Anyone else notice this pattern?

See, this is a great example of what I'm talking about.See how this writer misuses punctuation and has trouble remembering to put spaces after periods and commas?I'm not actually sure where Hill Billy falls regarding the Evo/Creo debate, but I'm betting he doesn't have a degree in Biology if you know what I mean.

quote:

---

Are you saying that E=MC2 has actually been tried and tested?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

If it has it would not be a theory.

---

Incorrect. It will always be a theory.In science, calling something a "theory" is as confirmed as it gets.For example, the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System is still a Theory, even though it is unlikely in the extreme that we will come across new information that contradicts the idea that the sun is the center of our solar system.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

You've already received a couple replies explaining why this makes no sense as argument, so I'll just focus on the improper use of the word prove, and on the "100% wrong" portion. Scientists use the word prove all the time, but in science it's just shorthand for "support with evidence". Plus science is tentative, so nothing in science is ever 100% right or 100% wrong. So what you're really saying is: Depends upon what you mean by "god". Did you intend the lowercase? If not and you meant the fundamentalist Christian God of the 6000 year old earth and global flood, then yes, of course, we can provide lots of evidence that that God does not exist. Yes, of course, scads and scads of evidence. Absolutely right! In science nothing is ever 100% certain, not even being wrong.--Percy

would you like to prove the god I believe in cannot exist, if I do not use any religion\science\evolution?Edited by Heinrik, : grammatical error

To All:We've reached 300+ posts and time to make summary statements and close the thread. I would like to take this particular response as emblematic of where creationists typically end up -- in denial of contradictory evidence: Are you saying that in order to believe in your god you need to deny all the knowledge and all the evidence of all religions\sciences (and "science" includes evolution)?To me it is irrelevant how well people communicate, what is critical is logical thinking that is self-consistent and has a solid basis in reality (ie not contradicted by evidence of objective reality).That is pretty much the argument in a nut-shell.To Heinrik:Perhaps you would care to continue the discussion on how one validates their concepts of reality on the thread Perceptions of Reality. I am interested in what methods (in addition to the scientific method) we can use to determine the validity of concepts.edit: I have started a new Perceptions of Reality thread as the old one is near 300 posts.One other thing I would like to add on the issue of comprehension, and that is about the use of words:

when person A uses a different definition of a word than person B they are not talking about the same thing.

​

when person A uses a different definition of a word than is used in a specialty field (science religion philosophy whatever) then they are not talking about the same thing, they are not talking about the specialty field (science religion philosophy whatever) but something else.

​

To Heinrik & Hill Billy: are you sure you are not also doing what you claim others are doing?

​

Enjoy.

​

Edited by RAZD, : added update

​

---

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hmmm,I see.Disagreement is off topic.Yes, Ok,Creo's are stupid,Evo's are smart. There,can I stay now?

---

"Some people spout bullshit just to hear their own heads rattle" Grampa Frame.

See how this reader has a superior attitude yet inferior comprehension skills.I believe I've already stated that I didn't attend university. You are absolutely correct,no degree.What about you? Any degree's? Judging by your reading comprehension skills I'd guess,not so many. Very humorous.So busy bragging about your skills you forget to employ them.

Holy Crap! Someone here can read!

I made very few posts in this thread, but I felt they were pertinent. They have not been replied to. By definition, these points remain unrefuted.Additionally I feel a bit like a prophet. In message 155 I posted In post 296 the following statement is made No wonder claims are made that scientists can't communicate with non-scientists. The non-scientist here is totally ignoring inconvenient evidence. It's as if I never said anything. Sadly for his position, he has managed to demonstrate my point more effectively that I ever could.In attempting to show that the opening post was wrong, they have more than adequately demonstrated that the opening post is an accurate observation.

quote:

---

See how this reader has a superior attitude yet inferior comprehension skills.

---

I had no problem comprehending that you misused punctuation and neglected to put spaces after your commas and periods.Still making those errors, I see.

quote:

---

You are absolutely correct,no degree.What about you? Any degree's?

---

Yup. Bachelor's degree in Equestrian Studies, which is a science-heavy liberal arts degree.(By the way, the way to make a word such as "degree" plural is to simply add an "s"; "He earned two Math degrees". By adding an "apostrophy s", you have made the possesive form of "degree"; "The degree's frame was ornate." The latter is a clunky sentence, because "degrees" don't usually own anything, but I hope you see what I'm getting at)Writing well, and putting spaces between your sentences, and using spell check, are all ways to be courteous to your reader. I'm not talking about the occasional misspelled word or typo or run on sentence. We all do that. I'm talking about people who have serious deficincies in the rules of grammar that they should have learned in the fourth grade.In addition, if you can't be bothered to write better than a grade schooler, it certainly doesn't make your ideas appear particularly insightful or cogent.Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Yes, we are all painfully aware of your ability to punctuate.However,I see that you are unable to grasp the point that your superior attitude is interfering with your ability to understand.Is this concept so complex? I mean,I understand it. I see,so you have a clear understanding of what it means to be a horses a....ah,never mind.Yes,courtesy. Another subject that you claim to grasp,yet you seem completely unable to display.I'll try to keep it simple so even you can understand.You seem to believe that because you can use spell check you are an effective communicator.You seem to think that having more education makes you a better person.I suggest that either you hold these beliefs or you are an extremely poor writer. I'm stunned you think I write even that well! And thank you so much for the English lesson,I understand that you have difficulty understanding all but the most eloquently written material and I will put more effort in so you can keep up.Edited by Hill Billy, : hillybillys love editin

---

"Some people spout bullshit just to hear their own heads rattle" Grampa Frame.

Punctuation,spelling, and grammar do not make effective communication.An interest in conveying your ideas and understanding others ideas does.The attitude that you already know everything makes learning unlikely.

---

"Some people spout bullshit just to hear their own heads rattle" Grampa Frame.

Incoherent writing is a reflection of incoherent thinking, and a wise-guy attitude is no substitute for effective communication.--Percy

Since you continue to post without making any meaningful contributions it is easy to suspend you. It'll be a day this time.

I am posting this message to the originator of each thread in which I have participated. I apologize to those I have not been able to respond to. Living a double life (see below) even on a forum is very time consuming. I have had a wonderful experience and aplogize for my deceitful behaviour. I prefer to judge myself and implement the consequences myself. I prefer to be my own judge and jury. In this case the punishment is a life time ban. I will retire DAMEEVA as from 1.2.08 (just to give myself time to pack my bags) unless a higher authority decides otherwise, in which case authority has the final say.I have thoroughly enjoyed this forum and have learned a lot that otherwise I would not.