Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
Actually there is, and you can read it:gilbo12345 said:
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5642&page=2
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
EFF vs LoR - Round 2
- Thread starter Master_Ghost_Knight
- Start date
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5642&page=2
gilbo12345
New Member
Re: onceforgivennowfree
Can it be?
BeesKnees?...
EDIT: Nope not Bees Knees...
Master_Ghost_Knight said:
Can it be?
BeesKnees?...
EDIT: Nope not Bees Knees...
gilbo12345
New Member
Re: onceforgivennowfree
What does tentative mean... If a hypothesis is tentative then does that allow you to assume it is true BEFORE testing it?
Actually here is post #22
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5642&p=95092
It seems YOU keep ignoring me since I will say again the world TENTATIVE ensures that you cannot assume the hypothesis is true.
ten·ta·tive (tebreve.gifnprime.giftschwa.gif-tibreve.gifv)
adj.
1. Not fully worked out, concluded, or agreed on; provisional: tentative plans.
2. Uncertain; hesitant.
http://www.thefreedi...y.com/tentative
Oh provisional, like making the hypothesis and then VERIFYING it by an experiment... Oh exactly what I have been telling you...
Additionally I refer you to the links you continue to ignore...
In order to test whether your hypothesis is true or not, you have to carry out some research to see if you can back it up.
http://www.null-hypo...null_hypothesis
If you are testing to see whether the hypothesis is true or not then you are not assuming it is true...
When you hypothesize something, you are not asserting anything about whether the hypothesis is true. It might be known true, known false, probable, improbable, completely unknown, or whatever. Usually the intention is to determine at some later stage the truth or falsity or probability of the hypothesis.
http://www.av8n.com/.../hypothesis.htm
When you hypothesize something, you are not asserting anything about whether the hypothesis is true.
as·sume (schwa.gif-soomacr.gifmprime.gif)
tr.v. as·sumed, as·sum·ing, as·sumes
1. To take upon oneself: assume responsibility; assume another's debts.
2. To undertake the duties of (an office): assumed the presidency.
3. To take on; adopt: "The god assumes a human form" (John Ruskin).
4. To put on; don: The queen assumed a velvet robe.
5. To affect the appearance or possession of; feign.
6. To take for granted; suppose: assumed that prices would rise. See Synonyms at presume.
7. To take over without justification; seize: assume control.
8. To take up or receive into heaven.
As I keep telling you it is a TENTATIVE assumption, you cannot claims something which is TENTATIVE is True... Because being true (or false) is the opposite of tentative.
Again I refer you to the word TENTATIVE.... TENTATIVE = UNSURE
If you are unsure of something then it is irrational to assume it is true
BeesKnees, on 14 Oct 2013 - 9:40 PM, said:
If the prediction is correct, the hypothesis is confirmed. That is how science is done. Look at the steps I quoted above.
Oh so the hypothesis that we are the centre of the universe is correct because that prediction was correct also... (As I told you earlier on the other thread and you ignored it).
Where does your links claim what you say here? Oh look what one of them say?... Exactly what I have been saying to you...
In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary.
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html
Oops.... So I guess your links only apply to whatever you want to include and all else can go over a cliff? That is called cherry picking.
I have told you this over and over
Predicting plant growth will increase is a TENTATIVE assumption it is not known for sure, because I hadn't done the experiment yet... That is what I have been trying to teach you.... There is no requirement to assume the hypothesis is true for any prediction. I think this is where you are majorly confused. In order to make a prediction you do not need to assume your hypothesis is true, you simply grant that it is TENTATIVE, that it is possible, that it is an unknown.
Additionally I already told you if you assume your hypothesis is true then you cannot create predictions from it since if you claim it is true then what you claim follows from the hypothesis is simple a claim about it, since you assume it is true there is no need for a prediction because you assume it is true and whatever follows will come to pass. Meaning in order to make a prediction in the first place you cannot assume the hypothesis is true.
Therefore there is no reason for you to claim to assume the hypothesis is true.
Your prediction fails.
In fact you already conceded with this statement
BeesKnees, on 14 Oct 2013 - 6:10 PM, said:
Now, assuming (tentatively of course), that the hypothesis is true, then what do we predict?
You've changed your stance from assuming the hypothesis is true, to assuming it is tentative (you can forget adding the word true since it carries no meaning with the tentative in front of it, you can say tentatively false and it would mean the exactly the same thing). This is what I have been telling you over and over you don't assume it is true, you merely take it as an unknown, you don't know if its true or not that is why you are doing the tests... Finally starting to teach you something.
Ok lets for arguments sake allow you to assume "evolution did it", (even though you have given no reason for assuming it is correct making predictions doesn't require you to assume it is correct).... Now what?
You (tentatively) assume evolution was the cause of similarities in fossils, ok then where is the experiment to confirm that hypothesis? You know all those links you posted, they all claim that you verify a hypothesis with an experiment, so even if I allow you to assume the hypothesis is true and you make these predictions (based on an unverified assumption), where is the experiment which supports such an assumption?
Now I know you will claim that having those predictions come true, (if they are valid predictions not ad hoc ones in the first place) is your verification... However that is NOT what your links say. As I have been trying to teach you, there may well be an unknown cause or reason for these observations, meaning you cannot simply assume whatever you imagine to be true is true.
As I told you earlier...
Hypothesis: The Earth is the centre of the universe
Prediction: The sun and stars will all revolve around the Earth
Apparently using your "logic" this hypothesis holds true, because its prediction is correct. However we now know this hypothesis is false due to the fact that there is a different reason, (an unknown hypothesis), for the observations which confirmed the prediction.
This is why you NEED experiments to verify your hypothesis!
Because all I or any other Creationist needs to do is simply point out that you are basing your beliefs on an unverified assumption, unverified assumptions are not scientific... And bam there goes your claims, your predictions, everything, due to the bad foundation they were based on. As I said your house of cards fall down.
Master_Ghost_Knight said:
What does tentative mean... If a hypothesis is tentative then does that allow you to assume it is true BEFORE testing it?
Actually here is post #22
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5642&p=95092
It seems YOU keep ignoring me since I will say again the world TENTATIVE ensures that you cannot assume the hypothesis is true.
ten·ta·tive (tebreve.gifnprime.giftschwa.gif-tibreve.gifv)
adj.
1. Not fully worked out, concluded, or agreed on; provisional: tentative plans.
2. Uncertain; hesitant.
http://www.thefreedi...y.com/tentative
Oh provisional, like making the hypothesis and then VERIFYING it by an experiment... Oh exactly what I have been telling you...
Additionally I refer you to the links you continue to ignore...
In order to test whether your hypothesis is true or not, you have to carry out some research to see if you can back it up.
http://www.null-hypo...null_hypothesis
If you are testing to see whether the hypothesis is true or not then you are not assuming it is true...
When you hypothesize something, you are not asserting anything about whether the hypothesis is true. It might be known true, known false, probable, improbable, completely unknown, or whatever. Usually the intention is to determine at some later stage the truth or falsity or probability of the hypothesis.
http://www.av8n.com/.../hypothesis.htm
When you hypothesize something, you are not asserting anything about whether the hypothesis is true.
as·sume (schwa.gif-soomacr.gifmprime.gif)
tr.v. as·sumed, as·sum·ing, as·sumes
1. To take upon oneself: assume responsibility; assume another's debts.
2. To undertake the duties of (an office): assumed the presidency.
3. To take on; adopt: "The god assumes a human form" (John Ruskin).
4. To put on; don: The queen assumed a velvet robe.
5. To affect the appearance or possession of; feign.
6. To take for granted; suppose: assumed that prices would rise. See Synonyms at presume.
7. To take over without justification; seize: assume control.
8. To take up or receive into heaven.
As I keep telling you it is a TENTATIVE assumption, you cannot claims something which is TENTATIVE is True... Because being true (or false) is the opposite of tentative.
Again I refer you to the word TENTATIVE.... TENTATIVE = UNSURE
If you are unsure of something then it is irrational to assume it is true
BeesKnees, on 14 Oct 2013 - 9:40 PM, said:
If the prediction is correct, the hypothesis is confirmed. That is how science is done. Look at the steps I quoted above.
Oh so the hypothesis that we are the centre of the universe is correct because that prediction was correct also... (As I told you earlier on the other thread and you ignored it).
Where does your links claim what you say here? Oh look what one of them say?... Exactly what I have been saying to you...
In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary.
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html
Oops.... So I guess your links only apply to whatever you want to include and all else can go over a cliff? That is called cherry picking.
I have told you this over and over
Predicting plant growth will increase is a TENTATIVE assumption it is not known for sure, because I hadn't done the experiment yet... That is what I have been trying to teach you.... There is no requirement to assume the hypothesis is true for any prediction. I think this is where you are majorly confused. In order to make a prediction you do not need to assume your hypothesis is true, you simply grant that it is TENTATIVE, that it is possible, that it is an unknown.
Additionally I already told you if you assume your hypothesis is true then you cannot create predictions from it since if you claim it is true then what you claim follows from the hypothesis is simple a claim about it, since you assume it is true there is no need for a prediction because you assume it is true and whatever follows will come to pass. Meaning in order to make a prediction in the first place you cannot assume the hypothesis is true.
Therefore there is no reason for you to claim to assume the hypothesis is true.
Your prediction fails.
In fact you already conceded with this statement
BeesKnees, on 14 Oct 2013 - 6:10 PM, said:
Now, assuming (tentatively of course), that the hypothesis is true, then what do we predict?
You've changed your stance from assuming the hypothesis is true, to assuming it is tentative (you can forget adding the word true since it carries no meaning with the tentative in front of it, you can say tentatively false and it would mean the exactly the same thing). This is what I have been telling you over and over you don't assume it is true, you merely take it as an unknown, you don't know if its true or not that is why you are doing the tests... Finally starting to teach you something.
Ok lets for arguments sake allow you to assume "evolution did it", (even though you have given no reason for assuming it is correct making predictions doesn't require you to assume it is correct).... Now what?
You (tentatively) assume evolution was the cause of similarities in fossils, ok then where is the experiment to confirm that hypothesis? You know all those links you posted, they all claim that you verify a hypothesis with an experiment, so even if I allow you to assume the hypothesis is true and you make these predictions (based on an unverified assumption), where is the experiment which supports such an assumption?
Now I know you will claim that having those predictions come true, (if they are valid predictions not ad hoc ones in the first place) is your verification... However that is NOT what your links say. As I have been trying to teach you, there may well be an unknown cause or reason for these observations, meaning you cannot simply assume whatever you imagine to be true is true.
As I told you earlier...
Hypothesis: The Earth is the centre of the universe
Prediction: The sun and stars will all revolve around the Earth
Apparently using your "logic" this hypothesis holds true, because its prediction is correct. However we now know this hypothesis is false due to the fact that there is a different reason, (an unknown hypothesis), for the observations which confirmed the prediction.
This is why you NEED experiments to verify your hypothesis!
Because all I or any other Creationist needs to do is simply point out that you are basing your beliefs on an unverified assumption, unverified assumptions are not scientific... And bam there goes your claims, your predictions, everything, due to the bad foundation they were based on. As I said your house of cards fall down.
gilbo12345
New Member
I f people follow the thread you will see that MGK ignores this post directed to him... Rather he cuts one sentence and responds to that
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5642&p=95263
Certainly not the arse kicking he claimed to have conducted.... Hmm so who was posturing?
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5642&p=95263
Certainly not the arse kicking he claimed to have conducted.... Hmm so who was posturing?
Darkprophet232
New Member
gilbo12345 said:
It's pretty hard to follow the thread, because his posts HAVE BEEN DELETED. All we have to go on are the points you felt worthy of response.
gilbo12345
New Member
Darkprophet232 said:
I always try post the full quote of what someone says... I don't like having my points cut out so therefore I don't do it to other people. What I do cut out (if anything) is insults etc..
However post #29 #31 #34 #50 are all from MGK so not sure where you guys are claiming they deleted his posts...
Was this the so called arse-kicking? Oh wait its my post
What experiments? I continue to ask and all anyone can do is claim there are some, yet never give examples..
You realise that people reading this do have brains in their heads, they can call a bluff when they see one. If you really did have experiments then you would give examples of them, rather than waste your time with personal attacks.
How can my claims be indefensible when you have yet to answer them? Perhaps you merely claim this in order to "save face" or to help pick up the pieces of your shattered ego.
Your dodging of my point verifies my claim that evolutionists generally do not want to answer the tough questions.
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5642&p=95302
Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
Re: onceforgivennowfree
I have zero interest in engaging with gilbo until I hear an apology.
I have zero interest in engaging with gilbo until I hear an apology.
gilbo12345
New Member
Re: onceforgivennowfree
Where was this sense of aversion before when you were talking smack about how you great you were...
Kinda demonstrates that you had no intention of backing up your claims since now the cat is out of the bag and people can read the conversation that took place, they can see that you did nothing of what you claimed to do... Or do you really think that avoiding my call for experimental analysis and simply claim there are some, despite never giving a single example is you on the high-ground... :facepalm:
So what am I apologising about? That I demonstrated on EFF that you had no basis for your claims? Should I demand an apology from you about your ill-sense of bravado and claiming how you "whipped the floor" with me with your stint at EFF.. Despite such a thing is now exposed as the lie it was..
No need, I don't require such a thing...
Master_Ghost_Knight said:
Where was this sense of aversion before when you were talking smack about how you great you were...
Kinda demonstrates that you had no intention of backing up your claims since now the cat is out of the bag and people can read the conversation that took place, they can see that you did nothing of what you claimed to do... Or do you really think that avoiding my call for experimental analysis and simply claim there are some, despite never giving a single example is you on the high-ground... :facepalm:
So what am I apologising about? That I demonstrated on EFF that you had no basis for your claims? Should I demand an apology from you about your ill-sense of bravado and claiming how you "whipped the floor" with me with your stint at EFF.. Despite such a thing is now exposed as the lie it was..
No need, I don't require such a thing...