Prove it or remove it challenge

[Paterfamilia]

Why would you need to study the origin of the universe in order to study the weather?



Do we have to know the origin of life in order to use the germ theory of disease?



If you are interested in debating the genetic evidence demonstrating common ancestry between humans and other apes, I would be very interested in a formal debate.

What!!! No snide condescending inferences to my lack of understanding of "the scientific method"? No blanket attributions of my ideas to a creationist website? You didn't even call me ignorant!!

And no misspelings! Ha ha

Yeah dude I'll do it, if for no other reason than to prove it can be done cordially. I just got off work- another day another $52.65. See what a good education gets you?

So anyway I have 5 hours driving, so I can't contribute to arrangements today, but let's set something up!

 

[essentialsaltes]

You need to resubmit your concession. Learning about nucleosythesis in college is not "doing nucleosythesis studies".

I dunno. I'd kind of like to be a leading researcher in linguistics, German literature in translation, and ancient history.

 

[Paterfamilia]

You need to resubmit your concession. Learning about nucleosythesis in college is not "doing nucleosythesis studies".

Can you support your semantic ascription?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you support your semantic ascription?

Yes, did you understand it? It seems that you did not.

 

[Paterfamilia]

See?! This is exactly what I'm talking about. You respond to genuine comments with snarky one-liners that have zero substance, and you think you've won something, when they've done nothing but show your contempt for wanting a genuine discussion.

I only do that to people who have intentionally insulted me.

I'll tell you what brother, you seem to be adamant about the the separation of abiogenesis and evolution. I think there should be some crossover. Why don't you offer your arguments for your position, to which I will offer my rebuttal. I do solemnly swear that I will in no wise and at no time try to belittle, degrade or embarrass in any fashion.

Just a friendly discussion that you are sure to win.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Yes, did you understand it? It seems that you did not.

Quite possible. Please offer your explanatory support.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I only do that to people who have intentionally insulted me.

I'll tell you what brother, you seem to be adamant about the the separation of abiogenesis and evolution. I think there should be some crossover. Why don't you offer your arguments for your position, to which I will offer my rebuttal. I do solemnly swear that I will in no wise and at no time try to belittle, degrade or embarrass in any fashion.

Just a friendly discussion that you are sure to win.

If I'd be sure to win, there wouldn't be much point in the debate, would there? Not trying to have a go at you for suggesting it, but... knowing one party is going to win is kind of counter-intuitive to a debate, no?

 

[Paterfamilia]

If I'd be sure to win, there wouldn't be much point in the debate, would there? Not trying to have a go at you for suggesting it, but... knowing one party is going to win is kind of counter-intuitive to a debate, no?

I would say not. It allows both side to present their evidence and viewpoints in a non-confrontational context.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quite possible. Please offer your explanatory support.

Many of us studied, at least lightly, the concept of nucleosynthesis. That is not doing a study of nucleosynthesis. Doing a study means a much more intense actually working with the subject. Those in computer programming or metallurgy will cover the subject in a physics class, but they are highly unlikely to do any experimentation that leads to new findings in that subject. If you had clearly asked your question to your friends they probably would say that they covered the subject in a physics class. Again, that is not what essential saltes was talking about.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Many of us studied, at least lightly, the concept of nucleosynthesis. That is not doing a study of nucleosynthesis. Doing a study means a much more intense actually working with the subject. Those in computer programming or metallurgy will cover the subject in a physics class, but they are highly unlikely to do any experimentation that leads to new findings in that subject. If you had clearly asked your question to your friends they probably would say that they covered the subject in a physics class. Again, that is not what essential saltes was talking about.

Okay, I can answer this later this evening. I can only do so much while driving. Voice dictation of course.

 

[bhsmte]

I polled some of my colleagues - one electrical engineer PhD and professor, one Communications engineer PhD, and one snotty little kid computer engineer (2 PhD).

All remember studying nucleosynthesis. I withdraw my concession.

Polled?

Ha ha ha.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Ha ha! Obscure idiomatic usage. They still have all their horns...

 

[Paterfamilia]

Many of us studied, at least lightly, the concept of nucleosynthesis. That is not doing a study of nucleosynthesis. Doing a study means a much more intense actually working with the subject. Those in computer programming or metallurgy will cover the subject in a physics class, but they are highly unlikely to do any experimentation that leads to new findings in that subject. If you had clearly asked your question to your friends they probably would say that they covered the subject in a physics class. Again, that is not what essential saltes was talking about.

Okay so first off I will re-concede the point.

What I meant was the same thing as your first sentence above. But as someone who stickles for precise verbiage, my syntax left my sentence with a different meaning.

Of course I have to include your mistake in adding "experimentation that leads to new findings" to your definition of doing a study. I can "study physics" or "study ballet" (wait, no I can't) as a major and that would not entail experimentation with new findings.

By asking for your semantic support, I was asking if you had any official etymology for your word or combination of words to support your usage.

I knew what you meant. You probably knew what I meant. But I duck my head - you were right.

 

[Paterfamilia]

fat finger

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay so first off I will re-concede the point.

What I meant was the same thing as your first sentence above. But as someone who stickles for precise verbiage, my syntax left my sentence with a different meaning.

Of course I have to include your mistake in adding "experimentation that leads to new findings" to your definition of doing a study. I can "study physics" or "study ballet" (wait, no I can't) as a major and that would not entail experimentation with new findings.

By asking for your semantic support, I was asking if you had any official etymology for your word or combination of words to support your usage.

I knew what you meant. You probably knew what I meant. But I duck my head - you were right.

Why do you think that all statements need "semantic support"? We should really be concentrating on the science here at any rate.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Why do you think that all statements need "semantic support"? We should really be concentrating on the science here at any rate.

I don't think all statements need semantic support per se, and I didn't say that. Ordinary usage is plenty in most cases.

This word "study" however, has a lot of different meanings, which can lead to misunderstandings, as we illustrated. The nuance changes the meaning.

If I said, "I am helping my son study his algebra", you don't picture us doing cutting edge research. "I help Johnny with his math studies" gives a very different sense. "Paul studied under Gamaliel" different still.

You have criticized my "word salad", which I interpret to mean that you think I use flowery language unnecessarily or ostentatiously, when in fact I try to use precise verbiage in order to communicate in such a way as to give others the best chance to understand exactly what I am saying, and thereby not respond with silly conclusions or assumptions.

Frankly, it saves time.

Those who don't understand make "you don't make any sense" claims, or "this doesn't have any substance" or "pigeon chess", not realizing that they are admitting they don't understand, so they generally fallback to ridiculous generalizations or attempt to construe a different meaning.

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you support your semantic ascription?

There is a big difference between learning about scientific discoveries that others have made and actually making scientific discoveries. That is the difference between learning about nucleosynthesis and doing nucleosynthesis studies.

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay so first off I will re-concede the point.

What I meant was the same thing as your first sentence above. But as someone who stickles for precise verbiage, my syntax left my sentence with a different meaning.

Of course I have to include your mistake in adding "experimentation that leads to new findings" to your definition of doing a study. I can "study physics" or "study ballet" (wait, no I can't) as a major and that would not entail experimentation with new findings.

By asking for your semantic support, I was asking if you had any official etymology for your word or combination of words to support your usage.

I knew what you meant. You probably knew what I meant. But I duck my head - you were right.

The real question is simple. If the very first organism was created by a supernatural deity, and all life we see today evolved from that first organism, what parts of the theory of evolution would we need to change?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think all statements need semantic support per se, and I didn't say that. Ordinary usage is plenty in most cases.

This word "study" however, has a lot of different meanings, which can lead to misunderstandings, as we illustrated. The nuance changes the meaning.

If I said, "I am helping my son study his algebra", you don't picture us doing cutting edge research. "I help Johnny with his math studies" gives a very different sense. "Paul studied under Gamaliel" different still.

You have criticized my "word salad", which I interpret to mean that you think I use flowery language unnecessarily or ostentatiously, when in fact I try to use precise verbiage in order to communicate in such a way as to give others the best chance to understand exactly what I am saying, and thereby not respond with silly conclusions or assumptions.

Frankly, it saves time.

Those who don't understand make "you don't make any sense" claims, or "this doesn't have any substance" or "pigeon chess", not realizing that they are admitting they don't understand, so they generally fallback to ridiculous generalizations or attempt to construe a different meaning.

No, when someone is saying that you are playing pigeon chess he is saying that you are posting nonsense, not following the rules of debate, and calling yourself the winner. I have seen you do this more than once. And quite often your posts are just word salad. You may mean something but they were not written properly or clearly. Trying to sound "sciency" is not convincing to people that have actually worked in science.

 

[Paterfamilia]

No, when someone is saying that you are playing pigeon chess he is saying that you are posting nonsense, not following the rules of debate, and calling yourself the winner. I have seen you do this more than once. And quite often your posts are just word salad. You may mean something but they were not written properly or clearly. Trying to sound "sciency" is not convincing to people that have actually worked in science.

This is pretty disappointing. Oh well. Have it your way.