So to refute that definition there are numerous options:
For example, by pointing out that you require it to be a theory for it to be evidence, but in order for it to be a theory it must have evidence for it.
That means nothing can ever become a theory because nothing will ever get evidence for it unless it is a theory.
Or you could not be a moron and accept 'theory' can mean, to use the first definition you get on google, "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." No evidence required.
So you accept that there is nothing scientific about your definitions or model at all? Thanks.
I'm not the one being a moron here.
This is my problem with you. You intentionally act moronic. You zoom in on the one specific definition of one specific word and poke holes in that when anyone with even a slither of a brain can tell you it's pretty fucking clearly not the definition that's being used.
So you bitch and moan that we are discussing semantics, for a discussion on semantics.
You know that words have multiple meanings.
You are pretending your model is scientific.
In the realm of science a theory has a very specific definition.
It isn't insane to act like that is the definition you should be using.
There is also a big difference between a "theory" and a model.
A "theory" can be quite vague, just crap like "earth is flat" and can completely contradict itself.
A model can't. In order for it to be a model, it requires a degree of specificity, it must be internally consistent, it must be capable of predicting things.
So it still doesn't match.
Then there is the option of pointing out what you have claimed many times, an observation or the like can be evidence for multiple possibilities.
It doesn't matter what alternatives there are and how many assumptions they have, it is still evidence for a particular model so the second line is pure bullshit.
This is self-contradictory bullshit. Yes, one observation can be evidence for multiple possibilities, so to be evidence for a model we have to be able to minimize assumptions. Yet more pointless whinging.
No. This is not self contradictory bullshit. But your claims about it is.
This part here sums it up best:
"Yes, one observation can be evidence for multiple possibilities, so to be evidence for a
model we have to be able to minimize assumptions."
You are claiming that it can be evidence for multiple possibilities, these possibilities are the models.
So you are claiming it can be evidence for multiple models.
But then say it has to minimise assumptions to be evidence.
You also say that just because things are evidence for RET that doesn't mean they can't be evidence for other theories/models.
You can't have it both ways. PICK ONE, can it be evidence for multiple models, or just one?
Notice how it doesn't cover all possibilities.
Which you've yet to show. You provided some masturbatory whining which makes zero sense and is pure semantic garbage
And there you go again, dismissing semantics in a discussion purely on semantics.
You started this discussion purely for semantics, to bitch about what things mean, and then you complain and bitch and moan when people start using semantics?
Do you want a discussion on the meaning of words or not?
I provided rational arguments against your crap.
While my arguments made sense, yours do not. You contradicted yourself yet again. This time in the same sentence.
you don't get to use the "But we're talking about the definition of a word!" excuse because we are talking about a specific, given definition of a word.
No, that isn't an excuse, it is a simple fact.
We are talking about the definition of a word, a word which you defined and refuse to admit you were wrong about.
You're actively and willfully misinterpreting a plainly stated post because you're incapable of honest and serious discussion, and it is beyond pathetic.
No. I'm pointing out the problems with your definition because you asked for it.
I have tried having honest and serious discussion with you but you just resort to crap like this.
You were the one that brought up this pathetic discussion, and before you try to blame us, don't. You continually appealed to your BS website claiming you had a section entitled "evidence" and thus there is plenty of evidence for your BS.
That is why we pointed out your definition is BS and your "evidence" section contains no evidence.
And, as ever, if you had actual issues you would be able to provide an example, not an abstract
Why would I need to provide examples when you already claimed they exist on your website and have repeatedly claimed them here?
For example, sun sets, clear evidence of a round Earth, which you claim is also evidence for your pile of shit.
So I'm done with your infantile bullshit until you can actually respond to the challenge, or provide an actual third option for an answer that a fucking five year old couldn't see through. Grow up.
I have, you are the one being childish. Sticking your fingers in your ears and insulting people instead of admitting you were wrong.