Perhaps I'll be safe here (Page 2) BelgianStrider:  yup. we are still waiting the technical solution for z's orbiting baloons above the "von Karman" line.About a genius who continues to look for noon to fourteen o'clock. (Edited by BelgianStrider)  zeffur: Still nothing true to offer about abiogenesis or evolution, huh? Your stupid distractions are futile... zeffur: It doesn't need to be... You're the moron who is hung up on what you can't comprehend is possible. BelgianStrider: if it is technicaly possible, you can come up with a technical mathematical solution. We are waitig with impatience BelgianStrider: The burden of confirmation is with z, he claims balloons can orbit above the "von Kaman line": I am the sceptic one! zeffur: I've offered an opinion--not claimed proof of a scientific fact, dummy. I realize you are rather dimwitted, but, come on.. sheesh... BelgianStrider: ow backtracking? When three people were sceptic about z's "opinions" that seemed to be more claims than "opinions" he is soo dishonest, that every used trick is unsurprising (Edited by BelgianStrider) BelgianStrider: unfounded claim: as three people did try to make him realise it is technicaly impossible just due to simple physical laws zeffur: Anway, as usual, you don't post anything that is worth reading. All you post are lies & stupid worthless nonsense...  axocanth: A post of mine copied from another thread (on the grounds that it will almost certainly be deleted by an incorrigible hypocrite): "How is it hypocrisy to delete troll comments from a forum??" - Zeffur The reason is this: It's Blackshoes' thread. He is entitled to delete posts that he considers to be inappropriate, e.g. those posts that are off-topic, offensive, or whatever. Indeed, given the way this site is set up, he is entitled to delete any post he likes. He is not required to even give a reason. He is, so to speak, God! None of the above, in itself, incurs a charge of hypocrisy. What DOES justify the charge of hypocrisy is when two contributors are behaving in the same manner, yet one is routinely deleted, while the other is invariably tolerated, indeed ENCOURAGED (via the "like" function). The actual situation is actually much worse than this. What we have is this: One participant (Thelonious) frequently posts irrelevant off-topic remarks which are relatively benign, at least as far as I've seen. The other participant (Zeffur) frequently posts irrelevant off-topic remarks which are FAR FROM benign; posts replete with hatred and insults. The former is routinely deleted; the latter is not only tolerated, but encouraged. If that's not hypocrisy I don't know what is. zeffur: zeffur: You got one thing right, you "don't know what is." TSM posts absolutely NOTHING of value in any forum that he posts in. He's only in the forums to be an annoying pest. He has literally filled multiple pages in a row with his moronic comments--even when they all get deleted. I, on the other hand, actually post comments that make sense, expose the absurdity of you clowns, & require you to actually make a sound case for your imaginary, conflationary, delusional, absurd, & indefensible claims--which of course none of you can ever do, because your notions are nothing but imaginary & disingenuous absurdities. As for the few terms that I repeat such as: atheidiots, evoidiots, evo chumps, dishonest, delusional, etc. You should replace those in your own mind with dumb/gullible atheists, dumb/gullible/irrational/delusional evolution believers, etc--because after all, that IS what you clowns truly are--not that you will ever be honest enough to admit that reality. Furthermore, you are one to talk about insulting others. You've done it routinely, so you are certainly a hypocrite for even bringing it up. If I were BS, I'd delete every one of TSM's irrelevant & worthless posts, as none of them contribute anything of value to the forums. Then there would be NO need for anyone to respond to his idiotic posts. (Edited by zeffur) axocanth: Another member posted the following video in another place. I thought I'd take a look . . . A great deal could be said on Mr Valkai's presentation; some of it complimentary, some less so. For now, though, I just want to focus on one point: How he compares a "theory", as the term is used colloquially, against its supposedly technical usage in science. Now, as everyone probably knows already, there are few things that bug an evolutionary biologist more than to be told--especially by a smelly Creationist!-- that evolution is "just a theory". The biologist is likely to cringe, or perhaps bang his head against the wall, before finally telling the imbecile (as he sees matters) standing before him "You don't understand what the word 'theory' means" -- precisely as Mr Valkai does at 4:12 mins in the video. The biologist may then go on to explain exactly what the term "theory" means in science, and Mr Valkai dutifully obliges at 4:40. A theory, we are told, is . . . "A functional explanation for any set of observed natural phenomena that is backed by all the best evidence that we have". Philosophers of science have been struggling for decades, if not centuries, to capture the essence of a scientific theory. They have not been very successful; nothing remotely resembling a consensus obtains. Perhaps it's just very hard to identify those essential features; perhaps there ARE no essential features common to all scientific theories. One thing is clear, though: the kind of simplistic definition that Mr Valkai offers just won't do. It does match up with the way ACTUAL practicing scientists use the term. For example . . . * re "explanation" Not all theories are explanatory. Indeed, often touted as the most successful scientific theory ever--(orthodox) quantum mechanics--is non-explanatory. All agree it is a magnificent tool for systematizing and making predictions of certain observable phenomena; nonetheless it offers no explanation for WHY what is observed is observed. (I will support this claim with quotes from leading physicists in the field if necessary). * re "backed by evidence" String theory, to name one, we are routinely told is not, at least for now, amenable to testing. It is therefore not backed by evidence. Einstein's general theory of relativity, to name another, was routinely referred to a "theory" (including by Einstein himself) even prior to its completion! i.e. when it could not possibly have any supporting evidence. It wasn't even finished! Again, though, this is not what I want to focus on. What I do want to focus on is the issue, and I daresay the issue that concerns us most: Mr Valkai is quite adamant that a scientific theory is far more than than simply a wild guess, or your theory that it might be the spark plug causing your car to misbehave. That said, it's not quite clear precisely what he IS telling us. E.g. Is he telling us that scientific theories are true? All of them? Some of them? That all of them MIGHT be true? Some of them? . . . and so on. In short, should we BELIEVE scientific theories to be true? On this, Mr Valkai is a little vague, to say the least. We are only told: "Theory is the highest level to which you can possibly elevate an idea in science." (5:15) One is left wondering what this "highest level" amounts to: Truth? Approximate truth? Probable truth? On this, Mr Valkai remains conspicuously silent, and the listener may be pondering "Well, should I believe scientific theories or not?". Anyone who is familiar with the history of science will already be aware that a great many theories of past generations--even those regarded as being highly confirmed--are now regarded by today's scientists as incomplete or inadequate in one way or another . . . or just plain false! Starting from around 4:44, however, Mr Valkai tells us that next time we hear that something in science is "just a theory", we should remember that (just to choose one) gravity is "just a theory" too. Mr Valkai is not explicit, but the implication, I think, is clear: you would be very foolish indeed not to believe the theory of gravity. But hang on a sec . . . WHICH theory of gravity? Well, I'm not sure exactly how many theories of gravity there have been--dozens I'd say--and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them, with the possible exception of the current one, is no longer considered to be true . . . by scientists themselves! Just four of the big names, by way of illustration: * Aristotle: Gravity is the tendency of massive objects to reach their "natural place". Very few scientists, if any, still believe this to be true. * Descartes: Gravity is understood as the action of swirling "vortices". Very few scientists, if any, still believe this to be true. * Newton: Gravity is understood as an attractive force which acts instantaneously over any distance against a backdrop of absolute space and absolute time. Very few scientists, if any, still believe this to be true. (Now, before you shout out, yes, I know that Newton's theory is still used for some applications, it still yields accurate predictions for most everyday scenarios, it got us to the Moon, etc. It still WORKS! But taken as a literal description of how the universe is, it is no longer believed to be TRUE.) * Einstein: Gravity is not a force at all; it is the geometry of spacetime. How many physicists believe Einstein's theory is LITERALLY true, I really couldn't say. The same pattern is seen for scientific theories of atoms, the Sun, light, and so on. Old theories are rejected in favor of new ones. And unless, by some miracle, we occupy a privileged position here in the early 21st century, this pattern is bound to continue. So, in conclusion, should we believe that a theory of gravity, or a theory of light, or atoms, or evolution, or anything else is LITERALLY true? Personally, I'd advise caution. Personally, if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on the car mechanic's theory, or even your OWN theory, that the problem lies with the spark plug being true over a randomly selected scientific theory being true. (For the record, I'm not a Creationist, not religious at all, just interested in the philosophy and history of science. Thanks for a thought provoking vid, sir!) (Edited by axocanth) zeffur: A better description for evolution is that it is "Just a stupid lie & fraud." Let all the stupid/gullible/delusional/stinky evoidiots delude themselves in vain... re: ""A functional explanation for any set of observed natural phenomena that is backed by all the best evidence that we have"." And in the case of evo chumps, it means the biased, bogus, irrational, absurd & indefensible beliefs/assumptions/opinions/claims of atheidiots & other nitwits--who are the only people that are gullible enough to accept such absurdities as valid/true. All sane, honest, rational, well-informed, & intelligent people reject indefensible evoidiot claims for the obvious reason that they are indefensible absurdities--not proven facts & lacking sound reasoning of any kind. The attraction of masses is real---no matter what gravitational theory (explanation) is offered. Evolution is not real--it is pure fiction--whose theory (explanation) is an indefensible absurdity. (Edited by zeffur) | Science Chat Room Similar Conversations |