I'm glad you have a good therapist to spend your money with.Oldbear83 said:Glad you never tried becoming a therapist, much less a Psychiatrist. You'd be broke from the malpractice cases by your second year.TexasScientist said:Well then, there's not much hope for psychosis. Wish you well.Oldbear83 said:More projection from TS, I see.TexasScientist said:It's a little early in the day for you to start drinking isn't it?Oldbear83 said:
TS: "You make false assumptions to conform with what you want to believe."
Actually, that's you, boyo.
I just call the pitches balls that hit the ground 2 feet ahead of the plate. You think they caught the corner.
Fun fact - I stopped drinking many years ago.
talk about a wild pitch, you missed the stadium with that one!
What's your best evidence for the existence of God?
107,193 Views |
1177 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by BusyTarpDuster2017
TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
It looks like you are trying to say something but what you typed in not really clear.
Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Do you actually imagine that helps your credibility or improves your argument, TS?TexasScientist said:I'm glad you have a good therapist to spend your money with.Oldbear83 said:Glad you never tried becoming a therapist, much less a Psychiatrist. You'd be broke from the malpractice cases by your second year.TexasScientist said:Well then, there's not much hope for psychosis. Wish you well.Oldbear83 said:More projection from TS, I see.TexasScientist said:It's a little early in the day for you to start drinking isn't it?Oldbear83 said:
TS: "You make false assumptions to conform with what you want to believe."
Actually, that's you, boyo.
I just call the pitches balls that hit the ground 2 feet ahead of the plate. You think they caught the corner.
Fun fact - I stopped drinking many years ago.
talk about a wild pitch, you missed the stadium with that one!
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83 said:Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?
Yes, and those hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions.Quote:
Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.
Where did you get your degree?
That's the problem with responding with a cell phone. What I'm saying is scientific hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions. When you test a hypothesis, those definitions come into play.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
It looks like you are trying to say something but what you typed in not really clear.
Ask yourself that question. You started this path of superfluous chatter.Oldbear83 said:Do you actually imagine that helps your credibility or improves your argument, TS?TexasScientist said:I'm glad you have a good therapist to spend your money with.Oldbear83 said:Glad you never tried becoming a therapist, much less a Psychiatrist. You'd be broke from the malpractice cases by your second year.TexasScientist said:Well then, there's not much hope for psychosis. Wish you well.Oldbear83 said:More projection from TS, I see.TexasScientist said:It's a little early in the day for you to start drinking isn't it?Oldbear83 said:
TS: "You make false assumptions to conform with what you want to believe."
Actually, that's you, boyo.
I just call the pitches balls that hit the ground 2 feet ahead of the plate. You think they caught the corner.
Fun fact - I stopped drinking many years ago.
talk about a wild pitch, you missed the stadium with that one!
I asked you first. And 'Oprah' does not count, son.TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?Yes, and those hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions.Quote:
Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.
Where did you get your degree?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
You are well on your way to establishing yourself as the most dishonest person on this board, TS.TexasScientist said:Ask yourself that question. You started this path of superfluous chatter.Oldbear83 said:Do you actually imagine that helps your credibility or improves your argument, TS?TexasScientist said:I'm glad you have a good therapist to spend your money with.Oldbear83 said:Glad you never tried becoming a therapist, much less a Psychiatrist. You'd be broke from the malpractice cases by your second year.TexasScientist said:Well then, there's not much hope for psychosis. Wish you well.Oldbear83 said:More projection from TS, I see.TexasScientist said:It's a little early in the day for you to start drinking isn't it?Oldbear83 said:
TS: "You make false assumptions to conform with what you want to believe."
Actually, that's you, boyo.
I just call the pitches balls that hit the ground 2 feet ahead of the plate. You think they caught the corner.
Fun fact - I stopped drinking many years ago.
talk about a wild pitch, you missed the stadium with that one!
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
TexasScientist said:That's the problem with responding with a cell phone. What I'm saying is scientific hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions. When you test a hypothesis, those definitions come into play.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
It looks like you are trying to say something but what you typed in not really clear.
Of course. However, science does not, and cannot, provide the definitions. So, when you say that something is harmful, you aren't using science, you are using a pre determined definition of harm and then testing to see if what has already been defined is present. This is not a semantic argument. When people try to use "science" to define moral terms, disaster results.
Chamberman said:
It's called faith for a reason...no proof required.
Faith is hoping you were indoctrinated correctly.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
If true, that would place me on the honest side of the spectrum to you being the most dishonest.Oldbear83 said:You are well on your way to establishing yourself as the most dishonest person on this board, TS.TexasScientist said:Ask yourself that question. You started this path of superfluous chatter.Oldbear83 said:Do you actually imagine that helps your credibility or improves your argument, TS?TexasScientist said:I'm glad you have a good therapist to spend your money with.Oldbear83 said:Glad you never tried becoming a therapist, much less a Psychiatrist. You'd be broke from the malpractice cases by your second year.TexasScientist said:Well then, there's not much hope for psychosis. Wish you well.Oldbear83 said:More projection from TS, I see.TexasScientist said:It's a little early in the day for you to start drinking isn't it?Oldbear83 said:
TS: "You make false assumptions to conform with what you want to believe."
Actually, that's you, boyo.
I just call the pitches balls that hit the ground 2 feet ahead of the plate. You think they caught the corner.
Fun fact - I stopped drinking many years ago.
talk about a wild pitch, you missed the stadium with that one!
Got mine at good old BU. You should finish your's. It would be immensely helpful to you.Oldbear83 said:I asked you first. And 'Oprah' does not count, son.TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?Yes, and those hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions.Quote:
Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.
Where did you get your degree?
Are you emotionally repeating 3rd grade, TS? That would explain a lot.TexasScientist said:If true, that would place me on the honest side of the spectrum to you being the most dishonest.Oldbear83 said:You are well on your way to establishing yourself as the most dishonest person on this board, TS.TexasScientist said:Ask yourself that question. You started this path of superfluous chatter.Oldbear83 said:Do you actually imagine that helps your credibility or improves your argument, TS?TexasScientist said:I'm glad you have a good therapist to spend your money with.Oldbear83 said:Glad you never tried becoming a therapist, much less a Psychiatrist. You'd be broke from the malpractice cases by your second year.TexasScientist said:Well then, there's not much hope for psychosis. Wish you well.Oldbear83 said:More projection from TS, I see.TexasScientist said:It's a little early in the day for you to start drinking isn't it?Oldbear83 said:
TS: "You make false assumptions to conform with what you want to believe."
Actually, that's you, boyo.
I just call the pitches balls that hit the ground 2 feet ahead of the plate. You think they caught the corner.
Fun fact - I stopped drinking many years ago.
talk about a wild pitch, you missed the stadium with that one!
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Bachelors at Baylor, Masters at UH. I paid attention to my professors, you really should have done that as well.TexasScientist said:Got mine at good old BU. You should finish your's. It would be immensely helpful to you.Oldbear83 said:I asked you first. And 'Oprah' does not count, son.TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?Yes, and those hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions.Quote:
Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.
Where did you get your degree?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
I did, and I learned as well.Oldbear83 said:Bachelors at Baylor, Masters at UH. I paid attention to my professors, you really should have done that as well.TexasScientist said:Got mine at good old BU. You should finish your's. It would be immensely helpful to you.Oldbear83 said:I asked you first. And 'Oprah' does not count, son.TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?Yes, and those hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions.Quote:
Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.
Where did you get your degree?
Your posts don't show that.TexasScientist said:I did, and I learned as well.Oldbear83 said:Bachelors at Baylor, Masters at UH. I paid attention to my professors, you really should have done that as well.TexasScientist said:Got mine at good old BU. You should finish your's. It would be immensely helpful to you.Oldbear83 said:I asked you first. And 'Oprah' does not count, son.TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?Yes, and those hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions.Quote:
Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.
Where did you get your degree?
Don't want to be rude, you get as much trash as you post, TS, but since you boast about your 'scientific method', I'd like to see more of that in actual practice.
One expects a monkey to fling poo. One does not expect a scientist to do so.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Go back over your posts and you'll see you're one of the biggest monkeys on this board. Most of your comments are flinging poo. I try to stay above your level.Oldbear83 said:Your posts don't show that.TexasScientist said:I did, and I learned as well.Oldbear83 said:Bachelors at Baylor, Masters at UH. I paid attention to my professors, you really should have done that as well.TexasScientist said:Got mine at good old BU. You should finish your's. It would be immensely helpful to you.Oldbear83 said:I asked you first. And 'Oprah' does not count, son.TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?Yes, and those hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions.Quote:
Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.
Where did you get your degree?
Don't want to be rude, you get as much trash as you post, TS, but since you boast about your 'scientific method', I'd like to see more of that in actual practice.
One expects a monkey to fling poo. One does not expect a scientist to do so.
Look at your most recent post, and consider how little it has in common with the scientific method, and how much it looks like the behavior you claim to be 'above'.TexasScientist said:Go back over your posts and you'll see you're one of the biggest monkeys on this board. Most of your comments are flinging poo. I try to stay above your level.Oldbear83 said:Your posts don't show that.TexasScientist said:I did, and I learned as well.Oldbear83 said:Bachelors at Baylor, Masters at UH. I paid attention to my professors, you really should have done that as well.TexasScientist said:Got mine at good old BU. You should finish your's. It would be immensely helpful to you.Oldbear83 said:I asked you first. And 'Oprah' does not count, son.TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?Yes, and those hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions.Quote:
Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.
Where did you get your degree?
Don't want to be rude, you get as much trash as you post, TS, but since you boast about your 'scientific method', I'd like to see more of that in actual practice.
One expects a monkey to fling poo. One does not expect a scientist to do so.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Posts are not part of the scientific method. Your lack of understanding indicates you should educate yourself about what constitutes the scientific method. And no, it's clearly above your behavior.Oldbear83 said:Look at your most recent post, and consider how little it has in common with the scientific method, and how much it looks like the behavior you claim to be 'above'.TexasScientist said:Go back over your posts and you'll see you're one of the biggest monkeys on this board. Most of your comments are flinging poo. I try to stay above your level.Oldbear83 said:Your posts don't show that.TexasScientist said:I did, and I learned as well.Oldbear83 said:Bachelors at Baylor, Masters at UH. I paid attention to my professors, you really should have done that as well.TexasScientist said:Got mine at good old BU. You should finish your's. It would be immensely helpful to you.Oldbear83 said:I asked you first. And 'Oprah' does not count, son.TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?Yes, and those hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions.Quote:
Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.
Where did you get your degree?
Don't want to be rude, you get as much trash as you post, TS, but since you boast about your 'scientific method', I'd like to see more of that in actual practice.
One expects a monkey to fling poo. One does not expect a scientist to do so.
With every post TS, you tell us more about yourself than you ever meant to say.TexasScientist said:Posts are not part of the scientific method. Your lack of understanding indicates you should educate yourself about what constitutes the scientific method. And no, it's clearly above your behavior.Oldbear83 said:Look at your most recent post, and consider how little it has in common with the scientific method, and how much it looks like the behavior you claim to be 'above'.TexasScientist said:Go back over your posts and you'll see you're one of the biggest monkeys on this board. Most of your comments are flinging poo. I try to stay above your level.Oldbear83 said:Your posts don't show that.TexasScientist said:I did, and I learned as well.Oldbear83 said:Bachelors at Baylor, Masters at UH. I paid attention to my professors, you really should have done that as well.TexasScientist said:Got mine at good old BU. You should finish your's. It would be immensely helpful to you.Oldbear83 said:I asked you first. And 'Oprah' does not count, son.TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?Yes, and those hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions.Quote:
Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.
Where did you get your degree?
Don't want to be rude, you get as much trash as you post, TS, but since you boast about your 'scientific method', I'd like to see more of that in actual practice.
One expects a monkey to fling poo. One does not expect a scientist to do so.
Enjoy 4th grade.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
^^^ You reveal yourself.Oldbear83 said:With every post TS, you tell us more about yourself than you ever meant to say.TexasScientist said:Posts are not part of the scientific method. Your lack of understanding indicates you should educate yourself about what constitutes the scientific method. And no, it's clearly above your behavior.Oldbear83 said:Look at your most recent post, and consider how little it has in common with the scientific method, and how much it looks like the behavior you claim to be 'above'.TexasScientist said:Go back over your posts and you'll see you're one of the biggest monkeys on this board. Most of your comments are flinging poo. I try to stay above your level.Oldbear83 said:Your posts don't show that.TexasScientist said:I did, and I learned as well.Oldbear83 said:Bachelors at Baylor, Masters at UH. I paid attention to my professors, you really should have done that as well.TexasScientist said:Got mine at good old BU. You should finish your's. It would be immensely helpful to you.Oldbear83 said:I asked you first. And 'Oprah' does not count, son.TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?Yes, and those hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions.Quote:
Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.
Where did you get your degree?
Don't want to be rude, you get as much trash as you post, TS, but since you boast about your 'scientific method', I'd like to see more of that in actual practice.
One expects a monkey to fling poo. One does not expect a scientist to do so.
Enjoy 4th grade.
No son, you did that, with each and every post.TexasScientist said:^^^ You reveal yourself.Oldbear83 said:With every post TS, you tell us more about yourself than you ever meant to say.TexasScientist said:Posts are not part of the scientific method. Your lack of understanding indicates you should educate yourself about what constitutes the scientific method. And no, it's clearly above your behavior.Oldbear83 said:Look at your most recent post, and consider how little it has in common with the scientific method, and how much it looks like the behavior you claim to be 'above'.TexasScientist said:Go back over your posts and you'll see you're one of the biggest monkeys on this board. Most of your comments are flinging poo. I try to stay above your level.Oldbear83 said:Your posts don't show that.TexasScientist said:I did, and I learned as well.Oldbear83 said:Bachelors at Baylor, Masters at UH. I paid attention to my professors, you really should have done that as well.TexasScientist said:Got mine at good old BU. You should finish your's. It would be immensely helpful to you.Oldbear83 said:I asked you first. And 'Oprah' does not count, son.TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?Yes, and those hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions.Quote:
Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.
Where did you get your degree?
Don't want to be rude, you get as much trash as you post, TS, but since you boast about your 'scientific method', I'd like to see more of that in actual practice.
One expects a monkey to fling poo. One does not expect a scientist to do so.
Enjoy 4th grade.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Like I said.Oldbear83 said:No son, you did that, with each and every post.TexasScientist said:^^^ You reveal yourself.Oldbear83 said:With every post TS, you tell us more about yourself than you ever meant to say.TexasScientist said:Posts are not part of the scientific method. Your lack of understanding indicates you should educate yourself about what constitutes the scientific method. And no, it's clearly above your behavior.Oldbear83 said:Look at your most recent post, and consider how little it has in common with the scientific method, and how much it looks like the behavior you claim to be 'above'.TexasScientist said:Go back over your posts and you'll see you're one of the biggest monkeys on this board. Most of your comments are flinging poo. I try to stay above your level.Oldbear83 said:Your posts don't show that.TexasScientist said:I did, and I learned as well.Oldbear83 said:Bachelors at Baylor, Masters at UH. I paid attention to my professors, you really should have done that as well.TexasScientist said:Got mine at good old BU. You should finish your's. It would be immensely helpful to you.Oldbear83 said:I asked you first. And 'Oprah' does not count, son.TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?Yes, and those hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions.Quote:
Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.
Where did you get your degree?
Don't want to be rude, you get as much trash as you post, TS, but since you boast about your 'scientific method', I'd like to see more of that in actual practice.
One expects a monkey to fling poo. One does not expect a scientist to do so.
Enjoy 4th grade.
IndeedTexasScientist said:Like I said.Oldbear83 said:No son, you did that, with each and every post.TexasScientist said:^^^ You reveal yourself.Oldbear83 said:With every post TS, you tell us more about yourself than you ever meant to say.TexasScientist said:Posts are not part of the scientific method. Your lack of understanding indicates you should educate yourself about what constitutes the scientific method. And no, it's clearly above your behavior.Oldbear83 said:Look at your most recent post, and consider how little it has in common with the scientific method, and how much it looks like the behavior you claim to be 'above'.TexasScientist said:Go back over your posts and you'll see you're one of the biggest monkeys on this board. Most of your comments are flinging poo. I try to stay above your level.Oldbear83 said:Your posts don't show that.TexasScientist said:I did, and I learned as well.Oldbear83 said:Bachelors at Baylor, Masters at UH. I paid attention to my professors, you really should have done that as well.TexasScientist said:Got mine at good old BU. You should finish your's. It would be immensely helpful to you.Oldbear83 said:I asked you first. And 'Oprah' does not count, son.TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?Yes, and those hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions.Quote:
Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.
Where did you get your degree?
Don't want to be rude, you get as much trash as you post, TS, but since you boast about your 'scientific method', I'd like to see more of that in actual practice.
One expects a monkey to fling poo. One does not expect a scientist to do so.
Enjoy 4th grade.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Glad you agree.Oldbear83 said:IndeedTexasScientist said:Like I said.Oldbear83 said:No son, you did that, with each and every post.TexasScientist said:^^^ You reveal yourself.Oldbear83 said:With every post TS, you tell us more about yourself than you ever meant to say.TexasScientist said:Posts are not part of the scientific method. Your lack of understanding indicates you should educate yourself about what constitutes the scientific method. And no, it's clearly above your behavior.Oldbear83 said:Look at your most recent post, and consider how little it has in common with the scientific method, and how much it looks like the behavior you claim to be 'above'.TexasScientist said:Go back over your posts and you'll see you're one of the biggest monkeys on this board. Most of your comments are flinging poo. I try to stay above your level.Oldbear83 said:Your posts don't show that.TexasScientist said:I did, and I learned as well.Oldbear83 said:Bachelors at Baylor, Masters at UH. I paid attention to my professors, you really should have done that as well.TexasScientist said:Got mine at good old BU. You should finish your's. It would be immensely helpful to you.Oldbear83 said:I asked you first. And 'Oprah' does not count, son.TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?Yes, and those hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions.Quote:
Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.
Where did you get your degree?
Don't want to be rude, you get as much trash as you post, TS, but since you boast about your 'scientific method', I'd like to see more of that in actual practice.
One expects a monkey to fling poo. One does not expect a scientist to do so.
Enjoy 4th grade.
That you proved my point yet again? Of course I agree.TexasScientist said:Glad you agree.Oldbear83 said:IndeedTexasScientist said:Like I said.Oldbear83 said:No son, you did that, with each and every post.TexasScientist said:^^^ You reveal yourself.Oldbear83 said:With every post TS, you tell us more about yourself than you ever meant to say.TexasScientist said:Posts are not part of the scientific method. Your lack of understanding indicates you should educate yourself about what constitutes the scientific method. And no, it's clearly above your behavior.Oldbear83 said:Look at your most recent post, and consider how little it has in common with the scientific method, and how much it looks like the behavior you claim to be 'above'.TexasScientist said:Go back over your posts and you'll see you're one of the biggest monkeys on this board. Most of your comments are flinging poo. I try to stay above your level.Oldbear83 said:Your posts don't show that.TexasScientist said:I did, and I learned as well.Oldbear83 said:Bachelors at Baylor, Masters at UH. I paid attention to my professors, you really should have done that as well.TexasScientist said:Got mine at good old BU. You should finish your's. It would be immensely helpful to you.Oldbear83 said:I asked you first. And 'Oprah' does not count, son.TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?Yes, and those hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions.Quote:
Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.
Where did you get your degree?
Don't want to be rude, you get as much trash as you post, TS, but since you boast about your 'scientific method', I'd like to see more of that in actual practice.
One expects a monkey to fling poo. One does not expect a scientist to do so.
Enjoy 4th grade.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Proved your egomania. Your threads are replete with examples. It's interesting how long you will run a thread to satisfy that desire.Oldbear83 said:That you proved my point yet again? Of course I agree.TexasScientist said:Glad you agree.Oldbear83 said:IndeedTexasScientist said:Like I said.Oldbear83 said:No son, you did that, with each and every post.TexasScientist said:^^^ You reveal yourself.Oldbear83 said:With every post TS, you tell us more about yourself than you ever meant to say.TexasScientist said:Posts are not part of the scientific method. Your lack of understanding indicates you should educate yourself about what constitutes the scientific method. And no, it's clearly above your behavior.Oldbear83 said:Look at your most recent post, and consider how little it has in common with the scientific method, and how much it looks like the behavior you claim to be 'above'.TexasScientist said:Go back over your posts and you'll see you're one of the biggest monkeys on this board. Most of your comments are flinging poo. I try to stay above your level.Oldbear83 said:Your posts don't show that.TexasScientist said:I did, and I learned as well.Oldbear83 said:Bachelors at Baylor, Masters at UH. I paid attention to my professors, you really should have done that as well.TexasScientist said:Got mine at good old BU. You should finish your's. It would be immensely helpful to you.Oldbear83 said:I asked you first. And 'Oprah' does not count, son.TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?Yes, and those hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions.Quote:
Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.
Where did you get your degree?
Don't want to be rude, you get as much trash as you post, TS, but since you boast about your 'scientific method', I'd like to see more of that in actual practice.
One expects a monkey to fling poo. One does not expect a scientist to do so.
Enjoy 4th grade.
Yes, many here have said that about you, TS.TexasScientist said:Proved your egomania. Your threads are replete with examples. It's interesting how long you will run a thread to satisfy that desire.Oldbear83 said:That you proved my point yet again? Of course I agree.TexasScientist said:Glad you agree.Oldbear83 said:IndeedTexasScientist said:Like I said.Oldbear83 said:No son, you did that, with each and every post.TexasScientist said:^^^ You reveal yourself.Oldbear83 said:With every post TS, you tell us more about yourself than you ever meant to say.TexasScientist said:Posts are not part of the scientific method. Your lack of understanding indicates you should educate yourself about what constitutes the scientific method. And no, it's clearly above your behavior.Oldbear83 said:Look at your most recent post, and consider how little it has in common with the scientific method, and how much it looks like the behavior you claim to be 'above'.TexasScientist said:Go back over your posts and you'll see you're one of the biggest monkeys on this board. Most of your comments are flinging poo. I try to stay above your level.Oldbear83 said:Your posts don't show that.TexasScientist said:I did, and I learned as well.Oldbear83 said:Bachelors at Baylor, Masters at UH. I paid attention to my professors, you really should have done that as well.TexasScientist said:Got mine at good old BU. You should finish your's. It would be immensely helpful to you.Oldbear83 said:I asked you first. And 'Oprah' does not count, son.TexasScientist said:Oldbear83 said:Wrong again. Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.TexasScientist said:What's your point? Scientific tests are be designed for testting definitions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:
You test for harm based upon the definition.
"Science" cannot provide the definition.
Where did you get your degree?Yes, and those hypotheses are constructed with terms that have definitions.Quote:
Scientific tests, aka 'experiments', test the validity of hypotheses under specific conditions, and part of any hypothesis is the recognition that different conditions may produce different outcomes.
Where did you get your degree?
Don't want to be rude, you get as much trash as you post, TS, but since you boast about your 'scientific method', I'd like to see more of that in actual practice.
One expects a monkey to fling poo. One does not expect a scientist to do so.
Enjoy 4th grade.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
I'll assume (hope) that you don't actually find this to be any convincing evidence of the presence of God. "God of the gaps" justifications for god are awful gambles. Science has made every "gap" that used to be filled by god shrink enormously over the past few centuries. More importantly - and more to the OP's question - if you find "evidence" of god in any current gap in science, that's not faith.Adriacus Peratuun said:Life.BaylorJacket said:
I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.
I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?
Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.
OP - I doubt you'll find any convincing proof of god's existence. But if you could, faith wouldn't be a thing, so perhaps that is as it is supposed to be.
MT_Bear said:I'll assume (hope) that you don't actually find this to be any convincing evidence of the presence of God. "God of the gaps" justifications for god are awful gambles. Science has made every "gap" that used to be filled by god shrink enormously over the past few centuries. More importantly - and more to the OP's question - if you find "evidence" of god in any current gap in science, that's not faith.Adriacus Peratuun said:Life.BaylorJacket said:
I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.
I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?
Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.
OP - I doubt you'll find any convincing proof of god's existence. But if you could, faith wouldn't be a thing, so perhaps that is as it is supposed to be.
The thread title is "What's your best >>>evidence<<< for the existence of God". Nobody asked for proof, and certainly not "convincing proof " (I'm not sure how proof is not convincing) .
You can't give any of us proof that you are a scientist. There may be overwhelming evidence that you are a scientist but, not proof. Unless we are talking mathematics, there is no proof.
A strong piece of evidence in biology is bacterial flagellum. But no, it is not proof.
As science got better, it allowed us to discover bacterial flagellum. The more scientist know, the more evidence is found for a designer.
Scientist don't like to admit that they are not filling gaps but creating mor gaps and providing more evidence.
MT_Bear said:I'll assume (hope) that you don't actually find this to be any convincing evidence of the presence of God. "God of the gaps" justifications for god are awful gambles. Science has made every "gap" that used to be filled by god shrink enormously over the past few centuries. More importantly - and more to the OP's question - if you find "evidence" of god in any current gap in science, that's not faith.Adriacus Peratuun said:Life.BaylorJacket said:
I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.
I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?
Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.
OP - I doubt you'll find any convincing proof of god's existence. But if you could, faith wouldn't be a thing, so perhaps that is as it is supposed to be.
There is no "convincing proof" of anything depending on the person being "convinced." There are those for whom the evidence for the moon landing is insufficient.
LIB,MR BEARS said:MT_Bear said:I'll assume (hope) that you don't actually find this to be any convincing evidence of the presence of God. "God of the gaps" justifications for god are awful gambles. Science has made every "gap" that used to be filled by god shrink enormously over the past few centuries. More importantly - and more to the OP's question - if you find "evidence" of god in any current gap in science, that's not faith.Adriacus Peratuun said:Life.BaylorJacket said:
I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.
I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?
Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.
OP - I doubt you'll find any convincing proof of god's existence. But if you could, faith wouldn't be a thing, so perhaps that is as it is supposed to be.
The thread title is "What's your best >>>evidence<<< for the existence of God". Nobody asked for proof, and certainly not "convincing proof " (I'm not sure how proof is not convincing) .
You can't give any of us proof that you are a scientist. There may be overwhelming evidence that you are a scientist but, not proof. Unless we are talking mathematics, there is no proof.
A strong piece of evidence in biology is bacterial flagellum. But no, it is not proof.
As science got better, it allowed us to discover bacterial flagellum. The more scientist know, the more evidence is found for a designer.
Scientist don't like to admit that they are not filling gaps but creating mor gaps and providing more evidence.
Science is not finding evidence of design. If it were there would be peer reviewed journals publishing and testing such evidence. There is not.
Videos are not peer reviewed FWIW..
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
D. C. Bear said:MT_Bear said:I'll assume (hope) that you don't actually find this to be any convincing evidence of the presence of God. "God of the gaps" justifications for god are awful gambles. Science has made every "gap" that used to be filled by god shrink enormously over the past few centuries. More importantly - and more to the OP's question - if you find "evidence" of god in any current gap in science, that's not faith.Adriacus Peratuun said:Life.BaylorJacket said:
I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.
I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?
Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.
OP - I doubt you'll find any convincing proof of god's existence. But if you could, faith wouldn't be a thing, so perhaps that is as it is supposed to be.
There is no "convincing proof" of anything depending on the person being "convinced." There are those for whom the evidence for the moon landing is insufficient.
Have a member of the family who believes the moon landings were all a fake.
Another who believed the nazi death camps were all staged by the British and Russian military.
Then there are those who still insist Trump was a paid agent of Putin .
And those that still insist Trump is looking out for them.KaiBear said:D. C. Bear said:MT_Bear said:I'll assume (hope) that you don't actually find this to be any convincing evidence of the presence of God. "God of the gaps" justifications for god are awful gambles. Science has made every "gap" that used to be filled by god shrink enormously over the past few centuries. More importantly - and more to the OP's question - if you find "evidence" of god in any current gap in science, that's not faith.Adriacus Peratuun said:Life.BaylorJacket said:
I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.
I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?
Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.
OP - I doubt you'll find any convincing proof of god's existence. But if you could, faith wouldn't be a thing, so perhaps that is as it is supposed to be.
There is no "convincing proof" of anything depending on the person being "convinced." There are those for whom the evidence for the moon landing is insufficient.
Have a member of the family who believes the moon landings were all a fake.
Another who believed the nazi death camps were all staged by the British and Russian military.
Then there are those who still insist Trump was a paid agent of Putin .