To be honest, this is just so much garbage. I can't stop you spouting garbage and I don't think I'm a more valuable person just because you spout garbage, but think on this.
There are many people on this board who go out of their way, take time to research things and draw upon their own experience to try to help people who want to learn something. Now, I could be doing my own work, or I could be playing with my son, or watching TV, or having fun on my horse, but I'm not. I'm taking time out to try to help people who want to know something.
If I was hung up on me being more "valuable" that the people who ask questions, then I wouldn't be here and neither would many of the other people on here, I suspect.
The reaction you are getting has bugger all to do with the value that "evolutionists" place on themselves, but everything to do with your attitude which has been rather insulting. I'm not perfect - I do have a mote in my eye, but.......
Frankly, if "evolutionists" are such awful people, why bother hanging around here?
Can I point out that scientists always hold their conclusions to be falsifiable, but they don't actually reach those conclusions until they've carried out the experiments to either support or refute their hypothesis. Once they've done that, they publish their findings, including full methodology, and describe the conclusions they have drawn. This lets others replicate their findings.
Other scientists then read this. If the evidence presented validates the conclusions and the findings are replicated with the same methodology then other scientists will accept the conclusions on a tentative basis.
Science assumes all the time that conclusions may be false which is why the're always held tentatively - if new evidence comes along which shows the conclusions to be unjustified, then the conclusions are thrown out.
The people on the board are reporting findings which have already been through this process and which are still to be refuted. Most of the time the conclusions are not those of the posters themselves, but of science. They do want to hear about alternatives, but alternatives which have been through the same rigorous process as the conventional conclusions.
So, yes, to answer your question, this is what science is about and this is what is posted on this board, most of the time.
It's such a shame that you can't see it.
Would you like some?
Why don't you quit with the snidey insults? I personally don't respond well to them and neither does much of the human race.
It's wise to trust someone who provides evidence to back up their conclusions. You see, that means that they are providing you with the same information that they used to come to their conclusions and allowing you to come to your own - they're not just saying "believe me cos I know what I'm talking about".
Then there are others who make sweeping assertions, provide no evidence to back them up and when asked for the evidence eg references which support them, they run a mile or change the subject.
I suggest you look at the E=mc2 thread. Have a look at the posts which go between Heinrik and Modulus. Now, can you tell whether Modulus is to be trusted or not?
If someone claims to be a molecular biologist and then demonstrates an astounding lack of knowledge of the subject it's not a good idea to trust their judgment on molecular matters. Neither is it a good idea to use people's qualifications to judge them, since some might have only just scraped a pass, however the number of people with the specific qualifiation AND who are crap is very small.
The final test is experience - experience of the poster. Once you've been around a while, you get to know those who know what they're talking about and those who spout so much marsh gas (by their fruits shall you know them).
However, in all circumstances, conversations tend to get off on the wrong foot when someone appears shouting the odds and criticising people they have no knowledge of.
I have given you the benefit of the doubt so far, which is more than you've done for me or anyone else on this board. Are you surprised that people are less than exceedingly polite in return? Oh, and see my previous post in this thread.
Honestly, Trixie, you were talking to me as if my goldfish had just died. It reminded me of maggie thatcher, no offense intended. Bloody oranges? Ha ha ha I'm sorry, but how am I supposed to take you seriously?
In case it escaped your attention I did post the following before wittering on about oranges
At the risk of oversimplifying (and please don't be offended, this is how I have to think all the time, especially when I'm doing calculations for dilution factors for various chemical solutions)
You just don't get it, do you? I have to think like that when I'm doing everyday calculations sometimes. If lack of knowledge meant you were of less value I would have made no attempt whatsoever to help. My superior attitude? Nope, just knowing what would work for me in your situation (more equivalent than superior I would have thought, but what do i know).You obviously feel my attempts to help were of such a low value that you feel free to laugh. Instead I just feel insulted.
I'll tell you what makes someone of less value in my books, shall I? Someone who can't even see that what I posted was nothing more than an attempt to help. Someone who can't see that I've been where you're coming from, even when it's spelled out to them in words of (admittedly) more than one syllable. Someone who ridicules those who have gone out of their way to assist.
I am astounded and highly amused that you think my explanation demonstrates a superior attitude because it was too simple, yet STILL didn't get it and went on to ask Modulus
Do the values of E and M remain constant?
It seems that maybe the "oranges" idea wasn't as simple as required.
Feel free to have another laugh at this point, because I'm ROTFFLMFAO and what I'm laughing at isn't your question, it's the fact that you claim the "oranges" were below your level, yet by your question have demonstrated that even that went over your head and plop! onto the wall. To save your blushes, I won't quote the full text of the "oranges" explanation.
Go back, read my posts on this matter and then come back here and tell me I deserved what you said or that I deserve your laughter and that I deserve not to be taken seriously.
Any superiority I feel now has nothing to do with intelligence or knowledge, nothing to do with education and everything to do with the fact that I'm not utterly obnoxious.
I have never been suspended from this board in the four years or so I've been here and I'm proud of that record. However, I think it's a worthwhile risk to take in this instance, since your behaviour has just about reached an all time low for the forum (and that's saying something, given some of the posters we've had).
I'm not going to get into a flame war with you, you're not really worth the effort. Suffice to say that I'll be staying far away from you from now on which I believe will be no great loss in your opinion and a f*%king great big gain in mine.
Oh and can I point out that Hill Billy, in attempting to point out that a lack of knowledge doesn't equal less value, is pointing out the bleeding obvious, However, given your response to the "oranges" I think you might still be hard-pressed to tell what anything equals
If you were to say "most" scientists, we would be in complete agreement
There may be a few scientists out here who don't hold conclusions tentatively, but they are in a minority and if they are not going to alter their views as new evidence comes to light, they are going to make very little contribution to the ongoing work of science.
Um, isn't it people who draw conclusions? See,here's what I'm wonderin,can science really draw a conclusion if it is a kind of conclusion itself ? ( The conclusion that all conclusions may be false.)
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, people draw conclusions, but in science the conclusions and the evidence which led to them are presented to the scientific community for the scientific community to validate them. I see no problem in saying that all conclusions may be false, but I don't see that as a conclusion, I see it as a manifestation of the nature of scientific enquiry. We can only draw conclusions based on the evidence we have, but we accept that there may be more evidence out there, still to be uncovered, which will go against the conclusions. In other words science, right up front, says "We don't know everything, so we have to use what we do have and keep adding to it as we go along." I don't see that this in any way diminishes science - it makes it stronger and self-correcting. If this doesn't answer your point, can you please clarify what you're asking and I'll try again.
So, are you saying that some conclusions are in fact true? If they go through this rigorous process, that is?
No, I'm saying that even if they go through this rigorous process, they're still held as tentative, falsifiable and possibly wrong, but they represent the best explanation for the available evidence.
Some scientific conclusions are so well supported by evidence and have no contradictory evidence that they are held as pretty much fact, but there always remains the possibility that they are wrong.
I think if you were insulted by this remark,then you must place yourself among those who do not think scientifically. Is this correct? I mean thinking about science is not the same as scientifically thinkin.
No, it is not correct. I place myself nowhere, I expect others to place me based on what I say, i.e., I expect them to draw their own tentative conclusions, based on the evidence they have. I would like to think that I am capable of thinking scientifically and so far, I do have evidence to suggest to me that this is the case. It's all to do with actually being a scientist. If I didn't think in that way, my papers wouldn't have been published. However, if evidence were to arise that my thinking on a scientific matter had not been scientific I would do two things
1. I would not place any value on the conclusions I had previously held
2. I would learn from this and try to change my way of thinking when it came to science.
In other words I don't even accept my conclusions as fact when it comes to science - I'm saying that I might be wrong. I don't see how this constitutes superiority. In fact I think it may just about constitute the exact opposite.
Oh, and yet again, quit with the snidey comments. They don't add anything and just serve to tangle the lines of communication.
If you can't tell the difference between saying that someone is talking garbage and someone is garbage, then communication with you is pointless in the extreme.
You couldn't be further off the mark if you tried in your assessment of me. But, hey, I don't give a toss. Let's just say that you're far superior to me, you're so much more valuable than me and I bow to your magnificent presence. There, happy now? :rolleyes:
You should be ashamed of yourself. Shouldn't you? For participating. You can stomp your feet and say no if you want. You can rationalize, justify, cry, deny. Don't matter much to me. I think, based on the evidence, I see you for what you are. A bully.
And you call this the application of the principles of science? Based on these closing comments, your post didn't deserve any answers to your 14 questions which were just so much more of the same. It's called an ad hominem when you attack the person and not the argument and is a logical fallacy. Since your entire post was leading up to this ad hom, your claims of using scientific principles is disingenuous to say the least.
Oh and there was no contradiction in the two statements I made
I can't stop you spouting garbage
I don't think I'm a more valuable person
The first statement means that I can't stop you spouting garbage. That's a fact. You can spout as much garbage as you want, you can post it on the board and I can't stop you. It does makes a quality judgement on what you said, but not on you. If you choose to think that it makes a judgement on your value, then that's your decision. I have no way of stopping you making that decision, but that doesn't change the fact that I commented on your utterances and not on you.
The second statement means that I do not think that I'm a more valuable person than you. Since the first statement made absolutely no comment on your value relative to mine, the second statement doesn't contradict the first.
If you can't see any of this, then it's not due to a lack of explanation from me. Can you really not see that calling someone's argument idiotic is not calling the person idiotic, calling an argument stupid is not calling the person stupid?
You tossed any semblance of scientific attitude in the trash when you indulged in name-calling so don't complain when the reply you get doesn't show what you consider a scientific attitude. Level playing field and all that. If you want considered answers, try asking considered questions and quit with the name-calling.
Now, bottom line, you're far superior to me, you've proved that by name-calling, I again bow to your superior value as a person who can call people names and I humble myself before your superior name-calling skills.
I suggest that you now go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.
Don't bother reporting this post, I'll do it myself!