Proof of evolution (Page 5)

bonzono: "I choose 2. Your definitions are hopelessly inadequate."

welp, if you're going to redefine the meanings of the words we use, then - you might as well fill your posts by mashing the keyboard with your hand.

"A tiger is a herbivorous animal indigenous to Iceland"
ergo - anything that is not herbivorous and indigenous to iceland cannot be a tiger.
(that is to say, when we're talking about a 'tiger' with the author of your idiot dictionary, we're talking about different things).

It's not that hard. your words are slaves to reality, they dont dictate it.

axocanth: The principal purpose of a definition, presumably, is to capture the way a word is used.

Your definitions -- demonstrably! -- do not do that. They do not reflect the way these terms are invariably, perhaps not even 𝒕𝒚𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚, used by real, flesh-and-blood scientists.

So you may continue to adopt an inadequate definition if you so please. I please otherwise.

BelgianStrider: Idiot: you think those are MY definitions ??????

You are so obtusely dumb that you refuse to use the defined semantics of a discipline and pretend to be knowledgeable in that discipline !!!

I hope you never will work in any discipline where safety is cruciall and obstinately refuse to accept the made up defined semantics !!!!

When pretending to talk about SCIENCE you use SCIENTIFIC TERMS

Though we know that your hidden agenda is to discredit science and try to make ID an as valid "theory"

BelgianStrider: Though ID is NOT a "scientific theory" at all: just a "scientific conjecture" at its best

axocanth: I'm discrediting science? You're the fella telling us that scientists all over the place (Maxwell, Thomson, et al) believe what they do 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒏𝒐 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕𝒔𝒐𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓.

BelgianStrider: Now concerning this:
"If you𝒓 dictionary says "Tiger: a herbivorous animal indigenous to Iceland", your choices are:

1. Accept it

2. Conclude that the definition does not correspond to reality and reject it.
..."

If the "icelandic word" for an herbivorous animal indigenous to Iceland is named "TIGER": I ought to accept it, because it is how THEY call it !!!!!

bonzono: "Your definitions -- demonstrably! -- do not do that. They do not reflect the way these terms are invariably, perhaps not even 𝒕𝒚𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚, used by real, flesh-and-blood scientists"
correct - because dictionaries capture conventional usage - there are more laypeople than scientists, so the words become corrupted - 'theory' is a good example 'this data' is another.

put another way - scientific terms have become bastardised by laypeople and adopted into current usage simply through sheer weight of numbers of laypeople like you.

"So you may continue to adopt an inadequate definition if you so please. I please otherwise."

what's inadequate about them?

ParallaxMan: bonzono: "'ah hav noooo ahdeah wot ya'll tarkin about. but... *hockspit*.. whatevah it is .. ya'll are shoorly wrong *hockspit*"

The CMB is allegedly the echo of the big bang, if one believes. Hawking was confidant, Penrose, too, but there are inconsistencies. Hoyle, for instance, was more of a steady state man and, to an extent, me too ah but wot am I? Nuffing!

What I don’t get, you see, is this… why are the very distant galaxies accelerating? Some suggest dark matter, whatever that is, other than dark and invisible, but it seems to be a theoretical particle that conveniently fits a theory to make sense of it.

Explanations on a postcard please, to…

bonzono: "What I don’t get, you see, is this… why are the very distant galaxies accelerating? Some suggest dark matter"

well actually what's causing the acceleration of the galaxies is another mysterious stuff that's labelled 'dark energy' - the 'dark matter' is a source of gravity (that might not even be baryonic) that's operates on smaller spatial scales of thousands of parsecs. Noone knows what it is, but there's no shortage of theories - or more accurately - hypotheses.

BelgianStrider: axocanth: I'm discrediting science? You're the fella telling us that scientists all over the place (Maxwell, Thomson, et al) believe what they do 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒏𝒐 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕𝒔𝒐𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓.



YEAH: what evidence do you have when it disappears ????

Note the evidence for the medium where the waves itselves !! Oh I think that mlight be too hard for you to understand (or better unwilling to understand)

And yes I pertained in that claim: Your hidden agenda is discrediting science.

Your input in my forum was totally opposite to the input you do here.

Oh btw did you answered about this question colin? "Any difference in the childish behaviour of axo versus Bonzono ?????????

I don't think so !!!!

So following you, axo, what should ParallaxMan do ???? Be consequential "

I don't think so too

ParallaxMan: Re BelgianStrider: AS WAVES NEEDS A MEDIUM, IT IS QUITE LOGICAL THOSE WAVES ALSO NEEDS A MEDIUM....

And that the strongest argument against Apollo moon landings wot never happened…

axocanth: "what's inadequate about them?" - Bonzono


This has been covered at quite some length in my own thread. But briefly, for example, BStrider offers the following definition of "scientific theory":


"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.


Repeatedly tested and corroborated? Einstein's general theory of relativity, just to name one example, was 𝒂𝒍𝒘𝒂𝒚𝒔 (as far as I've seen) referred to as a "theory" -- both by himself and by others -- before any testing and before any corroboration, indeed 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏 𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒐 𝒊𝒕𝒔 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏.

This is not, by any means, an isolated case.




In accordance with 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑺𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄 𝑴𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒅? There is no such thing as 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑺𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄 𝑴𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒅! It is something believed in by people who haven't a clue what they are talking about -- people like you!

BelgianStrider: I don't see the point ???

axocanth: The point is your definition of a scientific theory is about as plausible as ""Tiger: a herbivorous animal indigenous to Iceland".

BelgianStrider: What about that t 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑺𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄 𝑴𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒅 might depend on the scientific discipline ever thought about that???? Of couse not

bonzono: "This has been covered at quite some length in my own thread"
That's a useless thing to say.

"But briefly, for example, BStrider offers the following definition of "scientific theory":"
your contention was with the way scientists use these words. not Bstrider.

So again, I'll ask - what's inadequate about them?

Perhaps I can put it this way -
what do you think scientists mean when they say the word 'theory'?
What do you, as a layperson mean when you use that word?
How is it different from what you mean when you - a layperson, use the word 'hypothesis'?

And as for your nonsense about the scientific method - you've had your ass handed to you a few times on that one. We dont need to beat your bruised behind any further on that one - unless you've got a dead horse stuffed up it?

bonzono: "The point is your definition of a scientific theory is about as plausible as ""Tiger: a herbivorous animal indigenous to Iceland". "

as usual, you've attempted to imply that words dictate reality. they dont. BStriders reply - and mine - was perfectly adequate for you to figure out why what you're saying is stupid.

You do, however, have to read AND think.

axocanth: "I decried [in my book "Ignorance"] the Scientific Method as a comical concept that no real scientist ever really practices and is taught only to schoolkids, presumably to make science look as uncreative as possible.

[ . . . ]

Even if we accept the Scientific Method as some sort of general description of how science is meant to proceed, it is of little practical help. The steps are as follows: (1) observe; (2) form a hypothesis; (3) design an experiment that manipulates the hypothesized cause and observe the new result; (4) update the hypothesis based on the results, and design new experiments [ . . .] This all sounds good, except that no scientist that I know of actually follows this prescription.

[ . . .]

On the other hand, the most critical step in the whole cycle, the one that requires a magic brew of creativity, thought, inspiration, intuition, rationality, past knowledge, and new thinking--this the Scientific "Method" has nothing to say about. "Form a hypothesis." Very good. How, precisely, does one do that? [ . . . ] This is like giving an art student a brush and the direction "do painting.

[ . . . ]

So in the end the Scientific Method is more dangerous than just being a quaint approximation of what scientists do--it has that unfortunate trait of seeming to say something when it really says nothing. The result of those sorts of formulations is that everyone is satisfied with the state of things--it's been explained, it gets into the textbooks, it's what students learn and can be tested on--but it's not true or correct or even approximately so. It's a calamity, this "Method."

What should it be replaced with?

The first option to consider is "nothing."It doesn't need to be replaced because it, the Scientific Method, wasn't really there in the first place."


-- Stuart Firestein, "Failure", pp119-123

( Firestein is Professor and former Chair of the Department of Biological Sciences at Columbia University and serves as an advisor for the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's program for the Public Understanding of Science)

BelgianStrider: nope it is not about you idiot inputs colin It was about this:

"ParallaxMan: Re BelgianStrider: AS WAVES NEEDS A MEDIUM, IT IS QUITE LOGICAL THOSE WAVES ALSO NEEDS A MEDIUM....

And that the strongest argument against Apollo moon landings wot never happened…"

BelgianStrider: And again it seems to be clear you even don't read (or are unable to) 𝐓𝐇𝐎𝐒𝐄 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐌𝐘 𝐃𝐄𝐅𝐈𝐍𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒

axocanth: Do you think the definitions are adequate?

If not, why are you posting them?

bonzono: "Do you think the definitions are adequate?"
yup, they're not perfect, but they're what we have - if you're an amatuer - as you clearly are, and you use words without really knowing what words are, how they evolve and that there is vagaries in them, then sure, you're gonna struggle.

Clearly, you're struggling.

Anyhow, I know you're unable to answer these questions, you're a troll. but here they are anyhow.

What do you think scientists mean when they say the word 'theory'?
What do you as a layperson mean when you use that word?
How is it different from what you mean when you - a layperson, use the word 'hypothesis'?

BelgianStrider: They are adequate for the discipline you want to speak about.

In science the word "theory" has a total different semantical meaning than the daily generally used one.

And that is an important factor in understanding science 1001 !!!!

When I say, in science, "creationist or ID's theory" I make the most idiotic phrase !!!!

People like you don't like it of course: so you are all OBLIGED to refuse the scientific definition of the word "theory"

axocanth: I will continue the discussion with ParallaxMan if he so desires.

I have no interest in continuing the discussion with either Bonzono or BelgianStrider. Both are not only abusive, but both clearly have a painfully, indeed pathetically, naive understanding of the issues at hand.

BelgianStrider: oh colin is likewise z an expert in avoiding questions !!!