Zero respect

[Beefbisquit]

No, "I" am worth more. You may not like it, but money is how the world keeps score. You think anything means anything here? You are all people I will never meet. Your opinions mean nothing here. Lets be honest, YOUR opinions mean nothing anywhere. But enough of this, I have a job to go to tomorrow. Do you?

I've been to four post secondary schools, I have a degree, several diplomas, and a handful of IT certifications. I was an independent IT consultant and a Senior analyst with IBM, and have owned my own house since I was 23. Currently, I'm studying to be a chef, FYI.

There's my e-peen; is that what we're doing when we have nothing worthwhile to say? Equating things we own to the validity of our scientific understanding? You really are dense!

All of this is meaningless to this conversation and says nothing about value of a person. You, in this case, are useless. You don't understand what theory means, even with repeated attempts to show you the error of your ways, you still reject the accepted scientific definition of theory because of some personal agenda. The fact that you build things for a living says absolutely nothing about your scientific background, and has no merit in this discussion. We all know this, and your attempts to convince others of your credibility is pathetic and sad.

How much money you make, (which your most likely lying about anyway) says nothing about your intelligence or ability to understand science, which is what we're discussing. The fact that you needed to change the subject to make yourself feel better about being scientifically illiterate proves you have the mind set of a child who wants things 'his way' or he's going to throw a temper tantrum.

If you're actually 48 years old and are still this clueless about science, I'm at a loss.

 

[Beefbisquit]

What are the chances we don't orbit the sun? (Heliocentric theory)

What are the chances that diseases aren't caused by germs, bacteria, viruses, etc.? (Germ theory)

What are the chances that we didn't evolve from other lifeforms? (Evolutionary theory)

What are the chances that we don't know the structure of the atom? (Atomic theory)

What are the chances GPS satellite are only working because of a fluke? (Theory of relativity)

What are the chances the red-shift, background radiation, and gravity waves and other information is incorrect? (Big bang theory)


All of these theories have prediction power and are virtually agreed upon with consensus, in the scientific community.

Laymen opinions, like yours Red, mean less than nothing. You offer no reason why the data collected by scientists shouldn't be considered factual, you have no background in the topic we're discussing, you've demonstrated an inability to grasp simple concepts like the definition of 'scientific theory', your only arguments are 'arguments from incredulity', e.g. it doesn't make sense to me, therefore I can't be true.

It's like watching a child try to do a task that's about 10 years ahead of him; you know they're going to get upset, start pouting, and have a temper tantrum when they can't get their own way. You try to explain to them, but in the end children need to be disciplined and sent to their rooms every know and again.

 

[Padawanbater2]

No, "I" am worth more. You may not like it, but money is how the world keeps score. You think anything means anything here? You are all people I will never meet. Your opinions mean nothing here. Lets be honest, YOUR opinions mean nothing anywhere. But enough of this, I have a job to go to tomorrow. Do you?

Money is not how the world "keeps score" of anything and the amount of money a person has or makes has no bearing on their ability to understand or apply scientific ideas to the real world, as you illustrate.

If we're being honest, you've had what, nearly 50 years to express your ideas to the world and see if they held any value and the world laughed right back in your face and told you to sit down and be quiet because you're too ignorant and arrogant to accept when you could be wrong. 50 years, red.. What have you accomplished in that time period? Discounting failed marriages and deceased family members, what happened? All your money couldn't save any of those

 

[Red1966]

I've been to four post secondary schools, I have a degree, several diplomas, and a handful of IT certifications. I was an independent IT consultant and a Senior analyst with IBM, and have owned my own house since I was 23. Currently, I'm studying to be a chef, FYI. There's my e-peen; is that what we're doing when we have nothing worthwhile to say? Equating things we own to the validity of our scientific understanding? You really are dense! All of this is meaningless to this conversation and says nothing about value of a person. You, in this case, are useless. You don't understand what theory means, even with repeated attempts to show you the error of your ways, you still reject the accepted scientific definition of theory because of some personal agenda. The fact that you build things for a living says absolutely nothing about your scientific background, and has no merit in this discussion. We all know this, and your attempts to convince others of your credibility is pathetic and sad. How much money you make, (which your most likely lying about anyway) says nothing about your intelligence or ability to understand science, which is what we're discussing. The fact that you needed to change the subject to make yourself feel better about being scientifically illiterate proves you have the mind set of a child who wants things 'his way' or he's going to throw a temper tantrum. If you're actually 48 years old and are still this clueless about science, I'm at a loss.

I posted the definition of "theory" from Merriam-Webster, the authority recognized everywhere in the English speaking world, yet you insist that your redefinition is correct. There is just no convincing you. If you insist on being a fool, there is nothing anyone can do about it.

 

[Red1966]

Money is not how the world "keeps score" of anything and the amount of money a person has or makes has no bearing on their ability to understand or apply scientific ideas to the real world, as you illustrate. If we're being honest, you've had what, nearly 50 years to express your ideas to the world and see if they held any value and the world laughed right back in your face and told you to sit down and be quiet because you're too ignorant and arrogant to accept when you could be wrong. 50 years, red.. What have you accomplished in that time period? Discounting failed marriages and deceased family members, what happened? All your money couldn't save any of those

So how is it you know " world laughed right back in your face and told you to sit down and be quiet"? You don't. Sounds like you have nothing to argue but insults. Meanwhile, I have Merriam-Webster confirming my statements. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

 

[Padawanbater2]

"scientific theory


a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"


"scientific theory


systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner."

 

[Beefbisquit]

So how is it you know " world laughed right back in your face and told you to sit down and be quiet"? You don't. Sounds like you have nothing to argue but insults. Meanwhile, I have Merriam-Webster confirming my statements. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Still unable to figure out that putting another word in front of 'theory' changes the definition?

You posted the definition of 'theory', not 'scientific theory'... How is this fact alluding you?