That would be un-reliable wouldn't it?
We'll as long as you're admitting you misinterpreted my meaning, I guess I''ll let it go this time.
I've removed the report on you for trolling. Just try not to let it happen again.
Last edited:
Religion, Dinosaurs, A.I. and Aliens
- Thread starter superstring01
- Start date
I've removed the report on you for trolling. Just try not to let it happen again.
Thanks, yes unreliable.
Wrong: unless you admit to being completely unaware of the actual meaning of the word "theory" (and that would be somewhat unwise since it has been given many times on this forum, and more than likely to you specifically at least once) then I didn't misunderstand at all. I understood you were being deliberately dishonest in the interpretation of the word.
Provide one time anyone other than yourself has explained the meaning of "theory" to me.
You claim to understand what?. You implied a false meaning I never used so you could say I was in error.
Please provide proof of my deliberate dishonesty in the interpretation of the word.
I have never sided with the creationists and have repeatedly stated they are mis-interpreting the Bible.
Maybe you should explain to everyone here again why you beleive evolution is not a theory.
Last edited:
You will note that I stated "more than likely". In other words it was a guess, not a flat assertion.
But, since you asked... you participated in this thread and that thread contained (for reference) this link. Of course, you may well have skipped each and every post that wasn't specifically a reply to you.
Incorrect. You used the word incorrectly, I implied no false meaning whatsoever. If you HAD intended it in the actual sense the word is used in science then you were factually incorrect. It's that simple.
Maybe you missed the word "unless".
Like I said, you used the word incorrectly, a word that has been explained on this forum many times. So my conclusion was that either (note I said "either"):
You were being deliberately dishonest in your use of the word OR (note there's an "or")
you had somehow contrived to miss each every explanation of the word in your 7 years on this forum (not to mention real life).
It comes down to choice between ascribing massive ignorance or deliberate dishonesty. I assumed one rather than the other. Maybe I should have gone with the second option.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Apparently no one volunteered for the job so the Admins are doing it. Perhaps Dywyddyr will take it.
"Of course" not. There you go okaying your own false assumptions.
Here's what I found stated after looking through 29 pages of posts...
I still stand by the statement, but you have apparently misunderstood it's meaning.
There is nothing wrong with this statement nor does it in anyway say the "theory" of evolution is false.
They have yet to provide the "missing link" to prove the theory.
That doesn't mean it's false, just there's more to be discovered yet.
It may point to combination of some outside source providing the link in question but still not invalidating the process as a whole.
Neither side is willing to compromise and meet in the middle.
That is what I said.
Last edited:
Yeah...I still remember Avatar hounding me relentlessly for years before they let him go.
Don't they have to go through some kind of evaluation before they just give someone the job?
I'm being kind here.
You see without going into pages of intricate details, you have no idea what I mean by "it's just a theory".
You have never asked me to do this and I'm not sure I would if you did.
My point is you just "assumed". And we all know what that stands for.
Last edited:
Ah, I see. You used a throwaway line that could mean what it doesn't appear to mean.
Very... whatever.
You must also be aware of the way the phrase "just a theory" is used?
Or maybe not...
But of course, that's not what you meant and you couldn't be bothered to actually say what you meant.
Well thanks, I think. But I'm not trying to be deceptive or intentionally vague either.Ah, I see. You used a throwaway line that could mean what it doesn't appear to mean.
Very... whatever.
Here's what I stated I believe, but again it's just my "theory".
They have yet to provide the "missing link" to prove the theory in it's entirety.
That is a fact which supports my theory.
That doesn't mean "the theory of evolution" is false. It just means there's more to be discovered yet.
The actual meaning of "True" is not the opposite of "False".
It's a complete concept as compared to a partial. Evolution is still an incomplete concept.
That is different from being false.
My opinion is that facts to date point to a "combination" of some outside source and evolution together providing the link in question.
This does not invalidate the process of evolution as leading to that certain point.
The point where the missing link leaves off and we begin.
Last edited:
I know, but i doubt Dwyder (sp) knows or heard of it. I even know where you got it from.
Now back to your original assertion.
You have not offered any evidence the more advanced civilizations have existed (on Earth) and any links you post will never support that....because they cant.
OTOH and regarding the broader points you bring up: I think that people get nervous without explanations and that is being generous. Note tht i used the term 'people' and not any specific group or labels (real or imagined).
Untrue.
Theories are never "proven". And the theory of evolution doesn't rely on any single piece of evidence.
There's something more to be discovered in all of science, that's why it's an ongoing thing.
Does anyone actually believe that? I hope not. Of course to specify it would be someone with even slightly above average intellect.
Last edited:
The first sentence. The second is just filler so i could have deleted it.
It should be self explanatory.
Then you're wrong. Theories are never proven. Ever. They just collect more validating data. And can be proven wrong with a single datum.
Possibly it should be, yet the very fact that I asked what you meant would indicate that it isn't.
One more time: "to specify what?"
A theory that can be proven?
I am really surprised when i read things like that. At first i could not believe that people were being honest when they make statements like that but now i see that they are serious. And it is a shame. The truth is that theories are proven and dis-proven on a daily basis.
Here is a simple and quick experiment.
Three people approach a lake of water. One person claims the lake is over 30 feet deep in the center. Of course he has reasons for thinking that and since he is not just being stubborn because he bases that opinion on a few factors. Now it is a theory.
The second person determins the depth to be less than 20 feet and even closer to 10 feet deep. Same principals apply. Now we have two theories.
Finally the third person goes to measure. Now a definitive answer has been given. Theory proven...one is right and one is wrong.
Here is a simple and quick experiment.
Three people approach a lake of water. One person claims the lake is over 30 feet deep in the center. Of course he has reasons for thinking that and since he is not just being stubborn because he bases that opinion on a few factors. Now it is a theory.
The second person determins the depth to be less than 20 feet and even closer to 10 feet deep. Same principals apply. Now we have two theories.
Finally the third person goes to measure. Now a definitive answer has been given. Theory proven...one is right and one is wrong.
Wrong.
Simply because you misunderstand the usage of word "theory" does not mean that theories get proven.