Remember me
▼ Content

How would YOU know? It's a valid question.



Page 2 of 2<12
03-05-2024 02:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
How would YOU know?

RQAA
Im a BM wrote:
Why should anyone believe YOU?

RQAA
Im a BM wrote:
It was tempting to mock your style and add "..., dumbass".

Or remind you that "You are a nothing" "You are a moron" "You are a liar" as you so often felt compelled to write to me and many others who were foolish enough to try to have a rational discussion on this website.

You are not having a rational discussion. You are locked in five different paradoxes.
Im a BM wrote:
I think I'm done with the experiment of directly engaging with you.

You're a liar as well. I know you won't leave. You can't. You crave attention too much.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: And nobody calls anyone "scientifically illiterate"03-05-2024 02:48
sealover
★★★★☆
(1616)
keepit wrote:
ibd,
The issue im a bm is pointing out is not the definition of a moron. He and i are pointing out that calling people morons isn't done in scientific circles, at least not in the usa.



Yes, keepit, it is definitely a "tell" when their first resort is to call someone a "moron".

Within a few hours of my very first post, the senior troll and his second rate sidekick had both informed me: "You are a moron"

It's not just that legitimate scientists don't call others "morons", they don't call them "retards" or "idiots" or even just "dumb" or "stupid".

They might tell them they are wrong about the point being discussed.

It might even get heated enough where they might call the ARGUMENT being made "dumb" or "stupid".

But they don't do the personal attack thing.

And a term that I never heard anyone use before I came to this website is "scientifically illiterate".

I have since adopted it, exclusively for use here, because it is such obvious projection that I figure it must be a sensitive point of insecurity.
03-05-2024 04:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
keepit wrote: ibd, The issue im a bm is pointing out is not the definition of a moron. He and i are pointing out that calling people morons isn't done in scientific circles, at least not in the usa.

keepit, how would you know?

Are morons ever identified outside of scientific circles, e.g. political internet sites?

sealover wrote: Yes, keepit, it is definitely a "tell" when their first resort is to call someone a "moron".

Yes, keepit, it is definitely a "tell" when a moron begins preaching physics violations, followed up by claims of being a thettled thientitht.

sealover wrote: Within a few hours of my very first post, the senior troll and his second rate sidekick had both informed me: "You are a moron"

Soon after your first Global Warming sermon, you were politely asked to define your terms and to support your apparent physics violations. You could not and thus would not, and instead opted to feign indignance by absurdly proclaiming that scientists don't define their terms, because doing so would be engaging in word games.

You broadcast to the board that you were a scientifically illiterate moron immediately upon arrival.

Remind me how that was somehow my fault.

sealover wrote: It's not just that legitimate scientists don't call others "morons", they don't call them "retards" or "idiots" or even just "dumb" or "stupid".

Scientists call idiots "idiots" because that's the correct word in English to express that characteristic. Same with the others.

sealover wrote: They might tell them they are wrong about the point being discussed.

That was done as well. You were given ample opportunity to explain and to clarify, but to this date, you have not clarified anything, preferring instead to remain indistinguishable from a scientifically illiterate moron who can't answer any of the questions posed to him.

sealover wrote: And a term that I never heard anyone use before I came to this website is "scientifically illiterate".

I can easily understand how you sat around with a group of other scientifically illiterate losers who all told yourselves that you were all thienth geniutheth. After all, you ran the gamma-spec! I bet that impressed the ladies at happy hour.
03-05-2024 04:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
sealover wrote:
keepit wrote:
ibd,
The issue im a bm is pointing out is not the definition of a moron. He and i are pointing out that calling people morons isn't done in scientific circles, at least not in the usa.



Yes, keepit, it is definitely a "tell" when their first resort is to call someone a "moron".

Not a 'tell'. You don't even know what a 'tell' is in poker.
sealover wrote:
Within a few hours of my very first post, the senior troll and his second rate sidekick had both informed me: "You are a moron"

It's not just that legitimate scientists don't call others "morons", they don't call them "retards" or "idiots" or even just "dumb" or "stupid".

You don't get to speak for everyone, Sock. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.
sealover wrote:
They might tell them they are wrong about the point being discussed.

It might even get heated enough where they might call the ARGUMENT being made "dumb" or "stupid".

But they don't do the personal attack thing.
You don't get to speak for everyone, Sock.
sealover wrote:
And a term that I never heard anyone use before I came to this website is "scientifically illiterate".
I'm sure you've heard someone use that term before coming here. Are you really that naive?

......never mind. I already know the answer.
sealover wrote:
I have since adopted it, exclusively for use here, because it is such obvious projection that I figure it must be a sensitive point of insecurity.

So you feel insecure, do you?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Is nitrogen an element or a chemical?04-05-2024 19:00
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
What is nitrogen?

No discussion can go forward without an "unambiguous definition".

Well, the Periodic Table has this element with the symbol N.

Nitrogen is N. Nitrogen is an element.


But wait!

Chemistry books have this chemical compound with the symbol N2.

Nitrogen is N2. Nitrogen is a chemical.


But wait!

"Science" requires an "unambiguous definition" before we can even TALK about "nitrogen"


Error.... does not compute... error... does not compute... error... error... error...


"Nitrogen" has been proven to be a "meaningless buzzword"
05-05-2024 03:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
Im a BM wrote: What is nitrogen?

That depends. You have to state the context/namespace. Within the context of chemistry, nitrogen is the molecule N2. Within the namespace chemistry.elements, nitrogen is the element N as defined on the periodic table of the elements.

Im a BM wrote: No discussion can go forward without an "unambiguous definition".

Now you have it. Is there any other chemistry you'd like me to teach you?
06-05-2024 23:56
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: My experience of "debating" science with ibd is ...


blah blah blah

Im a BM wrote: Pretty sure he'll refuse to answer if he has any valid claim to refer to himself as one of the "resident science experts",


blah blah blah

Im a BM wrote: and he'll dodge taking any position on the very straightforward chemistry question: Are hydrogen ions protons?

The correct terms used by chemists are hydrogen cations or hydronium ions, when used in the chemistry context of molecules. The term "proton" is used within the context of chemical reactions. The context needs to be stated unambiguously up front.

... but you are being dishonest here. You are pretending to mock Into the Night for correctly stating that hydrogen is not a proton. You do this sort of thing whenever you get caught making an error that no chemist would make, and you will never admit to having made a chemistry error.




ITN said that hydrogen ION is not a proton

I think that there was a typo in the definition provided above.

First, some technical points. "The correct terms used by chemists are hydrogen cations or hydronium ions when used in chemistry in the context of molecules."
[/b]
It is very rare for anyone to call them "hydrogen cations" although it is perfectly correct. More commonly used is "hydronium ion". But the MOST common term used by chemists to refer to H+ is "proton". Period.

"The term 'proton' is used within in the context of chemical reactions."


This is absolutely correct. And those "chemical reactions" are acid-base chemistry.

However, I think it was a typo.

I think the resident science expert meant to say "nuclear reactions".

I think that the attempt was to pretend that only nuclear physicists use the term "proton".

Of course, the inability to remember or notice the difference between "chemical reactions" and "nuclear reactions" is consistent with being scientifically illiterate in general.

Still, I suppose we are supposed to bow to his authority on all matters scientific.
07-05-2024 00:33
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
Many assertions are made in discussion websites.

Most of them do not include citable references.

They may or may not be unsupported contrarian assertions made purely for the sake of "debate".

Or they may be completely valid and accurate.

When an assertion is made with definitive authority about science, it is a valid question to ask:

How would YOU know?

Why should anyone believe YOU?[/quote]




Let's imagine that there is "debate" about whether or not, for example, hydrogen ion (H+) is a proton. One insists that it is, the other insists that it is not.

Who do we believe?

As an observer, I might ask each of them:

"How would YOU know?"

One says he has advanced degrees in chemistry from prestigious universities, and is the author of widely cited publications about chemistry in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The other says he has a finely tuned bullshit detector and a proton is a proton.

I think I'll believe the one who says that hydrogen ion IS a proton.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The inspiration for this thread was discussion in which one member asserted that hydrogen ion is NOT a proton.

Doubling down, and reasserting multiple times that NO, chemists do NOT use the term "proton" to refer to hydrogen ion (H+) in acid-base chemistry.

On this thread, he evades the original question, as usual.

Here, he does not repeat the explicit claim that hydrogen ION is not a proton.

Here, he simply asserts that "Hydrogen is not a proton."

Well, I'm glad we got THAT straightened out.
07-05-2024 18:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
Im a BM wrote: One says he has advanced degrees in chemistry from prestigious universities, and is the author of widely cited publications about chemistry in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Does this claimant of "advanced degrees" know the difference between "chemistry" and "chemical reactions"?
07-05-2024 18:25
keepit
★★★★★
(3181)
ibd,
It's simple. If someone doesn't agree with your group's mindset you think they're wrong. That's pretty funny!
07-05-2024 18:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
keepit wrote: ibd, It's simple. If someone doesn't agree with your group's mindset you think they're wrong. That's pretty funny!

keepit, it's simple. You think that science is a subjective matter of opinion. That's pretty funny.
07-05-2024 19:55
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
keepit wrote:
ibd,
It's simple. If someone doesn't agree with your group's mindset you think they're wrong. That's pretty funny!





Keepit is right, of course.

A "debate" that declares "unambiguous definitions" are required in "science".

Convoluted word games, with no scientific validity.

Denigrating the scientific knowledge of others without ever ONCE offering any reason to believe they know what they are talking about.

But the bottom line is simple.

The only goal is to be a troll.
07-05-2024 19:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: One says he has advanced degrees in chemistry from prestigious universities, and is the author of widely cited publications about chemistry in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Does this claimant of "advanced degrees" know the difference between "chemistry" and "chemical reactions"?

Obviously not.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-05-2024 20:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
keepit wrote:
ibd,
It's simple. If someone doesn't agree with your group's mindset you think they're wrong. That's pretty funny!





Keepit is right, of course.

A "debate" that declares "unambiguous definitions" are required in "science".

Convoluted word games, with no scientific validity.

Denigrating the scientific knowledge of others without ever ONCE offering any reason to believe they know what they are talking about.

But the bottom line is simple.

The only goal is to be a troll.

You are just describing yourself, Sock. You cannot project YOUR problems onto anybody else.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-05-2024 20:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
Im a BM wrote: Keepit is right, of course.

keepit is never right, of course.

Im a BM wrote: A "debate" that declares "unambiguous definitions" are required in "science".

... isn't a complete sentence. Why do you pretend to discuss science when you don't really understand any?

Im a BM wrote: Convoluted word games, with no scientific validity.

There is no science without unambiguously defined terms.

Im a BM wrote: Denigrating the scientific knowledge of others ...

Global Warming theology is not scientific knowledge.

Im a BM wrote: ... without ever ONCE offering any reason to believe ...

Science has nothing to do with beliefs. You are talking about religion.

Im a BM wrote: ... they know what they are talking about.

Neither you nor keepit know anything about science. You are both losers and you are both dishonest. Your only accomplishments are 1: convincing others who wrote a paper on polyphenols to add your name to the list of authors to make it appear that you somehow authored a document, and 2: testifying in court.

You should learn what science is before you try to con people into believing that you are a thuper thientitht.

But the bottom line is simple. Your only goal is to be a troll.
07-05-2024 20:15
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
keepit wrote:
ibd,
It's simple. If someone doesn't agree with your group's mindset you think they're wrong. That's pretty funny!





Keepit is right, of course.

A "debate" that declares "unambiguous definitions" are required in "science".

Convoluted word games, with no scientific validity.

Denigrating the scientific knowledge of others without ever ONCE offering any reason to believe they know what they are talking about.

But the bottom line is simple.

The only goal is to be a troll.

You are just describing yourself, Sock. You cannot project YOUR problems onto anybody else.







"You cannot project YOUR problems onto anybody else."

REFUSING to answer the very straightforward question.

In the context of BOTH "chemistry" AND "chemical reactions".

Is hydrogen ion (H+) correctly referred to as a "proton"?

Or even more easy to find the answer.

Is "proton" the term most often used by chemists to refer to H+?

Two possible answers - either "yes" or "no".

Instead we get. "Hydrogen is not a proton".

And the troll expects to be taken seriously?
07-05-2024 21:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
keepit wrote:
ibd,
It's simple. If someone doesn't agree with your group's mindset you think they're wrong. That's pretty funny!





Keepit is right, of course.

A "debate" that declares "unambiguous definitions" are required in "science".

Convoluted word games, with no scientific validity.

Denigrating the scientific knowledge of others without ever ONCE offering any reason to believe they know what they are talking about.

But the bottom line is simple.

The only goal is to be a troll.

You are just describing yourself, Sock. You cannot project YOUR problems onto anybody else.







"You cannot project YOUR problems onto anybody else."

REFUSING to answer the very straightforward question.

In the context of BOTH "chemistry" AND "chemical reactions".

Is hydrogen ion (H+) correctly referred to as a "proton"?

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-05-2024 23:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
Im a BM wrote:REFUSING to answer the very straightforward question. ... And the troll expects to be taken seriously?

What troll won't answer very straightforward questions? Hint: This particular troll expects to be taken seriously.

I'll give you three guesses.
08-05-2024 04:09
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
Many assertions are made in discussion websites.

Most of them do not include citable references.

They may or may not be unsupported contrarian assertions made purely for the sake of "debate".

Or they may be completely valid and accurate.

When an assertion is made with definitive authority about science, it is a valid question to ask:

How would YOU know?

Why should anyone believe YOU?[/quote]




Let's imagine that there is "debate" about whether or not, for example, hydrogen ion (H+) is a proton. One insists that it is, the other insists that it is not.

Who do we believe?

As an observer, I might ask each of them:

"How would YOU know?"

One says he has advanced degrees in chemistry from prestigious universities, and is the author of widely cited publications about chemistry in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The other says he has a finely tuned bullshit detector and a proton is a proton.

I think I'll believe the one who says that hydrogen ion IS a proton.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The inspiration for this thread was discussion in which one member asserted that hydrogen ion is NOT a proton.

Doubling down, and reasserting multiple times that NO, chemists do NOT use the term "proton" to refer to hydrogen ion (H+) in acid-base chemistry.

On this thread, he completely evades the original question, as usual.

Here, he does not repeat the explicit claim that hydrogen ION is not a proton.

Certainly does not try to support the anti scientific assertion made repeatedly in previous discussion.

Here, he simply asserts that "Hydrogen is not a proton."

Well, I'm glad we got THAT straightened out.
08-05-2024 06:11
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
The inspiration for this thread was a recent discussion on the "Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean" Thread.

The PhD biogeochemist author of the thread stated that:

"When chemists refer to a 'proton', it is virtually always a reference to the hydrogen ion (H+)"

To this, Into the Night responded:

"Nope. It means a proton and nothing else. You cannot rename a proton to something else. Redefinition fallacy."

The assertion was repeated again and again. Nope. Hydrogen ion is NOT a proton.

On this thread, there has been a pivot to "Hydrogen is not a proton", as the clarifying final answer. ("RQAA")

Well, it's a good thing we finally got THAT straightened out!

--------------------------------------------------------

Many assertions are made in discussion websites.

Most of them do not include citable references.

They may or may not be unsupported contrarian assertions made purely for the sake of "debate".

Or they may be completely valid and accurate.

When an assertion is made with definitive authority about science, it is a valid question to ask:

How would YOU know?

Why should anyone believe YOU?


Let's imagine that there is "debate" about whether or not, for example, hydrogen ion (H+) is a proton. One insists that it is, the other insists that it is not.

Who do we believe?

As an observer, I might ask each of them:

"How would YOU know?"

One says he has advanced degrees in chemistry from prestigious universities, and is the author of widely cited publications about chemistry in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The other says he has a finely tuned bullshit detector and a proton is a proton.

I think I'll believe the one who says that hydrogen ion IS a proton.
08-05-2024 08:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
Many assertions are made in discussion websites.

Most of them do not include citable references.

They may or may not be unsupported contrarian assertions made purely for the sake of "debate".

Or they may be completely valid and accurate.

When an assertion is made with definitive authority about science, it is a valid question to ask:

How would YOU know?

Why should anyone believe YOU?


Let's imagine that there is "debate" about whether or not, for example, hydrogen ion (H+) is a proton. One insists that it is, the other insists that it is not.

Who do we believe?

As an observer, I might ask each of them:

"How would YOU know?"

One says he has advanced degrees in chemistry from prestigious universities, and is the author of widely cited publications about chemistry in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The other says he has a finely tuned bullshit detector and a proton is a proton.

I think I'll believe the one who says that hydrogen ion IS a proton.

Hydrogen is not a proton. Redefinition fallacy.
Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
Science is not a journal, paper, university, publication, or redefinition fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-05-2024 09:40
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
The inspiration for this thread was a recent discussion on the "Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean" Thread.

The PhD biogeochemist author of the thread stated that:

"When chemists refer to a 'proton', it is virtually always a reference to the hydrogen ion (H+)"

To this, Into the Night responded:

"Nope. It means a proton and nothing else. You cannot rename a proton to something else. Redefinition fallacy."

The assertion was repeated again and again. Nope. Hydrogen ion is NOT a proton.

On this thread, there has been a pivot to "Hydrogen is not a proton", as the clarifying final answer. ("RQAA")

Well, it's a good thing we finally got THAT straightened out!

-------------------------------------------------------

Update: Just to make things perfectly clear, Into the Night again asserts:

"Hydrogen is not a proton."

No further questions.

--------------------------------------------------------

Many assertions are made in discussion websites.

Most of them do not include citable references.

They may or may not be unsupported contrarian assertions made purely for the sake of "debate".

Or they may be completely valid and accurate.

When an assertion is made with definitive authority about science, it is a valid question to ask:

How would YOU know?

Why should anyone believe YOU?


Let's imagine that there is "debate" about whether or not, for example, hydrogen ion (H+) is a proton. One insists that it is, the other insists that it is not.

Who do we believe?

As an observer, I might ask each of them:

"How would YOU know?"

One says he has advanced degrees in chemistry from prestigious universities, and is the author of widely cited publications about chemistry in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The other says he has a finely tuned bullshit detector and a proton is a proton.

I think I'll believe the one who says that hydrogen ion IS a proton.
08-05-2024 10:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
The inspiration...


Stop spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-05-2024 11:04
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The inspiration...


Stop spamming.





Stop WHINING!

And maybe stop trolling while you're at it.
08-05-2024 20:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The inspiration...


Stop spamming.





Stop WHINING!

And maybe stop trolling while you're at it.

You are describing yourself again. You cannot project YOUR problems on anybody else.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: "Unambiguous definition" = Neverending word games09-05-2024 21:57
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
One of the false claims that is repeated endlessly on this website is the idea that "science" requires an "unambiguous definition" for every term in every discussion.

Never mind if that term is found in any dictionary, and virtually everyone who uses it knows exactly what they are all trying to say.

It is just an excuse to avoid citing any meaningful references, prevent any meaningful discussion from going forward, and derail it from science to word games.

The latest word games include trying to pretend that "chemistry" and "chemical reactions" are mutually exclusive categories.

To disguise the fact that our tenured trolls didn't even understand what little chemistry they may or may not have been exposed to in high school.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im a BM wrote:
The inspiration for this thread was a recent discussion on the "Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean" Thread.

The PhD biogeochemist author of the thread stated that:

"When chemists refer to a 'proton', it is virtually always a reference to the hydrogen ion (H+)"

To this, Into the Night responded:

"Nope. It means a proton and nothing else. You cannot rename a proton to something else. Redefinition fallacy."

The assertion was repeated again and again. Nope. Hydrogen ion is NOT a proton.

On this thread, there has been a pivot to "Hydrogen is not a proton", as the clarifying final answer. ("RQAA")

Well, it's a good thing we finally got THAT straightened out!

-------------------------------------------------------

Update: Just to make things perfectly clear, Into the Night again asserts:

"Hydrogen is not a proton."

No further questions.

--------------------------------------------------------

Many assertions are made in discussion websites.

Most of them do not include citable references.

They may or may not be unsupported contrarian assertions made purely for the sake of "debate".

Or they may be completely valid and accurate.

When an assertion is made with definitive authority about science, it is a valid question to ask:

How would YOU know?

Why should anyone believe YOU?


Let's imagine that there is "debate" about whether or not, for example, hydrogen ion (H+) is a proton. One insists that it is, the other insists that it is not.

Who do we believe?

As an observer, I might ask each of them:

"How would YOU know?"

One says he has advanced degrees in chemistry from prestigious universities, and is the author of widely cited publications about chemistry in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The other says he has a finely tuned bullshit detector and a proton is a proton.

I think I'll believe the one who says that hydrogen ion IS a proton.
10-05-2024 00:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
One of the false claims that is repeated endlessly on this website is the idea that "science" requires an "unambiguous definition" for every term in every discussion.

Not a false claim. Science requires unambiguous definitions for everything. Science is not buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Never mind if that term is found in any dictionary, and virtually everyone who uses it knows exactly what they are all trying to say.

Science is not a dictionary.
Im a BM wrote:
It is just an excuse to avoid citing any meaningful references, prevent any meaningful discussion from going forward, and derail it from science to word games.

You are describing yourself again.
Im a BM wrote:
The latest word games include trying to pretend that "chemistry" and "chemical reactions" are mutually exclusive categories.

Not a word game. They are.
Im a BM wrote:
To disguise the fact that our tenured trolls didn't even understand what little chemistry they may or may not have been exposed to in high school.


You are describing yourself again.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate How would YOU know? It's a valid question.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
General Question in General Forum.16128-05-2024 08:33
12V DC motor question2418-02-2024 23:24
Just one simple question3925-10-2023 02:31
Honest Question for Christians10229-12-2022 16:57
Question for Fauci and Rand Paul about covid 19. Sir's are there any classified files on covid 191802-12-2022 13:48
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact