Being as a number of mods (myself, Backfire, and Ush) have posted quite a bit in this thread, and there's been no reports on it...apparently people think it's fine.
I certainly don't think it's trolling or anything, I think you're just being a bit oversensitive, Fece. It's not at all attacking Christians or religious people at all. It's a satire commenting on how people think ID should be taught in science classes.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Hoboy..here we go...Where is the testable hypothesii that proves mutations can form new species!!!(and don't give me that damn fruit fly experiment..the fruit fly stayed a damn fruit fly!!)
How is the damn idea that life evolved from a few random mutations possible..if mutations are generally found to be degenerative within nature and the possiblity of a freaking beneficial mutation occuring in Nature over a billion year period is like a billion to 1?!!!
How the hell can you not see how irrational you sound?!!
A question, if you would: how different does something have to be before it is not the same. People have mutated before (six fingers, one eye, facial hair on females, etc.), but they are still considered human. However, each person is thought of as distinct due to their different genetic makeup (you aren't going to deny the existence of DNA are you?). So how different must someone be until they aren't considered of the same species? For a time, Africans were not considered human because they looked different, but they are of genus homo sapien. But the differences between, say, dogs are based on appearance and structure. But aforementioned dogs can cross-breed, so are humans all of one species that have a giant variation rate, or are we many different classes of homo sapien, because if we are, any time people of different races reproduced, a new species is created.
Oh, and how unlikely is it that things evolved over a billion years? About the same as how unlikely it is that you were created after a few thousand years. Think about it, genetic variation throughout time, with the millions of variables involved in the production of each and every one of your anscestors makes your existance highly unlikely. But you do exist, therefore, you overcame overwhelming odds in simply existing, as did every person alive right now. And just so you know, not everything was thought to be a beneficial mutation. Wolves were originally a marine mammal, and since 70% of the world is made of water, their possible habitable environments have been reduced since they came on land. Do you call that beneficial? Or how about something closer to home: homo erectus and the cro magnum men are thought to have been much stronger on average. If we only evolved, then we would be stronger, but also intelligent.
Originally posted by Lana
What a case of making clueless accusations...actually, he is.
I hope you mean he's a scientist..because the man definately has no place being an English Teacher.
Originally posted by Lana
Valid needn't always mean 'true'. It can also mean 'relevant', which it does in this case.
So you can now change the definitions of words in the Dictionary? lol..not only has your theory evolved..but now the terminology behind your arguments has evolved as well...
Synonyms for "valid"
accurate, attested, authentic, authoritative, binding, bona fide, cogent, compelling, conclusive, confirmed, convincing, credible, determinative, efficacious, efficient, good, in force, irrefutable, just, kosher, lawful, legal, legit, legitimate, logical, official, original, persuasive, potent, powerful, proven, pure, right, solid, sound, stringent, strong, substantial, telling, tested, true, trustworthy, ultimate, unadulterated, unanswerable, uncorrupted, weighty, well-founded, well-grounded
Do you see relevance in there? Relevance means "of or relating to"..it does not denote something as being "true"
Why the hell am I even still arguing this? You guys are just continuing to look like a bunch of fools with this argument..trust me. Ush used the word wrong in the sentence. And now you've just demonstrated that you don't even know what relevant means. Have you not learned anything from our Buddhism is a religion argument..just let this particular argument die. You guys are clearly wrong about this particular point.
Originally posted by Lana
Mathematical constants (ie NUMBERS) are used in formulas in science that are based in theory. Take e=mc². e is energy, m is mass, c is the speed of light. We don't KNOW exactly what the speed of light is, it's simply an arbitrary number. What it is exactly isn't important. We could use pi in it's place for all it matters. The pull of gravity is 9.8 m/s² for use in calculations....however, we don't KNOW for sure if this is what it is exactly.Do you understand? Math is used in science (chemistry and physics in particular), but the formulas and numbers used are based in theories.
As for the whole absolutes argument of yours....the ONLY way you can prove something to be 100% absolute is to be able to observe EVERY single instance in which it occurs. As this is impossible, it is therefore impossible to claim something to be absolute.
Science is said to have nothing to be absolutely proven because 1) that's impossible and 2) it is always changing. It's a simple as that. Really, it's not a hard concept to at all understand, I do not see why it continues to elude you. I figured this out at the age of 11.
Originally posted by Usgarak
Maths IS about fact in contrary to the scientific method.
Well put Ush...
Math embodies absolutes..and facts.
Much of Scientific theory is based on mathemetical equations and Mathematical constants(NUMBERS).
A constant does not change, and represents something that is true.
Therefore..simply put..there are indeed facts/truths within science.
For the love of pete..was it that hard for you all to understand this.
The whole statement of "scientific fact" being an oxymoron is ridiculous..and demonstrates that the person who posted it..as well as those who believe what he posted..are completely exists within another world of logic/reason. Without anything being assumed to be constant/factual/or an absolute within science..there'd be no way of determining anything..simple common sense stuff guys..
Originally posted by crazylozer
A question, if you would: how different does something have to be before it is not the same. People have mutated before (six fingers, one eye, facial hair on females, etc.), but they are still considered human. However, each person is thought of as distinct due to their different genetic makeup (you aren't going to deny the existence of DNA are you?). So how different must someone be until they aren't considered of the same species? For a time, Africans were not considered human because they looked different, but they are of genus homo sapien. But the differences between, say, dogs are based on appearance and structure. But aforementioned dogs can cross-breed, so are humans all of one species that have a giant variation rate, or are we many different classes of homo sapien, because if we are, any time people of different races reproduced, a new species is created.
Do you believe there is a limit to the variation that occurs in nature?
Oh, and how unlikely is it that things evolved over a billion years? About the same as how unlikely it is that you were created after a few thousand years. Think about it, genetic variation throughout time, with the millions of variables involved in the production of each and every one of your anscestors makes your existance highly unlikely. But you do exist, therefore, you overcame overwhelming odds in simply existing, as did every person alive right now. And just so you know, not everything was thought to be a beneficial mutation. Wolves were originally a marine mammal, and since 70% of the world is made of water, their possible habitable environments have been reduced since they came on land. Do you call that beneficial? Or how about something closer to home: homo erectus and the cro magnum men are thought to have been much stronger on average. If we only evolved, then we would be stronger, but also intelligent.
Sigh..is it logical to assume..that a jigsaw puzzle could put itself together after a 100 years..how about a 1000? keep on adding the years on my friend..and tell me the likelyhood of this happening.
Now do you believe that there is a significantly greater chance..of a person putting the puzzle together after 100 years? Hell I don't even think we need to give it a hundered years..I believe 1 will be sufficient.
So you tell me..which one has the greater likelyhood of happening..the puzzle assembling itself..or someone coming and putting it together.
The things about Wolves being marine animals is conjecture my friend..unless you want to point me to some amphibian dog hybrid fossils.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I hope you mean he's a scientist..because the man definately has no place being an English Teacher.
Whob, Allow me to point out that you have absolutely no right to be telling anybody else off for poor usage of the English language. It is extremely laughable that you said that on the same page in which you were quoted as saying this monstrosity of a sentence:
"Where is the testable hypothesii that proves mutations can form new species!!!"
Now, I'm not sure if you were trying to say this:
Where are the testable hypotheses that prove mutations can form new species?!
Or this:
Where is the testable hypothesis that proves mutations can form new species?!
If the first example is what you were attempting to communicate, the plural of "hypothesis" is "hypotheses", not "hypothesii", and the verb tenses do not match up with the plural noun. If the second example is what you were trying to say, you merely made a typo. However, one should be extremely careful about typos when accusing others of being unfit for the title of English teacher. Either way, you made at least one hideous grammatical error, using three exclamation points in place of a question mark.
*cough*
Originally posted by Lana
Holy ****ing shit.I swear, the logic (or seeming lack thereof) of some people simply defies belief.
Two questions, whob, that you need to answer.
1) Where is your evidence that a higher intelligence exists, the one that supposedly created everything?
2) If everything was created by a higher intelligence, then why are there so many imperfections in this world in general, and humans in particular?I note that you skipped over my post before asking for evidence of such a higher being. I suppose that you did so because you could produce no such thing.
And you say others avoid things.....
Going to just skip this again?
Originally posted by Darth Revan
Whob, Allow me to point out that you have absolutely no right to be telling anybody else off for poor usage of the English language. It is extremely laughable that you said that on the same page in which you were quoted as saying this monstrosity of a sentence:[B]"Where is the testable hypothesii that proves mutations can form new species!!!"
Now, I'm not sure if you were trying to say this:
Where are the testable hypotheses that prove mutations can form new species?!
Or this:
Where is the testable hypothesis that proves mutations can form new species?!
If the first example is what you were attempting to communicate, the plural of "hypothesis" is "hypotheses", not "hypothesii", and the verb tenses do not match up with the plural noun. If the second example is what you were trying to say, you merely made a typo. However, one should be extremely careful about typos when accusing others of being unfit for the title of English teacher. Either way, you made at least one hideous grammatical error, using three exclamation points in place of a question mark. [/B]
I never admitted to being a perfectionist when it comes to grammar when posting on these boards..and I have no problem admitting to a mistake when I post it..I just believe its funny when someone make an argument about something that been defined a certain way in a dictionary. Now with that being stated..the appropriate way the question should have been phrased is...
Where is the testable hypothesis that proves mutations can form new species?!
While we're on the topic..perhaps you can answer this question..thus far..your friends have been unable to do so...
Originally posted by whobdamandog
\
Sigh..is it logical to assume..that a jigsaw puzzle could put itself together after a 100 years..how about a 1000? keep on adding the years on my friend..and tell me the likelyhood of this happening.Now do you believe that there is a significantly greater chance..of a person putting the puzzle together after 100 years? Hell I don't even think we need to give it a hundered years..I believe 1 will be sufficient.
So you tell me..which one has the greater likelyhood of happening..the puzzle assembling itself..or someone coming and putting it together.
The things about Wolves being marine animals is conjecture my friend..unless you want to point me to some amphibian dog hybrid fossils.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I never admitted to being a perfectionist when it comes to grammar when posting on these boards..and I have no problem admitting to a mistake when I post it..I just believe its funny when someone make an argument about something that been defined a certain way in a dictionary. Now with that being stated..the appropriate way the question should have been phrased is...[B]Where is the testable hypothesis that proves mutations can form new species?!
While we're on the topic..perhaps you can answer this question..thus far..your friends have been unable to do so... [/B]
I am only pointing out that one should not ***** about others' imperfections in a particular area when one is not perfect in that area themselves.
And whob, I'm afraid you missed the point of the original joke entirely. Go back and read the first post in the thread. Carefully. Try not to get angry; it may impair your judgement.
Then, you can tell me where the **** the testable hypothesis that proves the universe was created by one supreme being is.
Hmm, funny how your ridiculous attacks on Ush's grammar are equally as hypocritical as your views on the evolution/ID debate.
Originally posted by Lana
Going to just skip this again?
You miss the point my dear..I've never asserted that ID was not a methaphysical or philosophical type of belief..as I've stated many times, my argument has been that TOE is as well. I don't have to provide any more proof of an Intelligent creator..then you have to provide proof of mutations forming new creatures, life evolving from protoplasmic gooh..etc. How the hell have you missed this point Lana? Are you truly that dense?!!
I state this same damn point in just about every EVO thread.
While we're on the grammar subject...
Originally posted by Darth Revan
I am only pointing out that one should not ***** about others' imperfections in a particular area when one is not perfect in that area themselves.[conjunction should not be used at the beginning of sentence]--->And whob, I'm afraid you missed the point of the original joke entirely. Go back and read the first post in the thread. Carefully.[<--incomplete sentence] Try not to get angry; it may impair your judgement.
Then, you can tell me where the **** the testable hypothesis that proves the universe was created by [adjective misuse--subject "being" already implied to represent "one"] one supreme being is.
Hmm, funny how your ridiculous attacks on Ush's grammar are equally as hypocritical as your views on the evolution/ID debate.
What a dink..he attacks me attacking someone else's grammar...and then uses improper grammar himself..
Ain't hypocrisy grand? :laugh 😆 😆
Originally posted by whobdamandog
You miss the point my dear..I've never asserted that ID was not a methaphysical or philosophical type of belief..as I've stated many times, my argument has been that TOE is as well. I don't have to provide any more proof of an Intelligent creator..then you have to provide proof of mutations forming new creatures, life evolving from protoplasmic gooh..etc. How the hell have you missed this point Lana? Are you truly that dense?!!I state this same damn point in just about every EVO thread.
You are claiming ID to be a theory. Therefore it is on you to find evidence for it. Don't like it? Tough.
Just because you chose to ignore the evidence for evolution does not mean it does not exist. I hate to break it to you, but that's not how the real world works.
You are wrong, and as you are proven wrong over and over you are simply resorting to borderline personal attacks, which I shall warn you RIGHT now to not do. Either debate without the attacks, or do not do so at all - end of story.
Originally posted by Lana
You are claiming ID to be a theory. Therefore it is on you to find evidence for it. Don't like it? Tough.Just because you chose to ignore the evidence for evolution does not mean it does not exist. I hate to break it to you, but that's not how the real world works.
You are wrong, and as you are proven wrong over and over you are simply resorting to borderline personal attacks, which I shall warn you RIGHT now to not do. Either debate without the attacks, or do not do so at all - end of story.
I hope your warning is extends to Tpt,yourself, and many others..seeing as how you all have made many personal attacks within this forum. You only get all in a tizzy about them, when someone makes a valid point that proves your belief wrong.
Perhaps people should just learn to accept that fact that this is just a forum where one expresses their views, and not be overly sensitive when someone gives a response that doesn't support what they believe in.
There is a difference between attacking the argument and attacking the arguer.
Telling you that you have very little grasp on scientific concepts is not an attack as you've displayed just that.
Hmmm....accusing people of being overly sensitive....as I remember, it was you that started this whole argument with your inability to recognize something that is a joke. You and you alone are the one who gets in a 'tizzy' whenever someone disagrees with you.
Perhaps people should just learn to accept the fact that this is a forum where an inability to debate with logic and use valid sources is usually met with scorn and disdain.
I would like to see where you have proven anything wrong.
Originally posted by Lana
I would like to see where you have proven anything wrong. [/B]
Does science have mathematical constants Lana?
Are mutations found in nature beneficial?
Is there a testable hypothesis to the concept of "Macro Evolution"
Where are the transitionals?
Is a satire true(valid) or false?
Once again..with yours/others assistance..I've been able to pick apart your arguments, and demonstrate the logic fallacies that embody them. If you can't see this you are either
a) blind
b) delusional
c) arrogant
d) all of the above
The answer is D my dear. However..you are definately welcome to believe what you wish. Seeing as how we do live in a free country..and that freedom extends to the ignorant, as well as the informed. I've enjoyed debating with you sweety..have a nice nite. 😖leep:
Science USES them. I explained this already. Please go and re-read that post.
Most mutations are not beneficial but evolution rarely occurs though mutations, rather through a certain gene being selected (carried down through the survival of the carriers of that gene, who reproduce and continue to pass it down).
Evolution is something that takes thousands of years to occur. That is not something that we can directly observe ourselves.
Transitionals have been explained time and time again, I do get sick of repeating stuff that I've said already. Go look in one of the other damn threads.
From dictionary.com:
val·id adj.1. Well grounded; just: a valid objection.
2. Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.
3. Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title.
4. Logic.
1. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.
2. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.
5. Archaic. Of sound health; robust.
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: val·id
Pronunciation: 'va-l&d
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French valide, from Medieval Latin validus, from Latin, strong, from valEre
1 : having legal efficacy or force; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a valid contract>
2 a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>
3 : appropriate to the end in view : EFFECTIVE <every craft has its own valid methods>
4 of a taxon : conforming to accepted principles of sound biological classification
- va·lid·i·ty /v&-'li-d&-tE, va-/ noun
- val·id·ly /'va-l&d-lE/ adverb
synonyms VALID, SOUND, COGENT, CONVINCING, TELLING mean having such force as to compel serious attention and usually acceptance. VALID implies being supported by objective truth or generally accepted authority <a valid reason for being absent> <a valid marriage>. SOUND implies a basis of flawless reasoning or of solid grounds <a sound proposal for reviving the economy>. COGENT may stress either weight of sound argument and evidence or lucidity of presentation <the prosecutor's cogent summation won over the jury>. CONVINCING suggests a power to overcome doubt, opposition, or reluctance to accept <a convincing argument for welfare reform>. TELLING stresses an immediate and crucial effect striking at the heart of a matter <a telling example of bureaucratic waste>.
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
valid• adjective 1 (of a reason, argument, etc.) well based or logical. 2 legally binding or acceptable.
— DERIVATIVES validity noun validly adverb.
— ORIGIN Latin validus ‘strong’.
Well, looks like you're wrong there, hmmmm? Valid is very much an appropriate description for the satirical first post of this thread....and the word that I said it meant in this situation, relevant, which you claimed to NOT be a definition of valid....shows up as a definition of it.
You have picked apart no arguments whatsoever, and have simply displayed your own inability to understand anything that contradicts what you believe. The only one here that has displayed blindness, delusions, and arrogance, is yourself. I, unlike you, do not believe in something blindly. I never have in my life. And that's where science is different than religion. Science doesn't care less if you 'believe' it or not, it's there, it's supported. Religion and faith fall apart if you stop believing. Science is also ever-changing; theories are constantly being changed or updated as new evidence is found. Religion is rigid and doesn't change. This is why you quoting hundred-year-old sources makes you look foolish, because they are so outdated.
If you want to learn about creationism/ID. Fine. But not in a science classroom because it does not belong there. As it is grounded in religion, that's where it belongs.
And as I have told you time and time before....you do NOT have permission to call me sweety or any term similar to that. Very few people do, and you are not one of them.
Ok, more passengers on board for the 'look how stupid whob is being' express!
"By stating that there is no absolute proof to science, what you are essentially stating is that their is no absolute truth to it. "
Yes I am.
"The idea of no "absolute truths" existing in life, science, etc..is a fundemental concept that supports Humanistic Naturalism.
Your definition of "truth" is built of off of this religion."
No it isn't. It simply comes from the base principles of modern science, which is simply an extension of logic because, as I said above, to absolutely prove something you would have to demonstrate it is so in all times, in all ways, in all places. You are avoiding that, I note.
"Unfortunately, it is apparent from what you/others define "truth" to be, that much of modern scientific thought has been highjacked by Humanist Ideology. "
Even if it is true that science has become a Humanist mouthpiece- and not that many scientists are actually officially Humanists- then that's not because of any hijacking; it is simply where science has led them. They had no philisophical pre-requisite for that. The fact that Science inevitably leads down thos path should tell you something.
"When determining death, mass, Acceleration, and other scientific concepts..do we use numerical/mathematical "constants"?
Are these constants true?"
I see you skipped the death one...
They are true by Maths, yes. And an assumption science makes is that Maths is accurate. But there is no provable absolute truth to that. It would, of course, be the height of stupidity to think otherwise, but you cannot actually absolutely prove the validity of Maths. So that goes for pretty much all your questions there.
Once more- the concept of absolute proof does NOT exist in Science, no matter how much you erroneously think it does. Sorry that that unsettles you, but there yiu go.
"There are plenty of new interpretations regarding evidence deemed to "prove" Evolutionary theory."
To prove it is a valid theory, yes. But never, EVER absolutely proving that it is this way and the idea of what it is will never change. That never, ever happens in science.
"The problem with your ideas is that you try to pass them off as not being philosophical or faith based. Which is not true in the slightest. "
Ah, but it is. Once more I shall point out- science is opposed to faith directly. Science only ever attempts to draw conclusions from the evidence it produces; it constrains itself by its observations.
Faith draws conclusions first, and then never changes, ignoring any evidence to the contrary. That is the nature of such belief.
Not at this point claiming that one or the other is netter than the other, but there is a clear divide between the two. Evolutionary theory is a valid part of science, hence it is not a faith.
"Seriously..is that what your saying please clarify.."
Pausing nonly to remind whob that science studies, for example, Economics, which is nothing to do with nature at all...
... then I still do not get why you are having difficulty understanding this. You do not use the scientific method to DEFINE the scientific method. That is self-evident idiocy. People created the scientific method- it did not have to be exposed or discovered, it was simply invented, and so that is simply so. You can feel free to disbelieve the validity of the scientific method if you want, of course, though if everyone did that modern society would not exist. Regardless, we can still say without doubt what the scientific method IS, whether you think it is valid or not.
"For F*ck's sake Man..where are the damn transitionals?!!!
Where is the testable hypothesii that proves mutations can form new species!!!(and don't give me that damn fruit fly experiment..the fruit fly stayed a damn fruit fly!!)
How is the damn idea that life evolved from a few random mutations possible..if mutations are generally found to be degenerative within nature and the possiblity of a freaking beneficial mutation occuring in Nature over a billion year period is like a billion to 1?!!!
How the hell can you not see how irrational you sound?!!
If all of the crap that supports it has been proven wrong time and time again...what does that tell you about the theory"..is it based on faith..or science? For the love of the one who created you, if you get anything from this debate..I hope you at least realize that what you follow is nothing more than another faith based belief system. "
Ahh, see? Now the truth comes out. You ate just pissed that people don't agree with you in this area.
"Where are the damn transitionals" you whine, exactly as I posted about Creationists continually doing in the last thread. To quote from there:
-
"Creationists continually taunt, "But where are the transitional forms?" Every time another piece of the puzzle is put into place they want to know where the fossils are that show that the discovered animal was ancestor to any current day species. When another fossil is found that seems to fit directly between the first one and the same current day animal, they again call for "transitional forms." Apparently, somebody’s going to have to find a fossilized pregnant monkey whose fetus is a little girl or boy before some will be satisfied. "
-
It's like someone slowly completing a circle; it is obvious it is going to be a circle, but Creationists still argue it might suddenly become a rhombus halfway through.
So the answer to that- eidence for the transitional forms is all around us.
Even if that were not so, so what? The theory STILL stands because there is plenty of other evidence to support it. Even without any transitional evidence at all, Evolution is still a valid theory- simply one whose parameters are not complete, which any scientist would agree about anyway- and hence still belongs in science class, being taught as the best explanation so far. Is it absolutely proven? Nope- just the same as everything else in science, then.
To remind people:
-
"Actually... it’s perfectly acceptable to ask for evidence, and evidence is available in abundance. There is such a compelling accumulation of observation and reason, in fact, that practically the entire scientific community is united in agreement that evolution is the best explanation that we have so far of the current diversity of species. What we don’t claim to have is proof of the sort that is sometimes available for mathematical puzzles. It is by remaining open to the possibility of a better explanation that we avoid the kind of mental stagnation that defined the Dark Ages (AKA the Age of Faith). "
-
For answers to those questionsd you ask about mutations- as I say, read The Blind Watchmaker- and other books that have been recommended here. They will show you how such ideas are entirely feasible. All part of the beautiful operation of nature. You believe they are not possible- but belief is all that is. Their possiiblity has been built into scientific theory, hence, they still belong in the classroom. As has been further pointed out, it's not really the act of mutation, but of selective genes that causes evolution and its slow change.
"Valid use of satire......As you so often say to me..I'll let the public be your judge. A scientist you may be my friend..but an English teacher you ain't"
And indeed, the public IS my judge... and what do you know? The public agrees with ME! Ask people- anyone you like- to look it up in a dictionary and check my use of it.
Because, as noted, an English teacher I AM. Your opinion that I do not belong as one is totally irrelevant compared to my qualifications and the success of my classes. In my professional capacity, I can tell you that your use of English there is appalling. Really very very bad indeed.
Valid does INDEED meen relevant, or appropriate, or proper, as was the use I gave it- any dictionary will tell you that. Of course, it also means 'true; as you keep saying, and as I keep saying but somehow you still wish to ignore, I was saying that it really WAS satire- i.e. it was truly satire, not something else masquerading as satire. Again, I said that it was a valid satirical refutation. Take your pick of your own synonyms to make that make sense- it was legitimate (probably the best synonym for my use there), it was credible, it was well-grounded...
I can say THIS for an absolute fact- you are totally wrong on the use of the word 'satire'. Revean made a use of satire as a refutation that was perfectly valid. Deal with it.
Sorry whob... but you could not be more wrong there. You are the one that needs to accept it- but like the coward you are, as you always demonstrate yourself to be, you never, ever, ever will.
"You can take this argument up with the lexicographers at Merriam webster"
Happily would if I had the chance! I would ask them why they have gotten it wrong whilst all the other dictionaries got it right. That's something else you handily ignored.
Oh dear, you seem to have run out of steam this time. Well, one more, whob, we have seen how contradictory, ill-informed, and just plain silly all your comments and arguments have been, and again you have made no headway in trying to make your point, and have simply, once more, increased everyone's contempt for you.
The best thing I like about the whole 'meaning of valid' argument....he claimed to look it up in Merriam-Webster.
That's the dictionary where I found the meaning of it that included the word relevant.
Oh dear. Talk about not reading everything.
BTW, whob, I don't think you're in any position to tell people who have been here FAR longer than you what exactly this forum is and isn't.