Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Kenny'sID]

No, I don't mean that at all, I meant that you will hand wave, obfuscate. I didn't mention "proof that we all evolved".



It seems that you spectacularly missed the point of my post, no doubt deliberately so you could continue your trolling.

I'll try again anyway as I've got nothing better to do for the time being, maybe you could try and address what I posted this time.

If you consider observing paper burning as "proof" that paper burns, would you not consider observing a species evolve as "proof" of evolution? (Please notice that I didn't say the "theory of evolution" or "common descent").

I got the underlying point and thanks for that.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If you consider observing paper burning as "proof" that paper burns, would you not consider observing a species evolve as "proof" of evolution? (Please notice that I didn't say the "theory of evolution" or "common descent").

If you really see that is all there is to it, you are far too easy when it comes to being convinced of evolution. But no surprises there.

This one is so simple. I lite the paper, it burns, done deal, no opinion, only fact, nothing more to be observed in that particular experiment, it'a ll right there to see from start to finish. Yours is an absolute opinion, or worse yet, an incompetent conclusion drawn very recklessly, in that ALL life evolved because of your little jar of supposed life evolving. One heck of a stretch, and the same type stretches that leads the gullible to believe evolution is a fact.

BTW, I have some land for sale down here in the Everglades, and it's it's high and dry....honest.

And thanks once again for the attempt of proof, it's encouraging is some aspects anyway.

I

 

[Jimmy D]

If you really see that is all there is to it, you are far too easy when it comes to being convinced of evolution. But no surprises there.

This symbol < ? > signifies that I was asking a question.

This one is so simple. I lite the paper, it burns, done deal, no opinion, only fact, nothing more to be observed in that particular experiment, it'a ll right there to see from start to finish

Right.

What is the difference between your observation and the observed instances of speciation that I linked to?

Yours is an absolute opinion, or worse yet, an incompetent conclusion drawn very recklessly,

No, they are all observations....

Observed Instances of Speciation

No conclusions, no opinions, observations of evolution in action.

in that ALL life evolved because of your little jar of supposed life evolving. One heck of a stretch, and the same type stretches that leads the gullible to believe evolution is a fact.

I never said anything of the sort.

 

[Kenny'sID]

.

 

[Jimmy D]

Now, just for laughs, explain how that is not a simple science experiment, and how it does not turn my theory to proven fact?
Try it again in vacuum.
See what happens.

“As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly”

 

[Kenny'sID]

The point of this post is to show how some argue for evolution. In this case it's narrowed down to refuting their excuse for not providing proof for evolution, that being, it cannot be provided. Why can't it be proved, I've heard a few reasons/excuses. It shows what ensues when reasonable argument is introduced, in that it's answered with unreasonable untruths as defense. Pretty detailed so, if this doesn't make it clear, don't know what would...you tell me.

I said:

I have never put a piece of notebook paper into the business end of a blow torch, but because I know things that I have put in the blow torch flame will burn, I have a theory the paper will burn.

Dogma said:

That's not a scientific theory.

.
said:

scientific

adjective sci·en·tif·ic \ ˌsī-ən-ˈti-fik \

Definition of scientific


1 : of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science
2 : conducted in the manner of science or according to results of investigation by science : practicing or using thorough or systematic methods

scientifically
play \ˌsī-ən-ˈti-fi-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

Did the experiment relate to science? Pretty clear it does. Remember to be scientific, the experiment only need be related to science. Pretty simple definition and refute to the claim it is not scientific, and now we move on the the term theory.

said:


Definition of theory
plural theories
1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

• the wave theory of light

2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

• her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory

• in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all

3 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

• 
  
• theory of equations

My unproven assumption has been proven but for the sake of explanation/showing how science does prove, I repeated the experiment, and assumed it unproven. And definitely a a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation.

Conclusion, of course it's a scientific theory, and the accusation is incorrect/untrue, and blatantly.

If I haven't done so already, a quick disclaimer that I know most can just look at the experiment and see it's based on a scientific theory/is just what I said it was, so none of this is directed at you. things are only complicated to those that want them that way.

As I've said before, If we have to make things up, and that's putting it mildly, in order to make our points, maybe we don't have much of a point to begin with. If people choose to close their eyes to the fact their defense is "made up", that is the created reality they choose to live in, but there is nothing "real" about it. Moving on to the second refute.

I said:

I can run that science experiment, see the paper will indeed burn, and now I have proof, hence, that theory has now been proven to be fact. Science has now proven the paper will indeed burn.

Dogma said:

That's not a scientific experiment.

Most would just look at the experiment and see it's scientific. Basic? sure, but a scientific experiment nonetheless, done deal, but fir those who disagree, I've already covered the definition of scientific so let's go directly to the definition of experiment.


experiment

noun ex·per·i·ment \ ik-ˈsper-ə-mənt also -ˈspir- \
Popularity: Bottom 50% of words |Updated on: 20 Apr 2018

Definition of experiment
1 a : test, trial

• 
  
  
  • make another experiment of his suspicion
  • —William Shakespeare

b : a tentative procedure or policy
c : an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law
2 obsolete : experience
3 : the process of testing : experimentation

Does anyone doubt what I called a scientific experiment was a "test" as defined, and in order to see if them paper burned?

A tentative procedure? Doesn't take much to be that.


For those that have/will argue, the controlled conditions in the definition are the conditions as they occur naturally. Who controls them? Nature, Why? because I wanted to see if paper burns under the natural conditions. That will be pretty straight forward to some as the simple experiment it is, but the explanations here is for those who don't want to lose their excuse for not proving evolution.

The accusation of that not being a theory is clearly incorrect, however there has and likely will be an attempt at confusing the clear. again, it was a test, and it was under controlled conditions. However, It was stated, in order to be proper, the experiment should be done in a vacuum for some reason but Merriam Webster disagrees/says nothing about a vacuum. Does every experiment need to be done in a vacuum in order for it to be a proper experiment? Even proponents of evolution know better. Moving on..

I said:

Simple theory, and simple proof that even you can understand.

Dogma said:

Neither were scientific.

If anyone missed it they need to go back and read, by definition, that has been proven false in this post. If I need to be clearer, please go read the definition "scientific".

I said:

Now, just for laughs, explain how that is not a simple science experiment, and how it does not turn my theory to proven fact?

Dogma said:

Try it again in vacuum.
See what happens.

That's so off the wall it's hard to say, but it appears to be an attempt as stating it is not a proper experiment because it wasn't done in a vacuum...you all make up your own mind on that.

Why? No idea, and it actually looks to me like a desperate statement, desperate as means to refute what I did, while having nothing real to refute it with. Maybe it was figured some would see that as some type of, something that helps the case?

Is that to say that all experiments require a vacuum in order to be proper, or scientific?

That's the best I can do with that one, while admittedly, I'm still at a loss.

 

[Roseonathorn]

Ok let us see what the "scientist" say about how the last years fast evolution of breeding dogs and wolves into wolfhybrids all of a sudden is 100% pure wolf in northern europe. Some real 30 years educated zoologist say it is done in secret and now real wolf is getting exctinct because of these unafraid hybrids have less strong jaws so that they barely can hunt a deer but they are hungry as a wolf and unafraid of people and kill cats, dogs, mink, and sheep already and goes to school and and stores and even to our doorstep and over peoples gardens so I do not give much for science that say that a wolfhybrid that partly act as a dog is 100% wolf.

 

[Kenny'sID]

“As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly”

But that just doesn't reply at all on topic to what you quoted, now does it?

But I understand completely, guess it beats actually trying to defend the ridiculous when you cannot.

Oh and thanks for helping me make the point I was making in my prior post, as in how my reasonable question/comment was just treated by the defense, if you want to call yourself that.

 

[VirOptimus]

The point of this post is to show how some argue for evolution. In this case it's narrowed down to refuting their excuse for not providing proof for evolution, that being, it cannot be provided. Why can't it be proved, I've heard a few reasons/excuses. It shows what ensues when reasonable argument is introduced, in that it's answered with unreasonable untruths as defense. Pretty detailed so, if this doesn't make it clear, don't know what would...you tell me.

I said:



Dogma said:


.
said:

scientific

adjective sci·en·tif·ic \ ˌsī-ən-ˈti-fik \

Definition of scientific


1 : of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science
2 : conducted in the manner of science or according to results of investigation by science : practicing or using thorough or systematic methods

scientifically
play \ˌsī-ən-ˈti-fi-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

Did the experiment relate to science? Pretty clear it does. Remember to be scientific, the experiment only need be related to science. Pretty simple definition and refute to the claim it is not scientific, and now we move on the the term theory.

said:


Definition of theory
plural theories
1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

• the wave theory of light

2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

• her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory

• in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all

3 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

• 
  
• theory of equations

My unproven assumption has been proven but for the sake of explanation/showing how science does prove, I repeated the experiment, and assumed it unproven. And definitely a a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation.

Conclusion, of course it's a scientific theory, and the accusation is incorrect/untrue, and blatantly.

If I haven't done so already, a quick disclaimer that I know most can just look at the experiment and see it's based on a scientific theory/is just what I said it was, so none of this is directed at you. things are only complicated to those that want them that way.

As I've said before, If we have to make things up, and that's putting it mildly, in order to make our points, maybe we don't have much of a point to begin with. If people choose to close their eyes to the fact their defense is "made up", that is the created reality they choose to live in, but there is nothing "real" about it. Moving on to the second refute.

I said:



Dogma said:



Most would just look at the experiment and see it's scientific. Basic? sure, but a scientific experiment nonetheless, done deal, but fir those who disagree, I've already covered the definition of scientific so let's go directly to the definition of experiment.


experiment

noun ex·per·i·ment \ ik-ˈsper-ə-mənt also -ˈspir- \
Popularity: Bottom 50% of words |Updated on: 20 Apr 2018

Definition of experiment
1 a : test, trial

• 
  
  
  • make another experiment of his suspicion
  • —William Shakespeare

b : a tentative procedure or policy
c : an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law
2 obsolete : experience
3 : the process of testing : experimentation

Does anyone doubt what I called a scientific experiment was a "test" as defined, and in order to see if them paper burned?

A tentative procedure? Doesn't take much to be that.


For those that have/will argue, the controlled conditions in the definition are the conditions as they occur naturally. Who controls them? Nature, Why? because I wanted to see if paper burns under the natural conditions. That will be pretty straight forward to some as the simple experiment it is, but the explanations here is for those who don't want to lose their excuse for not proving evolution.

The accusation of that not being a theory is clearly incorrect, however there has and likely will be an attempt at confusing the clear. again, it was a test, and it was under controlled conditions. However, It was stated, in order to be proper, the experiment should be done in a vacuum for some reason but Merriam Webster disagrees/says nothing about a vacuum. Does every experiment need to be done in a vacuum in order for it to be a proper experiment? Even proponents of evolution know better. Moving on..

I said:



Dogma said:



If anyone missed it they need to go back and read, by definition, that has been proven false in this post. If I need to be clearer, please go read the definition "scientific".

I said:



Dogma said:



That's so off the wall it's hard to say, but it appears to be an attempt as stating it is not a proper experiment because it wasn't done in a vacuum...you all make up your own mind on that.

Why? No idea, and it actually looks to me like a desperate statement, desperate as means to refute what I did, while having nothing real to refute it with. Maybe it was figured some would see that as some type of, something that helps the case?

Is that to say that all experiments require a vacuum in order to be proper, or scientific?

That's the best I can do with that one, while admittedly, I'm still at a loss.

Its gotta be some kind of performance art right? Noone can post something like this seriously.

 

[Kenny'sID]

This symbol < ? > signifies that I was asking a question.

What was it you were spouting about sarcasm? You got something to say, be clear. If I messed a question be clear on what it is.

Right.

What is the difference between your observation and the observed instances of speciation that I linked to?

I already told you

No, they are all observations...

Of course it's an obd=servation before it's proven, mine was proven toi be fact, yours implied evolution was a fact, and you can tell me all day long you never said that but there could be no other point on a thread tryinmg tpo piosve evolution

No conclusions, no opinions, observations of evolution in action.

Mine was a conclusion, yours was opinion. Try to complicate it as you will with flat out untrue comments but you're wasting your time here.

I never said anything of the sort.

So your saying your little jar has nothing to do with proving evolution? Wonder why I got that idea? You can't be serious? lol.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Its gotta be some kind of performance art right? Noone can post something like this seriously.

That's ok, I feel the same about most of your posts, except for the "art" part.

Did you disagree with something or is that comment just instead of viable, or no argument?

You people really need to stick with the points, going to be tough enough catching up as it is.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's ok, I feel the same about most of your posts, except for the "art" part.

Did you disagree with something or is that comment just instead of viable, or no argument?

You people really need to stick with the points, going to be tough enough catching up as it is.

Dude, did you read the post he applied that comment to? I don't even understand what that person was talking about; it doesn't even read as if the post was written by a person fully awake.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Dude, did you read the post he applied that comment to? I don't even understand what that person was talking about; it doesn't even read as if the post was written by a person fully awake.

Dudette, I wrote it, of course I read it. Pretty straight forward, but if you had a tough time keeping up, be happy to help. What part didn't you understand? Now it was just too long/involved for you, do I really have to tell you how to deal with that?

And FWIW, it wasn't written for proponents of evolution, of course they are going to have a problem with it, it's expected, just like they have a problem with me in general, it shows there side isn't truthful so I'd say best to avoid trying to understand it at all for them. I mean why wouldn't they dislike it, or try to find a way to put things off on me they are not being truthful?

I ask them for proof of something they are claiming, proof they cannot provide, and some just don't deal well with that type thing. They've been caught red handed not telling the truth about how we got here. It was written to simply let other readers know how these arguments go, the flat out lies that are told/used to convince others of evolution, and why they should be very careful what they are told, and always double check for themselves any info given by some. Some don't even think whether what they are saying is the true or not, they just say whatever comes to mind to support their own side. Hope that help with the basics.

I think you missed my last reply to you. And I do understand cutting down a post is easier/more satisfying than actually trying to back up something you directed at me, something actually having to do with the topic, or something as ridiculous as evolution, but like I told others, might be a good idea to stick with defending your evolution, especially when your lagging this far behind on proof, as in, you haven't any.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Dudette, I wrote it, of course I read it. Pretty straight forward, but if you had a tough time keeping up, be happy to help. What part didn't you understand?

And FWIW, it wasn't written for proponents of evolution, of course they are going to have a problem with it, it's expected, just like they have a problem with me in general, it shows there side isn't truthful so I'd say best to avoid trying to understand it at all for them. I mean why wouldn't they dislike it? I ask them for proof of something they are claiming, proof they cannot provide, and some just don't deal well with that type thing. They've been caught red handed not telling the truth about how we got here. It was written to simply let other readers know how these arguments go, the flat out lies that are told/used to convince others of evolution, and why they should be very careful what they are told, and always double check for themselves any info given by some. Some don't even think whether what they are saying is the true or not, they just say whatever comes to mind to support their own side.

I think you missed my last reply to you. And I do understand cutting down a post is easier/more satisfying than actually trying to back up something as ridiculous as evolution, but like I told the others, might be a good idea to stick with defending your evolution, especially when your lagging this far behind on proof, as in, you haven't any.

Oh, dude, my bad, I thought he was commenting on Roseonathorn's post, which is weird as heck. My ADHD shows. Sorry about the confusion, carry on.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Oh, dude, my bad, I thought he was commenting on Roseonathorn's post, which is weird as heck. My ADHD shows. Sorry about the confusion, carry on.

Maybe I was confused to, mine was a long post. Either way, no biggie.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ok let us see what the "scientist" say about how the last years fast evolution of breeding dogs and wolves into wolfhybrids all of a sudden is 100% pure wolf in northern europe.

The heck are you talking about? This post needs a source badly.

Some real 30 years educated zoologist say it is done in secret and now real wolf is getting exctinct because of these unafraid hybrids have less strong jaws so that they barely can hunt a deer but they are hungry as a wolf and unafraid of people and kill cats, dogs, mink, and sheep already and goes to school and and stores and even to our doorstep and over peoples gardens so I do not give much for science that say that a wolfhybrid that partly act as a dog is 100% wolf.

-_- the most likely thing I can glean from what you are trying to say is that you misinterpreted this situation: dogs are hybridizing so much with wolves in Northern Europe that the wolves are essentially going extinct, with the future generation consisting of wolf-dog hybrids. In situations like this, a population merger can occur and the resulting population may end up being considered a new species over time.

That is, a new species of wolf develops from immense hybridization with dogs shifting the overall population's gene pool. It happens from time to time, but the result is not that the hybrids end up being considered the same as one of their parent species. Rather, this generates an entirely new species.

You were also suggesting that people were making these hybrids in secret. It is possible that dog breeders were doing that, since hybrids of wolves and dogs are often quite beautiful. But, I would imagine that it is stray dogs breeding with the wolves that contributes to it more.

 

[Skreeper]

The point of this post is to show how some argue for evolution. In this case it's narrowed down to refuting their excuse for not providing proof for evolution, that being, it cannot be provided. Why can't it be proved, I've heard a few reasons/excuses. It shows what ensues when reasonable argument is introduced, in that it's answered with unreasonable untruths as defense. Pretty detailed so, if this doesn't make it clear, don't know what would...you tell me.

I said:



Dogma said:


.
said:

scientific

adjective sci·en·tif·ic \ ˌsī-ən-ˈti-fik \

Definition of scientific


1 : of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science
2 : conducted in the manner of science or according to results of investigation by science : practicing or using thorough or systematic methods

scientifically
play \ˌsī-ən-ˈti-fi-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

Did the experiment relate to science? Pretty clear it does. Remember to be scientific, the experiment only need be related to science. Pretty simple definition and refute to the claim it is not scientific, and now we move on the the term theory.

said:


Definition of theory
plural theories
1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

• the wave theory of light

2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

• her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory

• in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all

3 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

• 
  
• theory of equations

My unproven assumption has been proven but for the sake of explanation/showing how science does prove, I repeated the experiment, and assumed it unproven. And definitely a a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation.

Conclusion, of course it's a scientific theory, and the accusation is incorrect/untrue, and blatantly.

If I haven't done so already, a quick disclaimer that I know most can just look at the experiment and see it's based on a scientific theory/is just what I said it was, so none of this is directed at you. things are only complicated to those that want them that way.

As I've said before, If we have to make things up, and that's putting it mildly, in order to make our points, maybe we don't have much of a point to begin with. If people choose to close their eyes to the fact their defense is "made up", that is the created reality they choose to live in, but there is nothing "real" about it. Moving on to the second refute.

I said:



Dogma said:



Most would just look at the experiment and see it's scientific. Basic? sure, but a scientific experiment nonetheless, done deal, but fir those who disagree, I've already covered the definition of scientific so let's go directly to the definition of experiment.


experiment

noun ex·per·i·ment \ ik-ˈsper-ə-mənt also -ˈspir- \
Popularity: Bottom 50% of words |Updated on: 20 Apr 2018

Definition of experiment
1 a : test, trial

• 
  
  
  • make another experiment of his suspicion
  • —William Shakespeare

b : a tentative procedure or policy
c : an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law
2 obsolete : experience
3 : the process of testing : experimentation

Does anyone doubt what I called a scientific experiment was a "test" as defined, and in order to see if them paper burned?

A tentative procedure? Doesn't take much to be that.


For those that have/will argue, the controlled conditions in the definition are the conditions as they occur naturally. Who controls them? Nature, Why? because I wanted to see if paper burns under the natural conditions. That will be pretty straight forward to some as the simple experiment it is, but the explanations here is for those who don't want to lose their excuse for not proving evolution.

The accusation of that not being a theory is clearly incorrect, however there has and likely will be an attempt at confusing the clear. again, it was a test, and it was under controlled conditions. However, It was stated, in order to be proper, the experiment should be done in a vacuum for some reason but Merriam Webster disagrees/says nothing about a vacuum. Does every experiment need to be done in a vacuum in order for it to be a proper experiment? Even proponents of evolution know better. Moving on..

I said:



Dogma said:



If anyone missed it they need to go back and read, by definition, that has been proven false in this post. If I need to be clearer, please go read the definition "scientific".

I said:



Dogma said:



That's so off the wall it's hard to say, but it appears to be an attempt as stating it is not a proper experiment because it wasn't done in a vacuum...you all make up your own mind on that.

Why? No idea, and it actually looks to me like a desperate statement, desperate as means to refute what I did, while having nothing real to refute it with. Maybe it was figured some would see that as some type of, something that helps the case?

Is that to say that all experiments require a vacuum in order to be proper, or scientific?

That's the best I can do with that one, while admittedly, I'm still at a loss.

I think I lost a bunch of brain cells just from reading that. If I were living in the US I probably would have a good case sueing you for causing physical harm.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Prove it



You mean if I don't agree with you, you are going to make up some nonsense comment just like that one.



Back pedal. You made it about the word "experiment" not me.



I see, the usual, "you don't understand science" because I disagree with you. LOL

Not because you disagree with me.
Rather because you continue to demand "proof" for scientific theories.
Even after it's been explained to you countless times that science doesn't work like that.

When a person makes mistake after mistake and exposes misunderstanding after misunderstand, even after that person was corrected on countless occasions, it's pretty safe to say that this person has no proper knowledge concerning that particular subject.

 

[DogmaHunter]

More deflective excuses that add nothing to the subject.

Not an excuse.

Scientists understand what scientific theories are. And how they are never proven.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The point of this post is to show how some argue for evolution.

Funny, since none of the quotes in that post are actually about evolution, but just about your ill-understanding of how science is done.

In this case it's narrowed down to refuting their excuse for not providing proof for evolution, that being, it cannot be provided. Why can't it be proved, I've heard a few reasons/excuses. It shows what ensues when reasonable argument is introduced, in that it's answered with unreasonable untruths as defense. Pretty detailed so, if this doesn't make it clear, don't know what would...you tell me.

I said:



Dogma said:


.
said:

scientific

adjective sci·en·tif·ic \ ˌsī-ən-ˈti-fik \

Definition of scientific


1 : of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science
2 : conducted in the manner of science or according to results of investigation by science : practicing or using thorough or systematic methods

scientifically
play \ˌsī-ən-ˈti-fi-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

Did the experiment relate to science? Pretty clear it does. Remember to be scientific, the experiment only need be related to science. Pretty simple definition and refute to the claim it is not scientific, and now we move on the the term theory.

said:


Definition of theory
plural theories
1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

• the wave theory of light

2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

• her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory

• in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all

3 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

• 
  
• theory of equations

My unproven assumption has been proven but for the sake of explanation/showing how science does prove, I repeated the experiment, and assumed it unproven. And definitely a a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation.

Conclusion, of course it's a scientific theory, and the accusation is incorrect/untrue, and blatantly.

If I haven't done so already, a quick disclaimer that I know most can just look at the experiment and see it's based on a scientific theory/is just what I said it was, so none of this is directed at you. things are only complicated to those that want them that way.

As I've said before, If we have to make things up, and that's putting it mildly, in order to make our points, maybe we don't have much of a point to begin with. If people choose to close their eyes to the fact their defense is "made up", that is the created reality they choose to live in, but there is nothing "real" about it. Moving on to the second refute.

I said:



Dogma said:



Most would just look at the experiment and see it's scientific. Basic? sure, but a scientific experiment nonetheless, done deal, but fir those who disagree, I've already covered the definition of scientific so let's go directly to the definition of experiment.


experiment

noun ex·per·i·ment \ ik-ˈsper-ə-mənt also -ˈspir- \
Popularity: Bottom 50% of words |Updated on: 20 Apr 2018

Definition of experiment
1 a : test, trial

• 
  
  
  • make another experiment of his suspicion
  • —William Shakespeare

b : a tentative procedure or policy
c : an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law
2 obsolete : experience
3 : the process of testing : experimentation

Does anyone doubt what I called a scientific experiment was a "test" as defined, and in order to see if them paper burned?

A tentative procedure? Doesn't take much to be that.


For those that have/will argue, the controlled conditions in the definition are the conditions as they occur naturally. Who controls them? Nature, Why? because I wanted to see if paper burns under the natural conditions. That will be pretty straight forward to some as the simple experiment it is, but the explanations here is for those who don't want to lose their excuse for not proving evolution.

The accusation of that not being a theory is clearly incorrect, however there has and likely will be an attempt at confusing the clear. again, it was a test, and it was under controlled conditions. However, It was stated, in order to be proper, the experiment should be done in a vacuum for some reason but Merriam Webster disagrees/says nothing about a vacuum. Does every experiment need to be done in a vacuum in order for it to be a proper experiment? Even proponents of evolution know better. Moving on..

I said:



Dogma said:



If anyone missed it they need to go back and read, by definition, that has been proven false in this post. If I need to be clearer, please go read the definition "scientific".

I said:



Dogma said:



That's so off the wall it's hard to say, but it appears to be an attempt as stating it is not a proper experiment because it wasn't done in a vacuum...you all make up your own mind on that.

Why? No idea, and it actually looks to me like a desperate statement, desperate as means to refute what I did, while having nothing real to refute it with. Maybe it was figured some would see that as some type of, something that helps the case?

Is that to say that all experiments require a vacuum in order to be proper, or scientific?

That's the best I can do with that one, while admittedly, I'm still at a loss.