You accuse paps to have a lack of intelligence????Ranger68 said:Neither does arguing with someone who demonstratively doesn't understand science, yet posts about it nevertheless.
FWIW.
Blow me.
There, did that have value?
Is global warming bad?
- Thread starter shadeau
- Start date
No problems
I have found that when a person resorts to insults it just means they are unsure of their arguement and want to turn it to a personal level. By doing this they attempt to angrer the other person or people enough to discredit them. Also they advoid having to defend their arguement. Problem is if the other person does not bite it shows the antagonist to be childlike in throwing tantrums.
I have found that when a person resorts to insults it just means they are unsure of their arguement and want to turn it to a personal level. By doing this they attempt to angrer the other person or people enough to discredit them. Also they advoid having to defend their arguement. Problem is if the other person does not bite it shows the antagonist to be childlike in throwing tantrums.
In the light of comments like "basic science is flawed", and "when you use theory to prove theory the science is flawed", uh, yeah.langeweile said:
It demonstrates a singular lack of understanding, or utter rejection of science.
For someone to type that into a computer for posting on the Internet is ironic.
You have no argument.papasmerf said:
Your premise has become "basic science is flawed, therefore we can't trust the scientists to tell us 'the truth' about global warming".
Sorry, I'm just not interested in having that discussion, and if you think it's because I'm "unsure of my argument" you're wrong. Statements like that make it clear that there's nothing to be gained from this debate.
Clear?
Good.
'Night.
Actualy I never said we can not trust scientists to tell us the truth.
you did just now.
I said that when you prove theory with theory that is flawed.
you did just now.
I said that when you prove theory with theory that is flawed.
So, what did you mean when you said that "Basic science is flawed"? No, that's clearly what you meant. That we couldn't trust the majority of the scientists who hold my point of view. It's nothing more than a foolish argumentum ad hominem against my authorities.
No, you know what - I'm not interested.
Modern science is NOTHING but theory. Theories based upon theories. Your whole argument is ridiculous.
No, you know what - I'm not interested.
Modern science is NOTHING but theory. Theories based upon theories. Your whole argument is ridiculous.
I did.
None of the rest of it made any sense either. Nor have any of your later posts.
Like the sentence about "theories based upon theories". Dude, that's what science is, and I continue to find it ironic that you hold that position - such an indictment of modern science - when you're chatting with someone on the Internet.
None of the rest of it made any sense either. Nor have any of your later posts.
Like the sentence about "theories based upon theories". Dude, that's what science is, and I continue to find it ironic that you hold that position - such an indictment of modern science - when you're chatting with someone on the Internet.
Dude
it is a theory untill proven, then it must be proven independantly to become scientific fact.
it is a theory untill proven, then it must be proven independantly to become scientific fact.
You really don't understand - your sentence is at-odds with practically every facet of modern science.
Evolution is a theory.
Gravitation is a theory.
Electro-magnetism is a theory.
Relativity is a theory.
What the hell's a "scientific fact"??
A theory is a model of how things work. Some theories agree quite well with observable phenomena, and they are accepted by the scientific community.
That's all.
To say that theories based upon theories make for bad science is to fail to understand that practically everything about modern and ancient science is theory.
??????
Newton had a theory about gravity. It seemed to explain things quite well. Gravitational theory. Einstein had problems with it, and revised it for particular frames of reference. This helped develop the theory of relativity. Maxwell used these theories to develop theories about electro-magnetism, which pretty much led to your ability to post and learn about such things on the Internet.
Was Einstein's theory of relativity "bad science"? Maxwell's theory of electro-magnetism?
Sheesh.
Evolution is a theory.
Gravitation is a theory.
Electro-magnetism is a theory.
Relativity is a theory.
What the hell's a "scientific fact"??
A theory is a model of how things work. Some theories agree quite well with observable phenomena, and they are accepted by the scientific community.
That's all.
To say that theories based upon theories make for bad science is to fail to understand that practically everything about modern and ancient science is theory.
??????
Newton had a theory about gravity. It seemed to explain things quite well. Gravitational theory. Einstein had problems with it, and revised it for particular frames of reference. This helped develop the theory of relativity. Maxwell used these theories to develop theories about electro-magnetism, which pretty much led to your ability to post and learn about such things on the Internet.
Was Einstein's theory of relativity "bad science"? Maxwell's theory of electro-magnetism?
Sheesh.
Gravity has been proven, pretty sure it works well
electro magnitism is a fact and proved mawell's theory
I recall reading about a proof for E=MC Squared
Evelution is a theory and has not been proven
But ah thank you for pointing out that theories have proofs
electro magnitism is a fact and proved mawell's theory
I recall reading about a proof for E=MC Squared
Evelution is a theory and has not been proven
But ah thank you for pointing out that theories have proofs
There is no "gravitational fact". There is only gravitational *theory*.
There is no electro-magnetic fact. There is electro-magnetic theory.
There is no fact of relativity. There is a theory of relativity.
There is no fact of evolution. There is a theory of evolution.
Really, I'm done with this. Science 101. I finished my undergraduate science studies long ago, and have no interest in such a puerile discussion, or revisiting the foundations of scientific method and theory.
Read a book.
Oh, by the way, E=MC^2 is NOT Einstein's theory of relativity. But maybe this will stimulate you to some further reading on the topics we've discussed.
There is no electro-magnetic fact. There is electro-magnetic theory.
There is no fact of relativity. There is a theory of relativity.
There is no fact of evolution. There is a theory of evolution.
Really, I'm done with this. Science 101. I finished my undergraduate science studies long ago, and have no interest in such a puerile discussion, or revisiting the foundations of scientific method and theory.
Read a book.
Oh, by the way, E=MC^2 is NOT Einstein's theory of relativity. But maybe this will stimulate you to some further reading on the topics we've discussed.
Sorry, I'm done with this.
If it's your contention that HCGW is a fiction, and that the science behind it is faulty - in fact, that SCIENCE is faulty - you go take it up with the majority of the world's scientists.
I have no desire to give you any more lessons in the way science works. I'm not reinventing the wheel here.
If it's your contention that HCGW is a fiction, and that the science behind it is faulty - in fact, that SCIENCE is faulty - you go take it up with the majority of the world's scientists.
I have no desire to give you any more lessons in the way science works. I'm not reinventing the wheel here.
That sentence displays the most massive misunderstanding of the way science works that I have ever read.papasmerf said:
Congratualtions, papa. You have outdone yourself.
