bl: “I think you should say it’s evidence, not proof.”
fd: “Perhaps. But from a falsifiable perspective, the lack of evidence of man and dino being contemporaries is pretty strong proof.”
***********************************************************
Sheesh. How many times did coyoteman have to post his List-O-Definitions from the Cat-Tech website and you STILL didn’t get it?
There is no *proof* in science.
A Glossary of Frequently Misused or Misunderstood Physics Terms and Concepts.
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/LiU/resource/misused_glossary.html
“Proof. A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
The colloquial meaning of ‘proof’ causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician’s meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say ‘We proved Newton’s law.’ Rather say, ‘Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton’s law in the particular case of…’”
Looks like you failed basic science again.
Tell you what, why don’t you go to school and take some science courses and get back to us when you understand what science is all about, eh?
Happy New Year to you too.
Please quit embarrassing yourself by nonsensical (and completely incorrect) sophistry on long-dead threads. It is a terrible way to start the new year.