Present arguments for your trust in science, without using your scientific texts...

Defend it all you want. Until such time as irrefutable proof has been presented it is still refutable and is not necessarily 'true'. Gray area is not 'truth' unless all you are looking for is "gray area"... where there is gray area, there is room for refutation.

 

Feeding the trolls only makes them grow bigger. Someone that will argue that the freezing point of water is arbitrary, that because the symbols used to represent numbers on a ruler were arbitrarily chosen that the measurement from a ruler is arbitrary/subjective, and that the earth is flat will not understand any kind of logic or reasoning.

 

You truly want to revive that conversation Giftedone? If you do, just bring the thread back to life so that all the readers will be aware of the misrepresentations that you have made above with regard to that old thread. Go ahead, I dare you to bring it back to life.

 

I have misrepresented nothing.

 

Defend what? I did not propose any theory, I just described the scientific method.

I guess if you take the method as a theory you could try to defend it but it just seems like you would lose track of reality in trying to do so.

How can anyone prove it is important to prove something?

THIS is FUN. But what is going on in your head?

 

Then revive the old thread.

 

Then defend the scientific method. You made the claim pertaining to the scientific method.

Are you now suggesting that you cannot defend the scientific method if viewed as a theory? How interesting.

Good question, but the importance of something is subjective.

Yes this is fun. There are many things going on in my head. Actually too numerous to itemize.

 

So the OP of this thread wants anyone to present a scientic theorim yet not use any previous notes or writings of that said theorim. The only way to do that is to provide an entirely new theory from new hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy which would take up to months or years. This of course cannot be done in a few sentences or paragraphs. The author is merely trying to equate 1 historically false book written two thousand years ago with literally millions of scientific theories that are adapted and modified to account for new evidence as they are discovered, well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results and makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry.

Do not compare the two. Seriously.

 

First of all, the OP makes no mention of any 2000 year old book nor of equating that book with science. That appears to be your perception and is not in accord with what is written in the OP. Also, your statements regarding your perception of what the OP "wants" is your perception... so if that is how you are interpreting the request in the OP, then you are setting your own boundaries and parameters. Live with whatever you feel comfortable with.

 

Look at post #18 where you stated

Thanks for coming out.

 

You're standing on it.

 

I've already called the OP out on this in posts 719, 730, 733. And check out his response to post 733 in post 734.

 

Best to simply leave this one to his thoughts, and ignore them when they spill out. If he has not yet, he will demand what he sees as "Irrefutable" proof, and dismiss it when you ask the same of him.

Wasted time and energy.

 

No need since you are doing it in this thread

No Incorp, perspective does not matter. The Earth has been proven to be round.

The truth that you are trying to wiggle away from through disingenuous obfuscation is:

Lack of disproof for a claim does not prove that claim is true.

Not having proof that God does not exist is not prove that God exists.

1000 years ago folks were not able to prove the Earth was not flat but this did not prove the Earth was flat

 

If it helps you sleep. Go for it.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...-your-scientific-texts-74.html#post1062786443
myview wasn't the author of the quotes you replied to.

 

Nope, you said name calling, not name-calling.

No, it isn't. You don't know what equivocations is if you think it's equivocation. A nickname is not equivocation.

Yup, it's why scientists subject the evidence to objective observation. Still haven't defended yourself against being a liar, what's with that? Are you okay with that conclusion?

 

I had always assumed name calling required one to directly prject a derogatory title onto another....as Such:

Incorporeal, you are a moron, obviously ignorant, childish, and pathetic.

vs.

It would seem there is very little to be gained when trying to debate someone so obviously a moronic child of ignorance, Pathetically prone to pointless and confused diatribe.


I suppose my understanding may be incorrect, yet it is the way I understand it.

 

Posst #13 is not the OP ,,, but thanks for the FAIL on your part.

- - - Updated - - -

FAIL on your part: I am sitting in a chair.

 

On the contrary. It was you, who in a vain attempt to slur my screen name, brought up the subject contained in that old thread.

Proven by means of perspective.

Who is trying to wiggle away from anything other than you trying to wiggle away from the necessity of perspective being a major factor in the proving that the earth is round. I never denied that the earth is round, but only stipulated by example how the earth is also 'flat'.

Why do you and others keep bringing up this God subject in conversations that are not pertaining to God? The OP deals with the subject of science. Oh... OK ... I get it... you are referring to that god that is the god of science.

From their perspective and for all intents and purposes of that era, the conclusion then made was as accurate as was needed.

 

There we have it folks. The official, public declaration from dairyair, that extends to me (Incorporeal) the right and privilege to refer to her in the future as "Cow Fart". It is on the record now and cannot be complained about nor denied.

Thanks Cow Fart.

 

Oh my goodness.. I made a boo boo. Notice to GraspingforPeace and "myself". I ask the forgiveness of both of you for that most egregious error that I committed. Please forgive me.

BTW: Thanks for the admonition and opportunity for me to address the error. Good looking out Cow Fart.

 

NOPE, You can NOT call HER Cow Fart.

- - - Updated - - -

Anytime. I hate to see your perfection get muddied.

 

Are you now slipping into the art of Equivocation?

Then perhaps you would rather I had used the term "prevaricate"?
www.thefreedictionary.com/prevaricate
"pre·var·i·cate (pr-vr-kt)
intr.v. pre·var·i·cat·ed, pre·var·i·cat·ing, pre·var·i·cates
To stray from or evade the truth; equivocate. See Synonyms at lie2"

Also from www.thefreedictionary.com/equivocation
Scroll to bottom to see synonyms.

" equivocation - intentionally vague or ambiguous
evasiveness, prevarication"

Nor have you proven that a lie has been established. When you have irrefutably proven that a lie has been told, then there will be an appropriate response. What is with the fact that you intentionally FAIL to establish with irrefutable proof that a lie has been told?

 

Gee whiz... your profile says neither male nor female... would it then be more appropriate to refer to you as a hermaphrodite? At any rate, the dairyair gave permission to refer to the dairyair as Cow Fart.

Who ever said that I was perfect? Not me. Some of you folk have strange mental images of who and what Incorporeal is. Even my profile picture (showing me wearing glasses) bears truth to the fact that I am not perfect. So now what Cow Fart?