On how the word 'theory' is used

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This is very common.

When creationists misuses words like 'theory', 'species', and thinks that BigBang and abiogenesis is part of the evolution theory, etc, even redefines scientific terms, they are showing lack of knowledge of the evolution theory, yet discussing it thinking they know enough of it.

When non-JWers (like myself) discuss the paedophi his is not an attack of any specific person debating here, but this phenomenon in general.)

you were roasted Fabian, not because you did not know the inner workings, for every source was in fact independent, but because your prejudice led you to start with a false premise, that we are not in fact very moral, when indeed, it has been demonstrated that we are quite moral persons!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You have studied chess and have a rounded appreciation of the game. We could discuss varies openings, differing strategies, the merits of a closed or open position, your preference as to whether you like to fianchetto your kings bishop or not etc etc.

If i had claimed to have studied chess all my life and then demonstrated a lack of basic knowledge, i ...[text shortened]... mates. You would think i wasn't being completely honest about my 'chess studies' would you?

its not a very good argument dear Noobster for many persons study chess for many years but never make any progress, what are we to state then? that they have not studied chess? that they were being dishonest? hardly!

Originally posted by galveston75
Thanx..... Sometimes I make explinations to complicated instead of simple and to the point. 🙂

no problem buddy, they despise the snake because he has no horns but cannot say whether or not he shall one day become a dragon!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
mutations and experiments on Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly) by Dobzhansky resulted in no new species and in every instance the mutated fly was inferior to the parent! scientific fact!

“The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity.” - Heredity and the Nature of Man, p. 126.

Interesting how your quote does not support your claim. Its easy to add 'scientific fact!' after every sentence, but it holds no meaning unless you can substantiate it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Interesting how your quote does not support your claim. Its easy to add 'scientific fact!' after every sentence, but it holds no meaning unless you can substantiate it.

interesting how my quotations are taken from reputable scientific sources, supporting my claims, your is nothing but a mere opinion, unsubstantiated with reference and might as well be written on a toilet wall! unless you have anything of either substance or anything with content, shut upa yo face!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
interesting how my quotations are taken from reputable scientific sources, supporting my claims, your is nothing but a mere opinion, unsubstantiated with reference and might as well be written on a toilet wall! unless you have anything of either substance or anything with content, shut upa yo face!

As always, when caught in a lie, you resort to insults.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you were roasted Fabian, not because you did not know the inner workings, for every source was in fact independent, but because your prejudice led you to start with a false premise, that we are not in fact very moral, when indeed, it has been demonstrated that we are quite moral persons!

And now you say rather clearly - "Don't talk anything what you know anything about!".
And this is exactly what this thread is all about - "Don't use the word 'theory' when you (creationsts) don't know the meaning of the word!"
I thank you for this beautiful demonstration!

Further, there are a lot of creationists who have very strong opinion about the theory of Evolution but know nothing about it.
May I remind you of the essence in your previous posting: "Don't talk about the theory of Evolution when you in fact know anything about it!".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you were roasted Fabian, not because you did not know the inner workings, for every source was in fact independent, but because your prejudice led you to start with a false premise, that we are not in fact very moral, when indeed, it has been demonstrated that we are quite moral persons!

No, robbie, I don't feel in particular roasted, becase, and this you know, the child abuse within the organization of JW is only one of the 'not really high moral' about JW.

There are other reasons to show the low moral in the JW in the air too. Would you like to know?

You, not me, started with "the high moral of JW" (an absolute proposition), and I take mnyself the right to object to this. The moral in JW is not so high as you think. There are a lot of bad apples in your basket.
If I would say that I have high moral, you would have the same right to object to that too. I don't, so you can't. You do, so I can.

[edit] Okay, now I see that you write that you 'are only quite moral persons', didn't see that before. Does this mean that you change your mind about the morality within JW? Quite not so high moral that you thought before? Or am I mistaken...?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its not a very good argument dear Noobster for many persons study chess for many years but never make any progress, what are we to state then? that they have not studied chess? that they were being dishonest? hardly!

I'm not talking about making progress, that's a straw man argument. I'm talking about recognising basic concepts of chess. Anybody who has read a little opening theory would know what the Sicilain opening is, or be able to distinguish between the Ruy Lopez and the Giouco Piano. Likewise anybody who has read up on the history of the game would know who Tal or Capablanca or Botvinnik was. If i had claimed to have sutudied chess all my life and didn't have an understanding of the above concepts/people you would raise an eyebrow. Granted i may still be a crap chess player, but that's besides the point. I can claim to have studied football all my life, that isn't going to make me a better player but i should know who the manager of Manchester Utd is.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm not talking about making progress, that's a straw man argument. I'm talking about recognising basic concepts of chess. Anybody who has read a little opening theory would know what the Sicilain opening is, or be able to distinguish between the Ruy Lopez and the Giouco Piano. Likewise anybody who has read up on the history of the game would know who Ta ...[text shortened]... t going to make me a better player but i should know who the manager of Manchester Utd is.

Interestingly I have played chess for more than half my life, but don't know those openings, nor historical players (except for Capablanca but I couldn't even tell you what nationality he was).

You are both higher rated players than me though. 🙂

You are correct though that I haven't studied chess openings nor the history of Chess.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Interestingly I have played chess for more than half my life, but don't know those openings, nor historical players (except for Capablanca but I couldn't even tell you what nationality he was).

You are both higher rated players than me though. 🙂

You are correct though that I haven't studied chess openings nor the history of Chess.

A cursory glance at your games reveals you have played the Sicilian defence numerous times.



You just didn't know the name for it. But as you pointed out someone has read a book or two on chess would pick it up easily.

Capablanca was Cuban and a World Champion along with Mikhail Tal and Mikhail Botvinnik.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
interesting how my quotations are taken from reputable scientific sources, supporting my claims, your is nothing but a mere opinion, unsubstantiated with reference and might as well be written on a toilet wall! unless you have anything of either substance or anything with content, shut upa yo face!

Heredity and the Nature of Man was published in 1964, your other quote was from 1981. That's prehistoric in terms of evolutionary biology.

Come on Rob, drag yourself into the 21st Century.

As for your second quote, if that is the case, could you explain to me how animals end up having cancer then?

Here's something for you to have a look over, and again, we hope you may learn something.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409

Originally posted by Proper Knob
A cursory glance at your games reveals you have played the Sicilian defence numerous times.

[pgn]1.e4 c5[/pgn]

You just didn't know the name for it. But as you pointed out someone has read a book or two on chess would pick it up easily.

Capablanca was Cuban and a World Champion along with Mikhail Tal and Mikhail Botvinnik.

I never thought I would justifiably see a chessboard in the spirituality forum. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[

mutations and experiments on Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly) by Dobzhansky resulted in no new species and in every instance the mutated fly was inferior to the parent! scientific fact!

“The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity.” - Heredity and the Nature of Man, p. 126.

This book was published in 1965.This was about the time that we had the first colour television broadcasts.Science and technolgy has not been standing still since then.In the same way as we refined our ideas for colour television broadcasting, scientists have refined their knowledge about Drosophilia fruit flies.This is how science works.If we were talking here about,say, blu-ray discs I am sure you would not dig up some scientific paper from the sixties about video tape recorders to help prove your point.

Sorry,Proper Knob made the same point as I was typing.Do you see how fast things can change Robbie?