Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Difference between religion and science fora
CK
Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 12 of 81 (228341)
08-01-2005 5:20 AM


Social and religious issues
Why do we do with those folders? It seems to me at the moment that those occupy some strange middle group where people who don't want to argue proper science can take (As an example take faith's total "blank look" when it goes to the use of the word proof) potshots as they feel fit.

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 17 of 81 (228354)
08-01-2005 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
08-01-2005 7:19 AM


Re: rigor in the Faith forums
That's a few good point -
I have no problem with:
quote:
When the water left the ground at 18,000mph it did not turn to steam because God prevented it
or
quote:
When the water left the ground at 18,000mph it did not turn to steam due to some mechanism I'm not quite sure of. At the moment I honestly cannot suggest what that maybe. I will have to take it on faith that this did occur.
But I do have a problem with
quote:
When the water left the ground at 18,000mph it did not turn to steam because science is wrong or not conducted in the proper manner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 08-01-2005 7:19 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 19 of 81 (228357)
08-01-2005 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
08-01-2005 7:30 AM


Proof! All the proof you need!
But Faith that's an out and out lie - you don't go along with the prevailing view. I think what people tend to forget is this site (and maybe I've got this wrong) is a place where creationists can put forward their views using the accepted methods, methodologies and practices of science as it stands today. Even over at AIG and places they claim this is what they are doing. You are clearly NOT doing this.
You CANNOT make statements such as:
quote:
Sorry, I like the word "prove" and it's quite accurate for many things. Certainly we can prove things. We prove them all the time. Guess the distance from where you are sitting to a spot opposite you. We can prove if you are right or wrong by measuring it. That's proof, not mere plausibility. Various scientists in history proved many things, how the blood circulates, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, the cause of sickness by "germs" and how to protect ourselves from them, that water doesn't get hotter after it reaches the boiling point, and lots of stuff like that.
and not accept that you want to practice and discuss pseduo-science rather than actual science. This has nothing at all to do with TOE,creationism or anything at all. It's far more basic - you refuse to accept or discuss science as it is actually conducted.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 07:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 08-01-2005 7:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 08-01-2005 7:42 AM CK has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 21 of 81 (228360)
08-01-2005 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
08-01-2005 7:42 AM


Disingenuous use of terminology
quote:
I'm using ordinary everyday language which is quite understandable and a lot clearer.
but not to the people here - this is a self-selective group who wants to discuss the sciences - we use the correct terminology.Moreover it's plain misleading. Fact,theory,law,proof are have different meanings to how they are used in everyday langauge - to use them in that way when trying to discuss science when you know that is not how they are used is Disingenuous in the truest sense of the word (giving a false appearance of frankness).
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 08:03 AM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 08:04 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 08-01-2005 7:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 08-01-2005 8:09 AM CK has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 23 of 81 (228363)
08-01-2005 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
08-01-2005 8:09 AM


Re: Proof! All the proof you need!
No forgot evolution - we are talking a far far more basic problem. You refuse to discuss science as it is understood and performed.
I don't want "clarification" - I just want you to use the terminology that is actually used.
You do realise that AIG or any of the other apologtic groups would not support your current position?
quote:
You can figure out what I'm saying if you are willing to
a load of bollocks normally (in regard to the sciences) but that's neither here or there.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 08:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 08-01-2005 8:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 08-01-2005 9:18 AM CK has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 25 of 81 (228382)
08-01-2005 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
08-01-2005 9:18 AM


Re: Terminology (is this a forum for nonsense science?)
You keep trying to bring this back to specific areas - that's not the problem, your problem is at the most basic level.
The problem is that many common words have a different meaning ENTIRELY from those in science.
quote:
Are nonscientists welcome here or not? Do you have the good will to help us with terminological problems or not?
That's a dodge and you know it. But what's suppose to happen when the non-scientist is told by those who have experience in the area "no we don't use the word proof" and the person says "well I do, so I'm going to use it when discussing science". How can we help you when you refuse to accept at the most basic level that you have got it wrong? That's nothing to do with evolution or geogology, nothing at all.
let's try something.
Define what you think FACT means in everyday use and it's use in science (don't google - just try and define them).
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 09:28 AM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 09:28 AM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 09:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 08-01-2005 9:18 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 08-01-2005 9:30 AM CK has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 27 of 81 (228384)
08-01-2005 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
08-01-2005 9:30 AM


Re: Terminology
Can I be blunt? I don't think your understanding is yet at a stage where's it is worth having a conversation about it.
So what what do you think FACT means in everyday use and science?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 09:33 AM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 09:42 AM

everything you think you know baby is wrong and everything you think you had baby is gone. everything you think you know baby is wrong. its all over but the crying fade to black Im sick of trying took too much and now Im done
Garbage - It's All Over But The Crying

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 08-01-2005 9:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 08-01-2005 9:39 AM CK has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 29 of 81 (228389)
08-01-2005 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
08-01-2005 9:39 AM


Being very blunt.
Well to be more blunt - I think we are at a stage where the vast majority of the people you encounter here think that you don't have anything useful at all to say on any topic connected with science. I think we have reached the point where you actually have to demonstrate to people that you understand what science is, before people will even consider the fact that you have any sensible views on any given scientific issue.
The only person I can remember who was worse was Ray Martiniz (Willowtree) and he was 100% rug-chewing mad. Some would say that true creation had a similar problem to yours but you seems to be many levels below him.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 09:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 08-01-2005 9:39 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 12:57 PM CK has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 35 of 81 (228444)
08-01-2005 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
08-01-2005 12:05 PM


Proof - a nice straight forward term
# any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it"
# make or take a proof of, such as a photographic negative, an etching, or typeset
# a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it
# a measure of alcoholic strength expressed as an integer twice the percentage of alcohol present (by volume)
# knead to reach proper lightness; "proof dough"
# (printing) an impression made to check for errors
# proofread: read for errors; "I should proofread my manuscripts"
# activate by mixing with water and sometimes sugar or milk; "proof yeast"
# a trial photographic print from a negative
# make resistant to water, sound, errors, etc.; "proof the materials against shrinking in the dryer"
# validation: the act of validating; finding or testing the truth of something
# proof(p): (used in combination or as a suffix) able to withstand; "temptation-proof"; "childproof locks"
http://www.wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# Proof theory, studied as a branch of mathematical logic, represents proofs as formal mathematical objects, facilitating their analysis by mathematical techniques. Proofs are typically presented as inductively-defined data structures, such as plain lists, boxed lists, or trees, which are constructed according to the axioms and rules of inference of the logical system. As such, proof theory is closer to syntax, while model theory is more purely semantical. Together with model theory, axiomatic s
Wikipedia(logic)
# Proof (also known as Dirty Harry) is a rapper in the D12 crew.
Wikipedia(rapper)
# In mathematics, a proof is a demonstration that, given certain axioms, some statement of interest is necessarily true.
Wikipedia(mathematics)
# Proof is a play by David Auburn which won the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for Drama and the 2001 Tony Award for Best Play.
Wikipedia(play)
# A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/glossary.htm
# A coin produced by a technique involving specially prepared dies and planchets and usually several strikings. This results in particular sharpness of detail and a virtually flawless surface, usually with fields that are mirror-like. Proof coins are specifically made for collectors and not for circulation.
国产成人亚洲综合无码AⅤ,莹与翁公回乡下同床,国产成人无码区在线观看,9420免费高清在线观看视频
# A smaller print, printed at 1/2 to 1/3 size or on an "A" size sheet, used to evaluate the quality of the print before an edition is begun.
http://www.lazarusgroup.com/resources/glossary.php
# a specially produced coin made from highly polished planchets and dies and often struck twice to accent the design. [TOP]
Page not found | United States Mint
# The term Proof denotes a method of manufacture, not a grade. Proof coins are made with special care, exclusively for collectors or investors and not struck for general circulation. Generally, proof coins are struck on specially selected and polished planchets. They are struck using polished dies. Usually the coins are made on a slower moving press, and/or are struck more than once. Most proof coins are brilliant, with a mirrorlike surface.
http://www.numismedia.com/glossary.htm
# An impression taken at any stage in the making of a print that is not part of the edition. top
http://www.kqfineart.com/glossary/
# A statement of alcohol content. Proof is two times the percentage of alcohol by volume. In other words, 100 proof whiskey is 50% alcohol by volume.
http://www.restaurantreport.com/...s/ft_bourbonglossary.html
# The first copy of the actual book, used to find errors and make necessary corrections.
http://www.classiclibrary.org/Glossary.html
# copy of composed type and illustrations for checking accuracy of layout, type matter and depending on the type of proof, color breaks and color reproduction
Page Not Found | LBCC
# Coins struck mainly for collectors as special presentation pieces using specially polished or otherwise prepared dies.
A Complete Guide to IRA Approved Precious Metals Coins
# a coin produced from polished dies and/or planchlets. Most often each proof coin is struck twice/or more which gives the coin a very sharp degree of detail and mirror like surface. Proof coins are usually made for numistmatic purposes, presentations, or souvenirs. Proofs are usually not made to circulated in commerce. Mishandling can lower the value and grade of a proof coin. Proofs are sold by the mint during their year of production at a premium to cover their special manufacturing costs. Sometimes sold only in sets.
IndependenceCoins.com is for sale | HugeDomains
# Anything serving to establish the truth of something.
http://www.yourwebassistant.net/glossary/p19.htm
# A draft of the image document sent to the local draft printer.
http://www.board-web.lausd.k12.ca.us/help/glossary.htm
# A representation of what a page or job will look like when it is printed on a printing press. Proofs are designed to simulate, as closely as possible, the exact appearance a job will take when printed on press; many proofs are made using the same film that will be used to make the printing plates. The proof is used by the designer to verify that the page looks the way he intended, and is used by the press operator to adjust ink flow on press to match the designer's intent. A proof sometimes forms a contract between a designer
Dimension Printing · Sign In
# Hard copy of typeset copy or art produced during publication preparation, used for proofreading.
U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis
# A smaller print - often 8 x 10 inches - used to evaluate a file prior to printing.
BulldogProducts.com is for sale | HugeDomains
# A proof is an impression of a print pulled prior to the regular, published edition of the print. A trial or working proof is one taken before the design on the matrix is finished. These proofs are pulled so that the artist can see what work still needs to be done to the matrix. Once a printed image meets the artist's expectations, this becomes a bon tirer ("good to pull") proof. This proof is often signed by the artist to indicate his approval and is used for comparison purposes by the printer. An artist's proof is an impression issued extra
Error 404 Page Not Found
# A method of checking for errors prior to printing an order. Normally the last prepress operation. A press proof is used by the printing press operator to ensure the correctness of the finished product during the production of the order.
http://www.graphicsquote.com/glossaryofterms.html
# Impressions pulled before the printing of the edition in which the development of the image is tracked and various inks, colors, papers, and other variables are tested.
NGA | Gemini G.E.L. - Glossary: P-Q
# A proof is a sequence of statements (made up of axioms, assumptions and arguments) leading to the establishment of the truth of one finat statement.
http://www.ddi.cs.uni-potsdam.de/...Lectures/MathNotions.htm
# A representation of the printed piece, created either electronically or in print, that demonstrates what has been produced in the film or plate procedures.
No need to fear print industry jargon when sending your project to Printing You Can Trust. Learn more about important print-related terms in our glossary.
# A specially made coin distinguished by sharpness of detail and usually with a brilliant mirrorlike surfaces. Proof refers to the method of manufacture and is not a condition. Pre-1968 proofs were made only at the Philadelphia Mint except in a few rare instances in which presentation pieces were struck at branch mints. Current proofs are made at the San Francisco an West Point mints.
http://www.coinclub.com/coininfo/gradetrm.html
# first draft copy of typeset material; also called galley proofs or galleys.
http://www.pnl.gov/ag/usage/pubterm.html
# Originally an IMPRESSION taken as a check on progress before work on the block, plate, or other printing surface was complete. A "touched" proof is one drawn upon by the artist. Since the eighteenth century the earlier impressions of a print have been sold as "artist's proofs" even if identical to those making up the regular EDITION. For this reason a proof in the original sense in now generally referred to as a "working" or "trial" proof.
SDMA | Page not found - San Diego Museum of Art
# A standard coin term describing a coin that the mint has created in a special manner not used for circulating coins, where the coin has a mirror-like finish. Proof coins are created by striking the coin multiple times, using higher pressure, and polishing the dies. See also BU, Proof-Like, Reverse Proof.
404 Not Found
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 12:13 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 08-01-2005 12:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 08-01-2005 1:13 PM CK has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 68 of 81 (228557)
08-01-2005 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
08-01-2005 5:21 PM


deleted by author
deleted by author
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 05:27 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 08-01-2005 5:21 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Jazzns, posted 08-01-2005 5:32 PM CK has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 71 of 81 (228569)
08-01-2005 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by robinrohan
08-01-2005 6:08 PM


Re: Topics with assumptions
how can we have sensible discussion where the premise is alway wrapped in "but those dirty evo-scientists - they would just lie anyway!"
Because even when it's not explict it's soon shoe-horned on (unless it's the poster who has a hard-on for diagrams and then they are inserted in).
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 06:22 PM

And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of he youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God
St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by robinrohan, posted 08-01-2005 6:08 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024