|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/21/2007 : 22:12:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Dave, you must accept the fact that Jerome defines words like Humpty Dumpty did:"When I use a word", Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
-- Lewis Carroll |
|
That is the point!
Project if you like, but that is the point.
|
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 : 22:12:29 [Permalink]
|
No wonder I get such a Mozina vibe from him.
Hey, nice use of the [right] tag, Half. I'm impressed. Hadn't thought of it. Now we've just gotta get you to switch from the desperate double-hyphen to a true — (—). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 22:16:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
That is the point!
Project if you like, but that is the point. |
The only projection going on here is yours, Jerome. The site in the OP describes the reality of the scientific usage of words quite well, but you insist that it is otherwise without a shred of evidence or even explanation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 23:42:47 [Permalink]
|
"Desperate double-hyphen," eh? Is that what I've been using? I doubt I'm likely to regularly use your true dash, since it's awkward to type, but at least I've put it into my sig. [But -- ack! It won't work there! Wait! It works, but not in previews.]
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/22/2007 00:29:36 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 02:38:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
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.
|
They have been trying to move further, it is you who insist of going nowhere and learn nothing.
That's something we cannot do anything about. We have tried, but when even you realise that we don't seem to be going anywhere, there's not much more we can do.
Why don't you buy a clue for $100?
Perhaps spend a few years going back and finish High School, in order to learn to understand English. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 07/22/2007 : 02:47:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
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.
|
"man is the master" is the typical Creationist position. Master of the earth and animals as according to the bible, God set man to rule it all. Evolutionary theory says nothing of the sort.
So, basically you are confusing Creationism and Evolution. No wonder you have trouble understanding the concept of evolutionary theory. Creationism and science collects its information by means of two completely different (indeed opposite) philosophies.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 07/22/2007 03:03:19 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 15:21:42 [Permalink]
|
Due to sheer chance, I was reading a random selection of the TalkOrigin archive and stumbled upon this exchange.
Feedback Letter from: wshun
Comment: I am surprised that "evolution" is both a theory (that I know) and a fact (that I don't know). Referring to two different concepts with the same name is always a cause for confusion in sciences. In this case I will say that it is a terrible mistake!!! It opens a crack for the creationists to attack, althrough they will try to attack evolution anyway.
Response from: John Wilkins
Response: Well, actually, this is pretty common in science. There's a fact of electricity, and a theory of electricity; a fact of gravity, a theory of gravity; a fact of genetics, a theory of genetics. It is not immediately clear why we ought to redefine science in order to prevent a group of wilfully ignorant people from doing what we know they will do anyway - misunderstand science.
Instead it is an opportunity to make clear the nature of science to those who are willing to listen. |
Hear that, Jerome? Of course not, you haven't been willing to listen to a damn thing since you got here.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 15:55:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Jerome, back up your claim. You claim that science has used the same word in the same context with two different meaning. Provide evidence for this.
|
No, I claim that the discussion of evolution uses the same word with both meanings in the same conversation twice. The evidence for this is the OP link and the conversation that follows in this thread.
|
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 - 07/22/2007 : 15:59:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Due to sheer chance, I was reading a random selection of the TalkOrigin archive and stumbled upon this exchange.
Feedback Letter from: wshun
Comment: I am surprised that "evolution" is both a theory (that I know) and a fact (that I don't know). Referring to two different concepts with the same name is always a cause for confusion in sciences. In this case I will say that it is a terrible mistake!!! It opens a crack for the creationists to attack, althrough they will try to attack evolution anyway.
Response from: John Wilkins
Response: Well, actually, this is pretty common in science. There's a fact of electricity, and a theory of electricity; a fact of gravity, a theory of gravity; a fact of genetics, a theory of genetics. It is not immediately clear why we ought to redefine science in order to prevent a group of wilfully ignorant people from doing what we know they will do anyway - misunderstand science.
Instead it is an opportunity to make clear the nature of science to those who are willing to listen. |
Hear that, Jerome? Of course not, you haven't been willing to listen to a damn thing since you got here.
|
Is it not science that is redefining common terms for their use in the inverse?
Are the scientist so dense as to not understand that the redefinition of a word to its inverse will cause confusion? I suspect not.
Please explain rationally why science would redefine words to their inverse.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 16:20:57 [Permalink]
|
Ricky, the link in the OP describes the use of the word in a different manner than the common and seeks to install a feeling of superiority for those "in the know". This article is instruction of, confirmation of, and validation of a fallacious argument based on amphiboly.
|
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 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 16:35:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Please explain rationally why science would redefine words to their inverse. |
They don't. "Inverse" means "opposite." The theory of evolution is not the "opposite" of evolution, Jerome. That's just you willfully misunderstanding things again. Blame yourself.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 17:00:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Please explain rationally why science would redefine words to their inverse. |
They don't. "Inverse" means "opposite." The theory of evolution is not the "opposite" of evolution, Jerome. That's just you willfully misunderstanding things again. Blame yourself.
|
You have no answers and little thought. You could not even comprehend the question.
You could not find an answer that could be cut and pasted, so you spew nonsense. Why bother?
|
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 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
www.notjustatheory.com
Topic Locked
