Originally posted by: Harvey
Again, you are trying to duck a simple question by accusing me of attacking you. I did NOT attack you. I just asked if you if you knew the correct, scientific definition of the word, THEORY. It would help if you want anyone to understand what you mean.
And once again, your statement suggests you don't know the definition of the word. The more you dodge and BS, the more I'm beginning to suspect you don't know the meaning of the word, FACT, either.
Stop trying to duck the question. It isn't that hard to find. Clue -- Google is your friend. :laugh:
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Harvey
Again, you are trying to duck a simple question by accusing me of attacking you. I did NOT attack you. I just asked if you if you knew the correct, scientific definition of the word, THEORY. It would help if you want anyone to understand what you mean.
And once again, your statement suggests you don't know the definition of the word. The more you dodge and BS, the more I'm beginning to suspect you don't know the meaning of the word, FACT, either.
Stop trying to duck the question. It isn't that hard to find. Clue -- Google is your friend. :laugh:
Again, you are trying to attack an argument I never made. It seems to be how you operate and I'm not going to play your little game.
Try reading what I have posted. If you do, you'll see that what you are trying to argue has nothing to do with my position or statements.
Seems to me your infatuation with "balls" has driven you NUTS! :laugh:
It takes only one demonstrable contradiction to disprove a theory. It goes back to your statement:
It means that evolution and the "big bang" are currently the most credible explanations for their relative subjects, and there are no credible contradictions in either.
Your post suggests you don't know the definition of a scientific theory. Do you?
Clue -- Evolution and the "big bang" meet the criteria. "Intelligent Design" does not.
Clue -- The correct answer shatters your argument.
If you don't know, just cop to it, and I'll give you the answer in a follow up post.
Oh hell! Now, I have to include your entire ridiculous post just to keep the context. OK. Here goes...Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Your post suggests you don't know the definition of a scientific theory. Do you?
Clue -- Evolution and the "big bang" meet the criteria. "Intelligent Design" does not.
Clue -- The correct answer shatters your argument.
If you don't know, just cop to it, and I'll give you the answer in a follow up post.
That was your original post to mine. It has nothing to do with what I posted. I never suggested ID met anything, nor did I say evolution did not. What I did say was that things need to be taught in their correct context because they were not in my school.
So again, take your overzealous attack attitude elsewhere because it's quite tiresome to have to deal with your twisted attacks over and over again. If you could stick to what is said instead of jumping to conclusions and trying to argue against things that weren't said then I wouldn't have a problem with you but it seems you enjoy trying to make a scene and explode into rediculous arguments.
You also posted:
My response to those statements was to question your understanding of the word, THEORY, and I asked what you meant by the word.
Originally posted by: Harvey
Oh hell! Now, I have to include your entire ridiculous post just to keep the context. OK. Here goes...Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Your post suggests you don't know the definition of a scientific theory. Do you?
Clue -- Evolution and the "big bang" meet the criteria. "Intelligent Design" does not.
Clue -- The correct answer shatters your argument.
If you don't know, just cop to it, and I'll give you the answer in a follow up post.
That was your original post to mine. It has nothing to do with what I posted. I never suggested ID met anything, nor did I say evolution did not. What I did say was that things need to be taught in their correct context because they were not in my school.
So again, take your overzealous attack attitude elsewhere because it's quite tiresome to have to deal with your twisted attacks over and over again. If you could stick to what is said instead of jumping to conclusions and trying to argue against things that weren't said then I wouldn't have a problem with you but it seems you enjoy trying to make a scene and explode into rediculous arguments.
1. My initial reply to you has everything to do with two of your posts. You said:
You also posted:
My response to those statements was to question your understanding of the word, THEORY, and I asked what you meant by the word.
Since then, all you've done is dodge the issue and attack me, neither of which addresses the question or sheds any further light on what you mean by the word.
It's all getting way to repetitious, and by now, I'm sure you won't answer. You toss out neocon talking garbage and flames like they were Halloween candy, but it's just as obvious you never have facts to back them. All you can do is repeat your evasive weasle words and name calling. YOU'RE ALL MOUTH! :laugh:
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Harvey
Oh hell! Now, I have to include your entire ridiculous post just to keep the context. OK. Here goes...Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Your post suggests you don't know the definition of a scientific theory. Do you?
Clue -- Evolution and the "big bang" meet the criteria. "Intelligent Design" does not.
Clue -- The correct answer shatters your argument.
If you don't know, just cop to it, and I'll give you the answer in a follow up post.
That was your original post to mine. It has nothing to do with what I posted. I never suggested ID met anything, nor did I say evolution did not. What I did say was that things need to be taught in their correct context because they were not in my school.
So again, take your overzealous attack attitude elsewhere because it's quite tiresome to have to deal with your twisted attacks over and over again. If you could stick to what is said instead of jumping to conclusions and trying to argue against things that weren't said then I wouldn't have a problem with you but it seems you enjoy trying to make a scene and explode into rediculous arguments.
1. My initial reply to you has everything to do with two of your posts. You said:
You also posted:
My response to those statements was to question your understanding of the word, THEORY, and I asked what you meant by the word.
Since then, all you've done is dodge the issue and attack me, neither of which addresses the question or sheds any further light on what you mean by the word.
It's all getting way to repetitious, and by now, I'm sure you won't answer. You toss out neocon talking garbage and flames like they were Halloween candy, but it's just as obvious you never have facts to back them. All you can do is repeat your evasive weasle words and name calling. YOU'RE ALL MOUTH! :laugh:
And you obviously have trouble reading. Your post had nothing to do with what I put forward. I was not arguing about Evolution or ID. I said it needs to be taught the correct way, and the correct way is not presenting it as FACT. Big Bang is not a FACT. While broadly Evolution as a concept is fact, it is not FACT that we evolved from primordial
ooze like my teacher made us parrot(if we wanted a good grade). THAT is what my post was about. I did not say ID had to be taught or even that alternative theories need to be expressed but the way our school taught it, was as if everything was known and absolute fact.
Now again, take your overzealous argument routine and shove it. I have nothing to prove as your little argument has nothing to do with my position or posts.
< Ronald Reagan voice > ... There you go again! :laugh:
Originally posted by: Harvey
< Ronald Reagan voice > ... There you go again! :laugh:
More of the same denial and name calling. If anyone is reading challenged, it's you. You even quoted my post relating my replies that were directly responsive to yours, and even after I gave you plenty of time to find it, I stll had to give you the scientific definition of a THEORY.
Then, even after I posted the correct definition, instead of being smart enough to accept the information and adjust your statement to that reality, you opened your fat mouth wide enough to insert both feet and repost your idiotic abuse of the word.
You're truly the poster child for the failure of our school systems.
Facebook
Twitter