Religion, Dinosaurs, A.I. and Aliens

In addition when someone directly contradicts their own example in a feeble effort to "sustain" their false claim that would also constitute trolling.
In other words you're so wedded to your false view that you'll make up any old shit trying to support it.
 
When someone contradicts, disagrees with, and demands proof for every word every poster states despite repeated links provided for evidence, definitions and irrefutable firsthand testimonies...that would be considered trolling too.

It's beyond trolling. It's harassment of Sciforums members.
Of course he's not bothering me. My facts speak for themselves.
I just feel concern for other members I see him constantly follow around like the plague.
Shouldn't there be some regulation against this kind of behavior?
 
Last edited:
TheVisitor said:
When someone contradicts, disagrees with, and demands proof for every word every poster states despite repeated links provided for evidence, definitions and irrefutable firsthand testimonies...that would be considered trolling too.

It's beyond trolling. It's harassment of Sciforums members.
Of course he's not bothering me. My facts speak for themselves.
I just feel concern for other members I see him constantly harass.
Click to expand...

Me or Dwdder? I dont think either of us are harassing. If you think i am then i will go back and deltes some of my posts.
 
TheVisitor said:
When someone contradicts, disagrees with, and demands proof for every word every poster states despite repeated links provided for evidence, definitions and irrefutable firsthand testimonies...that would be considered trolling too.
Click to expand...
When someone makes assertions that they cannot or will not substantiate that, by the forum rules, is trolling.
When someone makes accusations of "fabrication" and "misquoting" that they cannot (or will not) substantiate that, too, is against forum rules.

Of course he's not bothering me. My facts speak for themselves.
Click to expand...
And claiming your assertions to be facts when in actuality they aren't is also trolling.

Shouldn't there be some regulation against this kind of behavior?
Click to expand...
Read the forum rules.
 
:bawl:I left the name out for a reason.
It's like throwing a rock into a pack of dogs.
The one that yelps...is the one that got hit!
Don't worry John, He's yelping. :bawl:

Guilty. Judged by his own hand.
 
Last edited:
Dywyddyr said:
So you DO mean John then. Since it was he who "yelped" first.
:rolleyes:

Or is this yet more evidence of your selective "thinking"?
Click to expand...

It was the sound of the yelp that gave it away.
His was more of a whimper, but yours had a real growl to it.
 
.

TheVisitor said:
When someone contradicts, disagrees with, and demands proof for every word every poster states despite repeated links provided for evidence, definitions and irrefutable firsthand testimonies...that would be considered trolling too.

It's beyond trolling. It's harassment of Sciforums members.
Of course he's not bothering me. My facts speak for themselves.
I just feel concern for other members I see him constantly follow around like the plague.
Shouldn't there be some regulation against this kind of behavior?
Click to expand...

well, in my relegion, meeting aliens(wich it would be a war when all humans unite, but just for that war) so meeting aliens, is going to happen one day, and we do beleive that the univerce is crowling with living planets, and earth is differently that the center of the univerce, and besides aliens(unknown, we don't know how they are), and the djin, who are another race more advanced than us, and djins, are not as some people think like in animes or fiction films, not genes, and not genes in a pot, and not a wish genes or whatever, they are other intelligent race, like us humans.
that's what my relegion says about that. :p :D
hehehehe
and that's not a trolling from my imagination ;)
 
John99:

John99 said:
The sun has set and then you see this yellow ball raise in the sky and you have dylight.

You say to your companion 'my theory is this will happen everyday'

Companion says 'you are crazy'

Then every day the same exact thing happens.

Theory has been proven.
Click to expand...

What you have is, at first, a guess, or hypothesis. "I think the sun will rise every day (for no particular reason)."

After a year or two, you've had access to 600 data points or so, and have observed an apparent regularity of nature. As a budding scientists, you say "I think the sun will go on rising every day forever." Now, that is a theory.

Can your theory that the sun will go on rising every day forever be proved? No, of course it can't. And in fact, our current science (more sophisticated than the science of test-tube man) has a different theory - that one day the sun won't rise on the Earth.

Your theory that the sun will rise every day is not a bad theory, but you can't ever prove it, because to prove it you'd have to wait forever. Just because the Sun rises today and has risen for as long as you can remember is no guarantee that it will rise tomorrow. You'd think there'd be a strong likelihood that it will do so, but that's not proof.

Do you understand this?

John99 said:
After one week he declared the sun will rise EVERY day. His theory has now been proven to be factual.
Click to expand...

No, because on day 8, the sun might not rise. Your test-tube man can't guarantee it will rise.

For example:

you plant a seed, you water the seed and give it sun light. Your theory is the seed will grow into a tree. We know now what happens to seeds, and take into account something can go WRONG.

Exapnding on that:

Human sees trees growing and plants growing. Human comes upon some seeds, human looks at seeds in hand and theorizes these little balls are what becomes a tree.

Never seen that happen but tht is now his theory. So he sets out to prove that theory.
Click to expand...

And he can never prove that all seeds grow into trees. In fact, quite plainly they do not.

What of his theory that every tree came from a seed? That's impossible to prove as well, since you don't have access to all trees to check, along with past records of how they grew?

It's not a bad theory, but it's unprovable.

See?
 
Shadow1 said:
well, in my relegion, meeting aliens(wich it would be a war when all humans unite, but just for that war) so meeting aliens, is going to happen one day, and we do beleive that the univerce is crowling with living planets, and earth is differently that the center of the univerce, and besides aliens(unknown, we don't know how they are), and the djin, who are another race more advanced than us, and djins, are not as some people think like in animes or fiction films, not genes, and not genes in a pot, and not a wish genes or whatever, they are other intelligent race, like us humans.
that's what my relegion says about that. :p :D
hehehehe
and that's not a trolling from my imagination ;)
Click to expand...
Actually this is a repost from page 5, #95 of this thread.
I did attempt to cover this in depth.
Do you have something new you'd like to add?
 
Last edited:
.

TheVisitor said:
Actually this is a repost from page 5, #95 of this thread.
I did attempt to cover this in depth.
Do you have something new you'd like to add?
Click to expand...

sorry, i forgot,i don't know, maybe another time, but i answered the opic question in islam view.
and apperently it's useless to have such a good direct answer((i think)), anyway...
 
James, in the first example forever would be correct. It is their knowledge and intellect that made one persons response correct and one incorrect.

The second example (the seeds) was not to say that seed would grow into a tree but that it would grow into something. You see, you are injecting your own knowledge into these scenarios when it is not warranted or accurate to do so. It is interesting that someone would get that impression when it was not even implied. That in and of itself is some type of Rorschach test.
 
I think i may be confusing 'theory and hypothesis' though...may be. As i was sitting here it occurred to me the phrase 'music theory'. To me the term theory seems a bit misplaced but the phrase itself is something we are inclined to accept.

Suppose a person has in front of them a few dozen parts to complete an engine. Now they are stuck on how to complete a step in the completion of this engine (motor). One person claims 'i have a theory'. He visualized the way to proceed, which was\is a fairly intricate process (proceeding with the build is).

Is his claim of 'i have a theory' accurate?
 
John99 said:
Is his claim of 'i have a theory' accurate?
Click to expand...
No:
in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method.
Click to expand...
Your confusion would be considerably reduced if you actually read posts and links addressed to you.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2578479&postcount=314
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2578489&postcount=318
 
I will give my answer to the last question.

Is his claim of 'i have a theory' accurate?

Answer: Yes.
 
John, why do you persistently fail to read what is given to you?
Why do persistently fail to support your contentions?
Either back up your claim that it is is correct, with links and/ or quotes (your own "reasoning" is insufficient"), or you will be banned for 3 days.
 
*** NOTE FROM A MOD ***
John99 has received a 3 day ban for persistent trolling, refusal to support his arguments and refusal or inability to read posts addressed to him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top