of "evolution" is quite easy to figure out from the context of any particular discussion.
If you wish to continue to complain that in this instance, scientists aren't being precise enough for your tastes, then you should whine to some biologists about how they should invent a new word to replace one or the other meaning so as to not confuse you anymore, Jerome. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/21/2007 : 15:47:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Research it; look it up, you shiftless oaf.
|
I do not think this topic is not going to move any further, as we are talking about different things.
I do enjoy Filthys insults, there is something homey about them.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 15:48:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Do you understand that using the same term with different meanings in the same context is not precise and gives the appearance of dishonesty? |
This is the first time I've ever encountered anyone who suggested that maybe scientists use the same word in two different ways because they're being dishonest about something. What that something might be, I don't have a clue. But you've certainly made a unique argument here, Jerome. Paranoid, but unique. Don't forget to get on them about "orbit," too, okay? And "to," while you're at it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 15:53:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Okay, I've got it now. Jerome is really antisemantic…
|
Ohh, that is a technique used to marginalize anothers thoughts. I think you only meant it jokingly but it could be misconstrued, if one does not read carefully.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 16:05:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Do you understand that using the same term with different meanings in the same context is not precise and gives the appearance of dishonesty? |
This is the first time I've ever encountered anyone who suggested that maybe scientists use the same word in two different ways because they're being dishonest about something. What that something might be, I don't have a clue. But you've certainly made a unique argument here, Jerome. Paranoid, but unique. Don't forget to get on them about "orbit," too, okay? And "to," while you're at it.
|
I am suggesting that conversation about evolution is presented in a dishonest way. The most likely cause of this would be lack of evidence to support the belief that man is the master.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 16:12:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Do you understand that using the same term with different meanings in the same context is not precise and gives the appearance of dishonesty? |
This is the first time I've ever encountered anyone who suggested that maybe scientists use the same word in two different ways because they're being dishonest about something. What that something might be, I don't have a clue. But you've certainly made a unique argument here, Jerome. Paranoid, but unique. Don't forget to get on them about "orbit," too, okay? And "to," while you're at it.
|
I am suggesting that conversation about evolution is presented in a dishonest way. The most likely cause of this would be lack of evidence to support the belief that man is the master.
|
Ahhhhhhhh... The ol' "master" bait trick.... I wonder if it will work?
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 16:15:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Ahhhhhhhh... The ol' master bait trick.... I wonder if it will work.
|
Not at all, there are no evolutionary scientists in this talk.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 16:35:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I am suggesting that conversation about evolution is presented in a dishonest way. |
Suggest all you like. Do you have any evidence?| The most likely cause of this would be lack of evidence to support the belief that man is the master. |
What would a belief that "man is the master" have to do with evolutionary biology? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 17:15:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I am suggesting that conversation about evolution is presented in a dishonest way. |
Suggest all you like. Do you have any evidence? |
The talk is using the same term with two opposing meanings in the same context. Have you not read anything that has been written? I have written about this.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 17:19:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
| The most likely cause of this would be lack of evidence to support the belief that man is the master. |
What would a belief that "man is the master" have to do with evolutionary biology?
|
This belief causes one to think from the conclusion that god does not exist. Therefore the metal process is contorted so as to not allow any possible of doubt concerning the proposition.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 17:27:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The talk is using the same term with two opposing meanings in the same context. Have you not read anything that has been written? I have written about this. |
Yes, I've read your fantasy. Neither "evolution" nor "theory" is being used by scientists with two opposing meanings. If you think one or the other is, then you should quote an evolutionary biologist doing so, and we can talk from there.
Also:| This belief causes one to think from the conclusion that god does not exist. |
Says you. Lots of God-believing evolutionary biologists say otherwise.| Therefore the metal process is contorted so as to not allow any possible of doubt concerning the proposition. |
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise, which is false in the first place. Your argument is both invalid and unsound. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
www.notjustatheory.com
Topic Locked
