ringo writes:
Jon writes:
I can't see why women would need more 'hair holes' than men.
I agree that the hair-holes argument doesn't make any sense. It's pretty funny though.
This is the problem we have.
Fundies are
convinced that they have the answers to various questions so they don't need evidence, logical conclusions from that evidence, or the scientific method.
Simple bone-head mistakes are the first clue. Folks who know their subject tend not to make too many of those mistakes. Other folks, who have little to no scientific training, and who may be getting their "science" from fundie websites, do not fare so well.
That brings up the question: Why should scientists pay any attention to folks who know little to nothing about a scientific subject?
Does zeal bring scientific knowledge? Sorry, no.
Does religious apologetics bring scientific knowledge? Sorry, no.
Does religious revelation bring scientific knowledge? Sorry, no.
Does religious belief bring scientific knowledge? Sorry, no.
If you have not studied a particular field of science to at least an advanced level, you have no business opining on that subject. Sad to say, religious apologists are the main offenders in this regard. Perhaps they should just "put a cork in it."
(See also tagline.)
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.