Sometimes in the course of events over at Ray's, certain individuals single themselves out as the most preposterous, absurd, lying pieces of shit, that they must be recognized as such.
This recognition goes out to "Eric." He has no profile (not a problem actually) but claims he has a science degree while not having a clue about the definition of a scientific Theory."
It has been explained to him on several occasion in a precise manner. Then, some one used a definition from Wiki, so while totally ignoring all the definitions he has been given, he says, "Wikipedia is not and should ever used as a standard, with a few keystrokes you or I can edit the information without accountability." He thinks he is slyly sidestepping the question by doing that, but of course he is only fooling himself.
Eric then uses the dictionary definition for the colloquial "Theory." It is hilarious the way he so overtly ignores facts that he does not like.
As I said, he is a liar because there is no way on earth that someone can hold a degree in science ad not know the definition of a Scientific Theory.
I'm going to post the comment he made that proves he is a study in absurdity.
You're misleadingly distorting the meaning of the word "theory" on purpose, which definitely invalidates your opinion.
Hello Eric. As you have a degree in a science-related area, then I assume that you are aware of the scientific definition of a theory, namely that one is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the world"(wikipedia).
Wikipedia is not and should ever used as a standard, with a few keystrokes you or I can edit the information without accountability. [He thinks he's being cute by sidestepping the statement]
Funk and Wagnalls New standard Dictionary of the English Language c19261.The act or result of looking into or contemplating any object or group of objects, or any event or series of events; beholding ; viewing; speculation.2.Hence: (1)A mental plan or scheme framed to agree with the observed facts and designed as a rational explanation of them. In this sense, customarily understood to be a scheme of explanation which comes nearer to being a law verifiable by all others on the basis of observation and experiment than does a hypothesis. (2)Mere hypothesis or speculation; hence, an individual view; idea; as, the soldier's theory of duty.3.More specif., a systematic generalization, entertained in the development of some one of the positive sciences, as furnishing the most satisfactory account ofr rational explanation of a series or group of its phenomena; an elaborate and well-sustained working hypothesis designed to embrace temporarily, and to further the continued investigation of some particular science or one of its branches.theorize1.To convince by theorizing. 2.To form or express theories; speculate.
December 16, 2008 4:25 AM
I must tag on a special mention for Shawn, who ignorantly boasts:
"Why bother [studying evolution] If I know something to be a lie, why entertain it further? I would be the fool then, and not the evolutionist. Rather, I will remain in ignorance of the subject and avail my mind on the things of God, which are wholesome and pleasant to the soul. This glorious meat is food for my soul and is the light that leads to salvation. That is the only thing my mind must know.
They will do anything to create the illusion that their silly beliefs are not going up in the smoke of reason.