• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?

paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Awkward Fingers said:
Do I really have to go pull the definitions of create to see if one matches?
Have you, before you posted that? Because you should know by now that's what's next...
but fine, let see the definition. Using dictionary.com
verb (used with object), created, creating.
1.to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
2.to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or aninvention.
3.Theater. to perform (a role) for the first time or in the first productionof a play.
4.to make by investing with new rank or by designating; constitute;appoint:
to create a peer.
5.to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to:The announcement created confusion.
6.to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design:
so, 1. You're saying none of these definitions fit. and 2. You're saying that would qualify as gibberish??? Even if the word wasn't a perfect fit for the semantic usage, that is not gibberish, it would be a poorly used word.
But, you think none of those definitions fit, for the article you linked????
Click to expand...

Being a believer in ONE G-d I am sceptic of the sceptics:

cre·ate
Origin
upload_2015-10-1_21-42-13.png

late Middle English (in the sense ‘form out of nothing,’ used of a divine or supernatural being): from Latin creat- ‘produced,’ from the verb creare .
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Create+etymology
Sorry my friend is wrong.
Regards
 
Awkward Fingers

Awkward Fingers

Omphaloskeptic
paarsurrey said:
Being a believer in ONE G-d I am sceptic of the sceptics:

cre·ate
Origin
View attachment 11106
late Middle English (in the sense ‘form out of nothing,’ used of a divine or supernatural being): from Latin creat- ‘produced,’ from the verb creare .
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Create+etymology
Sorry my friend is wrong.
Regards
Click to expand...
Great, etymology is nice to know? But it's not what the word is used for in current conversation.

So again, do none of the uses in the current definition, which I posted, work for the article?

Also, skeptic of the skeptics? Good for you. Got a certain aspect you're skeptical of?
Actually, why don't you answer my previous questions, before going off onto new tangents.
So, are none of the definitions correct in the useage?
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Kilgore Trout said:
So, this thread has verified that "science going gibberish" generally means the person making the claim is simply ignorant of science.
Click to expand...
no...more like listening to theoretical physicists go way out on a limb.....
hoping to find some way to justify what the numbers point to.

I've seen them try
they seem to be in some 'other' state of mind.

but hey!......maybe the Spirit is with them!
 
Awkward Fingers

Awkward Fingers

Omphaloskeptic
Thief said:
no...more like listening to theoretical physicists go way out on a limb.....
hoping to find some way to justify what the numbers point to.

I've seen them try
they seem to be in some 'other' state of mind.

but hey!......maybe the Spirit is with them!
Click to expand...
Great! Example, since Par won't give one?
 
Awkward Fingers

Awkward Fingers

Omphaloskeptic
q konn said:
This is sort of like a vegan asking for proof that a hamburger tastes good.
Click to expand...
Really? Seems completely different..lets take a look. The initial claim, was, to paraphrase, that science goes gibberish.
This should be a very easy thing to give at least one actual example of.

Why do you not think this is the case?
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
One may like to read my post #541 in another thread, it mentions another aspect when science becomes gibberish.
Please click the post # above.
Regards
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Awkward Fingers said:
Really? Seems completely different..lets take a look. The initial claim, was, to paraphrase, that science goes gibberish.
This should be a very easy thing to give at least one actual example of.

Why do you not think this is the case?
Click to expand...
You missed the nuance in the sequence of comments. ie the 'meaning' to which I was referring. The meaning of that was, you would not necessarily recognize the inference being made, in the first place, regardless of whether an example was shown/
or rather, since you aren't aware of this, in the first place, it's probably a futile effort to ''show'' you a concept that you aren't understanding.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
q konn said:
You missed the nuance in the sequence of comments. ie the 'meaning' to which I was referring. The meaning of that was, you would not necessarily recognize the inference being made, in the first place, regardless of whether an example was shown/
or rather, since you aren't aware of this, in the first place, it's probably a futile effort to ''show'' you a concept that you aren't understanding.
Click to expand...
**climbs into rubber raft**

Did i get any of it on me?
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
q konn said:
You know, you can keep shuffling the nonsense, but it won't make sense.


But i'm wrong......right? Because everything poofed into existence! just a random chance!

but we know that didn't happen.

Because nobody believes it.
Click to expand...
Was it to subtle for you?

I thought it was pretty clear I was calling your post complete utter bull ****.

The really keen thing is how you come back with even more bull ****!

I knew I could count on you for a good laugh.
You did not disappoint.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Mestemia said:
Was it to subtle for you?

I thought it was pretty clear I was calling your post complete utter bull ****.

The really keen thing is how you come back with even more bull ****!

I knew I could count on you for a good laugh.
You did not disappoint.
Click to expand...
your following a logic of ''x=y, therefore x /something/, z.''
z is your position/s/ in this equation. Somehow, because one thing that you disagree with, is nonsense, that makes your position, make sense.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
q konn said:
your following a logic of ''x=y, therefore x /something/, z.''
z is your position/s/ in this equation. Somehow, because one thing that you disagree with, is nonsense, that makes your position, make sense.
Click to expand...
I find it interesting how you so boldly dictate to me my "argument" as though you honestly think what you dictate has anything to do with me.

I mean, other than giving you something to quote, i do not even need be involved in the discussion.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Mestemia said:
I find it interesting how you so boldly dictate to me my "argument" as though you honestly think what you dictate has anything to do with me.

I mean, other than giving you something to quote, i do not even need be involved in the discussion.
Click to expand...

Likewise!
 
Awkward Fingers

Awkward Fingers

Omphaloskeptic
q konn said:
You missed the nuance in the sequence of comments. ie the 'meaning' to which I was referring. The meaning of that was, you would not necessarily recognize the inference being made, in the first place, regardless of whether an example was shown/
or rather, since you aren't aware of this, in the first place, it's probably a futile effort to ''show'' you a concept that you aren't understanding.
Click to expand...
Well, I certainly won't notice the nuance, if people keep running away, changing the subject, and shoveling it deep, instead of actually GIVING AN EXAMPLE... You're completely right.
I'm NOT missing the nuance thought, that you have utterly and completely failed to give examples, time after time after time, and have only been able to offer up weak, unsubstantiated excuses, while still asserting that there are examples out there.

Nice backpedaling and smoke waving though. Classic.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Awkward Fingers said:
Well, I certainly won't notice the nuance, if people keep running away, changing the subject, and shoveling it deep, instead of actually GIVING AN EXAMPLE... You're completely right.
I'm NOT missing the nuance thought, that you have utterly and completely failed to give examples, time after time after time, and have only been able to offer up weak, unsubstantiated excuses, while still asserting that there are examples out there.

Nice backpedaling and smoke waving though. Classic.
Click to expand...
That's nice, but I did not say there were examples, to you; I never said that, because I figured it was pointless anyway, hence my comment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top