[Mattshark]

G3N0M3, on 16 November 2009 - 07:45 PM, said:

LOL, so untill we witnessed a star being formed since that there was no evidence of stars being created your saying that they were never made, but always were?? I mean there are many theories with things along this scale and people take hypothesis and theories seriously like it is the accurate discription of the event or focal point to the 'problem'.

Also I do not think you even read my post, the first sentance was "Prove, and show to me and the rest of the world how scientific theory testing could be possible and therefore is quantifiably correct." Maybe re-read that just so you get it...

Also I'm not too sure you read that information, because unless you meant for this point to be made I gues you just, ummm, how could we put this...


Sooo, tell me where your reasoning came in where everything that is not already measured by science is not real, and is some other thing that just is not something... I just have no clue how I could make my brain think that something that has been shown, evidenced, witnessed and measured is not a part of science nor is it actually real.

Jumping to conclusions there aren't? I never said it is not real, I said there is no evidence of such. Hope you understand how that is not remotely the same thing.

I was also only telling you are misusing and misunderstanding scientific terminology.

Quote

You say there is no evidence, the fact is YOU have not seen evidence and that is why you argue the fact that there is even evidence...

Again, something I have to post here so that you can read and understand what you just linked me, and how I don't see how you proved anything but me being right, in which case thanks for backing me up.

Show some evidence then, your at uni, go and show off to them. Personal experience is not evidence, it is subjective.

Quote

Oh you know, all this me "showing you up" makes me want to post these links and C/P quotes from the website, I'll even throw in your name so you get credit for helping skeptics understand. Especialy the all important scientific ones.

I mean look at what it says, did you not read the information? Did it not make you understand? Did you read it but not understand it in any way?

I hope this has helped you out in understanding this area better, especialy with your understanding of science being the only answer.

G3N0M3

Showing me up how? All you are doing is show gross (but sadly common) misunderstanding of the scientific term theory and jumping into a big mindless rant. Get you head of its current orifice and YOU evidence something, that burden is completely on you.

[tinieblas]

Matt; the operative word in your argument is "theory" ....I don't think any more needs to be said.

Didn't someone scientific say "if you can't replicate it under laboratory conditions, it is not established fact" ?

This post has been edited by tinieblas: 17 November 2009 - 06:06 AM

[Mattshark]

tinieblas, on 17 November 2009 - 06:05 AM, said:

Matt; the operative word in your argument is "theory" ....I don't think any more needs to be said.

Didn't someone scientific say "if you can't replicate it under laboratory conditions, it is not established fact" ?

And the word theory in a scientific context is not the same as the general use of the word.

Examples:
Evolution theory
Germ theory
Atomic theory
Gravity theory

All are based on masses on masses of evidence and observed facts. Theory is the pinnacle of science, it is the explanation.

[Agent. Mulder]

G3N0M3, on 16 November 2009 - 08:52 PM, said:

Wow, are you just ignorant?
Obviously you did not even read up on the subject so go read something and understand something for the life of you.
Someone IS likely to be fake IF they claim they had total control of their abilities, BEACAUSE thats just not how it works.

we disagree here. you believe someone deserves more credit, and believe they may be genuine when it comes to psychic powers because they cannnot do it on cue.

G3N0M3, on 16 November 2009 - 08:52 PM, said:

Also show to me how I failed at blatently explaining, proving, and denoting what Matt showed... If you are not able to comprehend what was C/P and linked, I have no problem because then obviously it is some type of learning disorder so I won't hold that back on you. If you continue to try and argue with me, try being in grade 9 and being in grade 12 advanced physics classes in your spares, I'm not scientific in anyway, I understand things MUCH deeper than you obviously so maybe once you get at par with me in intelligence than maybe try and argue, otherwise I highly doubt you have above 120 IQ... I mean I was 12 and had an IQ of 110 and the last ime I paid for an IQ test was at 17 and I had 120s and I still did not even believe in the outcome because both times I was not even ready (tired/busy) I'm sure if I took one now it would be even more...

you failed in the theory aspect of science. as matt already showed you.
try to keep up G3. let us know if were getting ahead of you and your 120IQ.

G3N0M3, on 16 November 2009 - 08:52 PM, said:

So unless either your flamebaiting or just lurching around being a troll then try and prove for yourself something, not depend on what other people have posted.

LMFAO, far fetched... It was far fetched when they said that they were going to the moon, it was far fetched when they said that there was no water on Mars, they said it was far fetched that global warming was happening... Grow up seriously, how old are you?

no flamebatting, just trying to help someone understand a common misconception that you share with thousands, if not millions world wide.
as for far fetched, the psi claims still are. whether they claim they can or cannot control it.

[G3N0M3]

LOL @ both matt and agent on this one...

This can't be put in both your heads...

You two are the most narcistic, individuals I have ever got close to meeting... I mean Mattshark blatently linked to a website that had information on scientific theory... I told him that unless he did not read the information given there would be no point argueing against me. In which case you both continue too...

The sheer fact that you two can't understand what it means, and try to tell me and the rest of the people here, and who was taught ANYTHING in science class (Grd 5 information here) that they are all wrong is just plain narcistic. Get over yourselves, one your wrong, and everywhere you look and get information (unless you are mentaly challenged like one of my threads say) its all wrong.

OK! IF YOU DON'T GET THIS I'M DONE WITH THE BOTH OF YOU!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory
http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
http://atheism.about...tificTheory.htm
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm
http://www.dinosaurt...com/theory.html
...........................................................
http://en.wikipedia..../Scientific_law
http://en.wikipedia....Law_(principle)
http://www.businessd...ntific-law.html
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Scientific_law
http://encyclopedia..../scientific+law


I hope that somehow you two can read through these links and understand something for once... If you can not understand what the difference between scientific law and scientific theory than you litteraly have no place in the scientific community.

As for anything along the lines of psychics, psionics, or any other metaphysical part of the world, and us you both seem to have no idea what your talking about, nor do you understand or practice what we know. Therefore because you do not know, experience, or can not measure you think that it is fake or the billions of people who experience it, and practice it are all crazy.

You both are either unable, or unwilling to even comprehend the world as a whole, in which case you are stuck to your pre-determined course of actions beliefs, and self controled aspects of how the world works.

I'm done with you two this is rediculas, you should both be ashamed of your sad existances... Thinking you know everything, HA, laughable...

[Mattshark]

How dare you be so condescending when YOU use the term "still only a theory" which is one of the biggest fallacies you make regarding scientific theory.

Maybe if you bothered to read your links yourself you would see they say exactly what I said to you.



It is spelt ridiculous btw

Oh again you are jumping to massive conclusions all I ever asked for was evidence unless something was explainable by far more parsimonious answers.

This post has been edited by Mattshark: 18 November 2009 - 12:32 AM

[Agent. Mulder]

i dont think he gets it MS.

G3, matt and myself have been correcting You, on the use of the term 'theory'. your posts have reflected the fact that you didnt understand what a Scientific Theory' was. we are both well aware of a scientific theory and law, however you are the one who kept bringing up the fact that "Oh, its only a theory".
however, im curious as to what you understand and practise that WE do not seem to know. i for one am not claiming anything is fake, but simply asking for evidence to back up any claim related to psychic abilities. which, you have not tey given, but only stated "you dont know what i know or have seen".

[tinieblas]

better to try and stop a deluge with a teacup G......or stun an elephant with a nerf gun.....ain't going to happen mate...their eyes will be opened one of these days but not here and not now I'm afraid.....

[G3N0M3]

Mattshark, on 16 November 2009 - 06:33 AM, said:

The thing with science is it is not about proving anything, it is just about evidencing.

As for a scientific theory, they never become anything other than a theory. A theory is the pinnacle in science, it is the empirical explanation of how and why formulated from tested hypothesise.

Scientific Method

See Genome, I don't believe in science, you don't need to believe in things that exist. I however, understand that it is the best and least biased method of study there is and that is the aim of the method.

Mattshark, on 17 November 2009 - 06:38 AM, said:

And the word theory in a scientific context is not the same as the general use of the word.

Examples:
Evolution theory
Germ theory
Atomic theory
Gravity theory

All are based on masses on masses of evidence and observed facts. Theory is the pinnacle of science, it is the explanation.

Mattshark, on 17 November 2009 - 06:30 PM, said:

How dare you be so condescending when YOU use the term "still only a theory" which is one of the biggest fallacies you make regarding scientific theory.

Maybe if you bothered to read your links yourself you would see they say exactly what I said to you.



It is spelt ridiculous btw

Oh again you are jumping to massive conclusions all I ever asked for was evidence unless something was explainable by far more parsimonious answers.

Agent. Mulder, on 17 November 2009 - 07:08 PM, said:

i dont think he gets it MS.

G3, matt and myself have been correcting You, on the use of the term 'theory'. your posts have reflected the fact that you didnt understand what a Scientific Theory' was. we are both well aware of a scientific theory and law, however you are the one who kept bringing up the fact that "Oh, its only a theory".
however, im curious as to what you understand and practise that WE do not seem to know. i for one am not claiming anything is fake, but simply asking for evidence to back up any claim related to psychic abilities. which, you have not tey given, but only stated "you dont know what i know or have seen".

I'm not saying a much more than highlighted words here... If there is a difference between scientific law and scientific theory than why are you saying that one is the same? Scientific Law = provable, replicable - Scientific Theory = only a theory...

If your saying that the theory of evolution is not just a theory howcome there is religion that constitues creationism? Its a THEORY because we still do not know for a fact what made what happen, when, and why... we have as my links state a hypothesis, when more than one scientist has one hypothesis it then becomes a THEORY...

You guys, really, do I have to keep going into this? I really do not want to get into this all the time...

LOL, just like typical scientists, never accept being wrong. I would accept me being wrong because your trying to explain what theory is, but then there is still no arguement because I had given the deffinition. So I don't know where the both of you get off saying that I'm wrong, meanwhile the only thing I've done was given you information...

So long, hope you re-read my links to get the whole just of it.

G3N0M3

[Mattshark]

G3N0M3, on 18 November 2009 - 10:58 PM, said:

I'm not saying a much more than highlighted words here... If there is a difference between scientific law and scientific theory than why are you saying that one is the same? Scientific Law = provable, replicable - Scientific Theory = only a theory...

If your saying that the theory of evolution is not just a theory howcome there is religion that constitues creationism? Its a THEORY because we still do not know for a fact what made what happen, when, and why... we have as my links state a hypothesis, when more than one scientist has one hypothesis it then becomes a THEORY...

You guys, really, do I have to keep going into this? I really do not want to get into this all the time...

LOL, just like typical scientists, never accept being wrong. I would accept me being wrong because your trying to explain what theory is, but then there is still no arguement because I had given the deffinition. So I don't know where the both of you get off saying that I'm wrong, meanwhile the only thing I've done was given you information...

So long, hope you re-read my links to get the whole just of it.

G3N0M3

Wow, did you even read your own links? Did you know laws are used in making theories?

Fact < Hypothesis < Law < Theory.

Just like typical scientists we don't like misuse of scientific terminology, who's own links tell them such and are too ignorant to learn.

THEORIES DO NOT BECOME ANYTHING ELSE. THEY ALWAYS REMAIN THEORIES.

Quote

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

From: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

From your link. How dare you accuse me of not reading it when here is YOUR link contradicting YOUR post.
Don't tell me to learn about science when you get basic facts wrong. A theory is the how and why, you links even say so.

Quote

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works,what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

Oh look same link is contradicting you again. Well done.

Both you an tinnie seriously need to learn what a scientific theory is because right now you both look wilfully ignorant.


And in non-oversimplified examples a theory isn't made from just one hypothesis.

This post has been edited by Mattshark: 19 November 2009 - 02:44 AM

[Agent. Mulder]

checkmate, gin and yahtzee.
Nice MS

[tinieblas]

*sigh* why must it always be a competition with you two rather than what should be a relaxed and polite discussion as it was intended? The question here was, I believe " Are you trying to learn Telekenisis?" ; not "Is Telekinesis real or made up?" ....maybe for those of you who encourage reading things, you should read the title of the thread and not keep going off topic in order to persist on your personal debunking agenda rather than contributing?

Of course derailing threads is what you and Matt are all about it would seem......

[Mattshark]

tinieblas, on 19 November 2009 - 05:08 AM, said:

*sigh* why must it always be a competition with you two rather than what should be a relaxed and polite discussion as it was intended? The question here was, I believe " Are you trying to learn Telekenisis?" ; not "Is Telekinesis real or made up?" ....maybe for those of you who encourage reading things, you should read the title of the thread and not keep going off topic in order to persist on your personal debunking agenda rather than contributing?

Of course derailing threads is what you and Matt are all about it would seem......

Give over Tinnie, I politely pointed out (as I did for you) a misunderstanding of the term scientific theory. G3NOM3 then decided to dig his own hole.

[G3N0M3]

Mattshark, on 19 November 2009 - 06:07 AM, said:

Give over Tinnie, I politely pointed out (as I did for you) a misunderstanding of the term scientific theory. G3NOM3 then decided to dig his own hole.

Matt.. I hope I don't have to include you in this childish game...

Agree to disagree;

Otherwise keep up the good posting, keep it within the thread and its subject... If you have a point to prove or an opinion your going to uphold please share it... Even if it gets tiring of typing it out every time, just dont do what I'm doing with this stupid game... I'm right your wrong crap, is anoying, childish and should stop please...

Just to include information about this thread; If anyone reading this is tired of reading about sad, and pethetic bickering between individuals over the stupidest things. Listen up, there are many threads that can help you learn telekinesis, in which I have linked much information on the subject. My personal advice is to practice meditating at first, then make a 'contraption' which is mentioned in these threads. Some are psi wheels (personaly don't approve) and others deal with strings, wires, and metallic objects incased in glass.

The largest and most widespread missconception about this ability is that you can "wake up" with it... You can not learn how to master or even use it within a couple months or even a couple years. This subject is not for the faint of heart, nor short on time. It takes a lot of dillegence and concintration, in which turn will help build other skills along the way, such as focus, and dependability.

Another subject that should be studied; Qi Gong, Tai Chi and other centering and physical aiding systems such as Yoga:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi_Gong
  
• http://en.wikipedia....i/Tai_chi_chuan
  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga

If anyone wants any help with things other than telekinesis you can contact me through PM, the only experience I have in it is moving a battery uphill multiple times in one shot. But it must have been a fluke, or something along the lines... Though I have never tried practicing for a couple years since that happened.

G3N0M3

This post has been edited by G3N0M3: 19 November 2009 - 07:30 PM

[Mattshark]

G3N0M3, on 19 November 2009 - 07:25 PM, said:

Matt.. I hope I don't have to include you in this childish game...

Agree to disagree;

Otherwise keep up the good posting, keep it within the thread and its subject... If you have a point to prove or an opinion your going to uphold please share it... Even if it gets tiring of typing it out every time, just dont do what I'm doing with this stupid game... I'm right your wrong crap, is anoying, childish and should stop please...

Just to include information about this thread; If anyone reading this is tired of reading about sad, and pethetic bickering between individuals over the stupidest things. Listen up, there are many threads that can help you learn telekinesis, in which I have linked much information on the subject. My personal advice is to practice meditating at first, then make a 'contraption' which is mentioned in these threads. Some are psi wheels (personaly don't approve) and others deal with strings, wires, and metallic objects incased in glass.

The largest and most widespread missconception about this ability is that you can "wake up" with it... You can not learn how to master or even use it within a couple months or even a couple years. This subject is not for the faint of heart, nor short on time. It takes a lot of dillegence and concintration, in which turn will help build other skills along the way, such as focus, and dependability.

Another subject that should be studied; Qi Gong, Tai Chi and other centering and physical aiding systems such as Yoga:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi_Gong
  
• http://en.wikipedia....i/Tai_chi_chuan
  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga

If anyone wants any help with things other than telekinesis you can contact me through PM, the only experience I have in it is moving a battery uphill multiple times in one shot. But it must have been a fluke, or something along the lines... Though I have never tried practicing for a couple years since that happened.

G3N0M3

I'm not talking about any of those things, all I did was point out a common but important error in terminology and you went off ranting. Sorry terminology is not a matter of opinion.