Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-24-2017 6:08 AM
163 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie, Tangle (4 members, 159 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,918 Year: 27,524/21,208 Month: 1,437/1,714 Week: 280/365 Day: 7/42 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3435
36
3738
...
41Next
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 526 of 609 (612049)
04-12-2011 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 8:02 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Im telling you they are science in every sense of the word.

No you aren't. You are telling us that ID/Creationism is not tested through the scientific method. This means it is not science. It is that simple.

They are a physical observation and examination that allows very demonstratble conclusions.

What you fail to mention is that it is not a scientific examination nor a scientific conclusion.

While both of us dont agree or like the conclusions of eachothers ideologies and examinations, both are atleast tenative scientifc approaches to explanations

No, they aren't. You have spent your entire time at this forum explaining why ID/Creationism does not follow the scientific method. Every time we ask for an hypothesis and experiment you tell us that ID/Creationism doesn't need to do this. I can only conclude that ID/Creationism is not science.

The only barrier that persists in this context is the fact that most science types believe creo and Id involve the supernatural, they do not, or they dont have to

The only barrier is the one that ID/Creationists erect around laboratories that prevent them from doing research.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 8:02 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 9:40 PM Taq has responded

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1783 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 527 of 609 (612051)
04-12-2011 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 520 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 7:24 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Quit beating around the bush and provide the evidence.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 7:24 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15972
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 528 of 609 (612057)
04-12-2011 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 8:02 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
frako, Im not defending creo and ID to see if they pass the present day method and explanation of what constitues science.

Which is why creationism has failed.

Thanks for playing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 8:02 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 529 of 609 (612060)
04-12-2011 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by Taq
04-12-2011 7:46 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
No, they are not. Logic is not based on empiricism. Science is.

taq, if you dont like the strict word Logic, then go with rational approach. logic is just a word to help define reality, its not reality. reality is the mind using a rational approach against the physical world, to solve problems and come to valid conclusions

thats what Iders do, indeed if we are on the same planet with the same abilites and limitations how could our APPROACHES be any different, terms notwithstanding

It is HOW you do the examination that defines science. You need to make a hypothesis and null hypothesis that are testable through empiricism. So please show how ID/Creationism is testable in this manner.

Sure there are different levels of science, but the approach is limited to a few factors, correct. while there are more things to learn, there is no need to keep studying the laws of gravity to see if the are real and verfiable

Show me how it is scientific. You are the one that claims it is scientific, so demonstrate it. Describe the hypothesis, null hypothesis, and the experimental design used to test them. If you can't, then I can only conclude that ID/Creationism is not science.

You can only conclude the ID is not science, because you are looking for the creator himself in the design principle, that is not required anymore than it is necessary for you to prove that the natural world is a product of itself. Your arguments and conclusions are valid tenative conclusions, as far as reality will allow

as I stated in another post, experimentation does not need to be complicated, as in the things you describe to be science. To demonstrate this point beyond any doubt, the above description of science will only allow you an explanation of that which constitues reality as we know it,or the known physical world

if i am incorrect, please provide me an example of something the SM can describe outside that which we describe as the known world. the information you discover is already there for you to discover it, the SM wont reveal its initiation source, anymore than will ID.

bring your more involved science to the table to answer the question of exisetence itself. It couldnt if it wanted to

Science is not about discovering minute detail. It is about testing hypotheses through empiricism. For someone who claims to know so much about science you seem to get the basics wrong on almost every occasion.

what you just described is nothing more than observation and examination by the human mind. You like to beef up the process with words to make it more complicated than it really is

again give me an example of something that the SM can reveal that is nothing more than what is alreadly present to discover. IOWs, your just using you brain by human deduction to explain the natural world

if i am wrong give me an example of something it has revealed using a process other than simple examination and experimentation

Now isnt this what ID does? It examines the physical world, by means of observation and experimentation of order and complexity in order, to come to the conclusion of possible design

if i did more complicated test or ten million ,ore tests they will all be the same and reveal the same thing

You have zero scientific research for ID/Creationism. That indicates that ID/Creationism is not science.

Wrong for several reasons. Your asking for the designer himself in your request for research. the research for design is in the research and observation of physical properties. Like change is the result of the research of science, order is the result of the science and research of Design

Your mixing oranges with apples.

this would be like me saying your not doing science since you have not demonstrated that the universe is a product of itself, or something else besides a designer.

Your wanting a conclusion of my research and require none for yourself and say that i am not doing science since I have not produced the designer

If detailed order and law is not sufficent research for design, then it would follow that change and natural selection are not sufficent research for the conclusion of biological evolution. siince both clearly exist, but neither are knowable

so we are both doing science or we are neither doing science.

To demonstrate this further, tell me what hypothesis i should be looking for since you request one above and beyond what we have discovered?

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 7:46 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 530 by Coyote, posted 04-12-2011 9:14 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 532 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 9:27 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6030
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 530 of 609 (612062)
04-12-2011 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 529 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 8:58 PM


New header (finally)
Wrong for several reasons. Your asking for the designer himself in your request for research. the research for design is in the research and observation of physical properties. Like change is the result of the research of science, order is the result of the science and research of Design

What are your rules for differentiating design from non-design?

Or is everything "designed?" If that is the case, you have nothing.

So tell us, what rules do you use?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 8:58 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 10:41 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 551 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 5:11 PM Coyote has responded

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 531 of 609 (612064)
04-12-2011 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 525 by frako
04-12-2011 8:10 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Well the thing about science it involves experiments and lots of study and if 2 scientists would disagree on something they would devise an experiment to test witch of their conclusions is right. And the resoults of that experiment would prove witch scientist is correct. CAN YOU THINK OF AN EXPERIMENT THAT WOULD SHOW YOUR CONCLUSIONS TO BE CORRECT AND DISPROVE MY CONCLUSIONS??

Yes about things that are dicoverable and nothing more, so what. if enough "scientists" agree that order and law exist in the universe and they are using a scientific approach, is this sufficient to enough reason for them to conclude design. Ofcourse it is Would they be doing science, sure they would?

Im not saying your method is invalid, im saying your requiring conclusions of myself, you do not require for yourselves

You dont understand that your methods cannot produce anymore than anyother basic scientific approach. You will find more details but it wont be anything more than a simple observation, experimentation and examination

thats all science is at its core

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by frako, posted 04-12-2011 8:10 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 533 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 9:28 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 538 by frako, posted 04-13-2011 3:08 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 543 by Jon, posted 04-13-2011 10:38 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 532 of 609 (612066)
04-12-2011 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 529 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 8:58 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
taq, if you dont like the strict word Logic, then go with rational approach.

Empricism and Rationalism are different. Science uses Empiricism. Science is informed by the sensory. This is different from Rationalism which is informed by Reason and not the sensory.

thats what Iders do, indeed if we are on the same planet with the same abilites and limitations how could our APPROACHES be any different, terms notwithstanding

The approaches are different because ID/Creationism does not use the scientific method and empiricism.

Sure there are different levels of science, but the approach is limited to a few factors, correct. while there are more things to learn, there is no need to keep studying the laws of gravity to see if the are real and verfiable

I am still not seeing an ID/Creationist hypothesis, null hypothesis, and experimental test. Where is it? If it is science then you should be able to point them out.

You can only conclude the ID is not science, because you are looking for the creator himself in the design principle, that is not required anymore than it is necessary for you to prove that the natural world is a product of itself.

Still not seeing any science.

as I stated in another post, experimentation does not need to be complicated, as in the things you describe to be science.

Then it shouldn't be hard for you to describe one.

if i am incorrect, please provide me an example of something the SM can describe outside that which we describe as the known world. the information you discover is already there for you to discover it, the SM wont reveal its initiation source, anymore than will ID.

This makes zero sense. Please, use your head.

what you just described is nothing more than observation and examination by the human mind.

False. It is examination through empiricism which necessitates a world outside of the mind.

As an example, without citing a single finding from an experiment can you use logic to describe what matter is made out of? Using pure reason, show how it is done.

Now isnt this what ID does? It examines the physical world, by means of observation and experimentation of order and complexity in order, to come to the conclusion of possible design

That is not science. You test HYPOTHESES in science, as well as the NULL HYPOTHESIS. Please describe the hypothesis, null hypothesis, and experimental design that would test both equally per ID/Creationism. If you can not, then you have proven that ID/Creationism is not science.

Your asking for the designer himself in your request for research.

Nope, I am asking for scientific research that backs the conclusion of design. Where is it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 8:58 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 10:12 PM Taq has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 533 of 609 (612068)
04-12-2011 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 531 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 9:24 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
f enough "scientists" agree that order and law exist in the universe and they are using a scientific approach, is this sufficient to enough reason for them to conclude design.

How did you test the null hypothesis, that order and law are not the product of design?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 531 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 9:24 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 534 of 609 (612070)
04-12-2011 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 526 by Taq
04-12-2011 8:14 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
What you fail to mention is that it is not a scientific examination nor a scientific conclusion.

What process of the human makeup do you use to carry out this process

No, they aren't. You have spent your entire time at this forum explaining why ID/Creationism does not follow the scientific method. Every time we ask for an hypothesis and experiment you tell us that ID/Creationism doesn't need to do this. I can only conclude that ID/Creationism is not science.

Im sorry where have I spent any effort explaining that ID does not follow the SM. More accurately I have stated that any examination of the human mind is science, that "scientists" have confused what science is to exclude ID on religious reasons and they have implied this both directly and indirectly

When i give you an experiment and a hypothesis you say it is not science because it does not meet your criteria, which is ofcourse is an inflated view of science and not an accurate explanation of science

Should an accurte veiw of science and what constitues evidence ever be explained to those making law decisions, maybe the outcome would be different

At any rate dont misrepresent me presently

dawn bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 8:14 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 545 by Taq, posted 04-13-2011 11:06 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 548 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-13-2011 2:15 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3002
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 535 of 609 (612074)
04-12-2011 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 516 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 6:41 PM


Taq writes:

Then you need to publish it and present it to the scientific community.

What do you think this form is of sorts, chopped liver?

Actually, yes, within this context this forum is indeed "chopped liver". Though it is far above your snake-oil "public debate" travesties.

It is intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer * that this forum is not a medium for publishing within the scientific community, so why are you so oblivious to that simple fact? This forum isn't even a forum for the scientific community, even though several of its members are also members of the scientific community. It is more of a coffee house or student union discussion.

There is a very definite mechanism for publishing within the scientific community, one with which several members here are quite familiar, and about which you are totally ignorant -- or at least that is what you keep indicating to us. Nor are we expecting you personally to try to publish within the scientific community, but rather that is for your ID big guns to do. Which they avoid doing. Just as the "creation scientists" have always avoided doing and undoubtedly for the same reason: because the scientific community would immediately see right through their lies and their bullshit. Which is why both ID and "creation science" (which nowadays are relying more on ID, since their own cover has been blown) bypass the scientific community and concentrate all their bullshit on the general public, in order to deceive the public and sway public opinion. "Creation science" and ID have both been taking that approach from the very beginning. Neither is the least bit scientific.

For ID to ever be considered scientific, your "big guns" need to do actual scientific research and then to publish within the scientific community. But it turns out that your "big guns" can fired nothing other than saluting charges, AKA "blanks." As one former creationist, Scott Rauch, wrote:

quote:
I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed.

{ *FOOTNOTE: An engineering catch-phrase. }

the tenets and merits and the legetimacy of creationism, if that is what you wish to call it, have existed long before any so called scientific community. The fact that a few are so ingnorant that they cannot see the method, model and conclusion of creationism's approach, is nothing short of silly

Still dishing out the same old bullshit, Dawn? Just as you were three months ago just before you cut and ran from the topic, Intelligent Design vs. Real Science? After we conclusively showed you that you have nothing? Revisit those messages:

Message 55 -- You claimed to have a "model" and dared me to show that it wasn't a model, nor the same as what science does.

Message 64 -- I did exactly that, though Coyote had already done it in Message 61 along with providing the definition of model, which I also used. I also had to describe to you the basics of how a model is constructed and used, which is completely alien to your "model". I also pointed out where you admitted that your "model" is based on the supernatural:

DWise1 writes:

But there's another very serious problem for your "model". In your other "reply" (Message 55), you made it clear yet again that your "Designer" is your god, which is supernatural. So your "model" is based on the supernatural. That's what you want to have included in science, the supernatural. Tell me, Dawn, just how the hell are we supposed to form supernaturalistic hypotheses? And just how the hell are we supposed to test them?

You want to be taken seriously? You already know that you need to provide a methodology for detecting and determining design. Well, you also need to provide a methodology for testing supernaturalistic hypotheses.

The bottom line as we understand it is that testing supernaturalistic hypotheses is impossible. Forcing science to use supernaturalistic hypotheses will cripple and even kill it. Or worse, change it into theology. Which would make it completely useless.

In Message 65 I addressed your repeated lies about logic and taught you about what you actually are practicing, sophistry, the abuse of logic in order to deceive your audience. Only your own attempts at sophistry are so crude you have to resort to repeatedly calling them "logical". I then show you why you need to present and support your premises, which you have repeatedly refused to do:

DWise1 writes:

One form of sophism is to use a valid logical construct, but getting the victim to agree to false premises which will then enable the sophist to arrive at the desired false conclusion. In classic examples such conclusions include that day is night or that black is white. Absolutely false conclusions "proven logically".

We have been trying to get you to support the premises of your "logic", which you have absolutely refused to do. The clear mark of a sophist.

For ID to be considered science, it must do the research and publish for the review of scientists. We've been over this with you countless times. Dishonest "public debates" and PR campaigns are not the way. They cannot be voted in as science. There is no royal road. They have to do the real work. Which, of course, they refuse to do and will certainly never do.

For your ID claim to actually be logical, you will need to present the development of that logic, coherently and cogently (IOW, in non-gibberish). Including the premises, which you must present and support fully and defend honestly in discussion. All those things that you refuse to do and will certainly never do.

You know full well what it will take. If ID has any truth to it, then honest exposition and discussion will bring that out. Of course, if ID has no truth to it, then that will also be brought out, which gives you and other IDists strong motivation to misbehave in just the manner in which you have been misbehaving consistently.

In Message 69 you condescendingly bullshat:

Atleast dewise (finally) and Coyote made an attempt at responding to the argument and to which I will be responding as soon as possible

Which, three months later, you have yet to do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 6:41 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 536 of 609 (612076)
04-12-2011 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 532 by Taq
04-12-2011 9:27 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Empricism and Rationalism are different. Science uses Empiricism. Science is informed by the sensory. This is different from Rationalism which is informed by Reason and not the sensory.

I really dont mean to be rude, but sometimes science minds are simplest of all. I was laughing really hard when i read that.

taq these are just terms they are not reality. reality is you and I using our minds against the world itself by a process of examination and experimentation to give possible explanations to that process. E and R are intertwined in reality and in the process, you cant have one without the other when examining the world

now i can have a thought with no application to the world itself and that would more accuratley describe rationalism

The approaches are different because ID/Creationism does not use the scientific method and empiricism.

How in the world and reality could they be if we are both using our minds and physical properties. taq, lets say both of us were going to work on a car but you had a more extensive knowledge of the can than I, my total expertise was limted to tires and tire changing

Our method of examination wouldnt be any different, we would use the same process, but how much more would our examination need to be for both of us to know it had four tires. Would we keep examining it to see if that simple truth were true. while your same self method of exam moved forward to more extensive problems, mine would end with the knowledge that that truth was true, regaurdless of whether I knew who made the car

when both of us do that it is called science

As an example, without citing a single finding from an experiment can you use logic to describe what matter is made out of? Using pure reason, show how it is done.

Since that is not my position, your query makes no sense. Please refer to what I said above

How did you test the null hypothesis, that order and law are not the product of design?

how did you test the null hypo that evolution was not the product of a designer? So if we cant test the null hypo of evo not being the product of a designer is evo invalid as a scientific truth?

Come on guys give something hard>

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 532 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 9:27 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 546 by Taq, posted 04-13-2011 11:13 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 537 of 609 (612077)
04-12-2011 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 530 by Coyote
04-12-2011 9:14 PM


Re: New header (finally)
What are your rules for differentiating design from non-design?
Or is everything "designed?" If that is the case, you have nothing.

So tell us, what rules do you use?

Ill strart here and with the rest of Taq latest post, God and Admin willing, when I return


This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by Coyote, posted 04-12-2011 9:14 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2715
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 538 of 609 (612088)
04-13-2011 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 531 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 9:24 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Yes about things that are dicoverable and nothing more, so what. if enough "scientists" agree that order and law exist in the universe and they are using a scientific approach, is this sufficient to enough reason for them to conclude design. Ofcourse it is Would they be doing science, sure they would?

Im not saying your method is invalid, im saying your requiring conclusions of myself, you do not require for yourselves

You dont understand that your methods cannot produce anymore than anyother basic scientific approach. You will find more details but it wont be anything more than a simple observation, experimentation and examination

thats all science is at its core

AND SCIENCE WORKS, YOUR ID AND CREATIONISM DOES NOT WE HAD YOUR APPROACH TO DETERMINING REALITY IT LASTED ALMOST 1000 YEARS WE CALL THOSE TIMES THE DARK AGES. SCIENECE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR ONLY 300 YEARS AND LOOK AT WHERE IT GOT US SO STOP DISHING SCIENCE AND STOP DEGRADING IT TO YOUR SIMPLE WIVES OF THE WORLD.

ID AND CREATIONISM ARE NOT SCIENCE THEREFORE DO NOT BELONG IN A CLASSROOM AND ARE NOT A VIABLE MEANS OF UNDERSTANDING REALITY!!!!!!

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 531 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 9:24 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 539 by AZPaul3, posted 04-13-2011 7:56 AM frako has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 539 of 609 (612097)
04-13-2011 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 538 by frako
04-13-2011 3:08 AM


I Feel Your Pain
I know the frustration you are feeling, frako, and I empathize, but please lose the caps. It's just screaming and gets you nowhere.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by frako, posted 04-13-2011 3:08 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by frako, posted 04-13-2011 8:24 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

frako
Member
Posts: 2715
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 540 of 609 (612098)
04-13-2011 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 539 by AZPaul3
04-13-2011 7:56 AM


Re: I Feel Your Pain
Its just that willfully ignorant people drive me up the wall, especially arrogant ones, that keep insisting that something is science when it is clearly not, because by doing that they are belittling actual science the work that goes in to it, the progress it has brought us completely ignoring where humanity was before science.

I would have no problem with ID if it actually presented any tangible evidence, i would have no problem with it if it substantiated its claims by experimentation. But what it is actually doing is saying well we want you to teach the stork theory along with the birth theory because it is fair and the stork theory is science and the birth theory has faults in it and there is plenty of evidence for stork theory just look at all the storks making their nests up on chimneys.

We know where that kind of thinking got us you have a tooth ache well let me put a hot poker in your ear sure your ear hurts like hell and you might die of infection but my cure works you no longer feel the tooth pain it is science. And yes this "cure" and many others similar where used in the past because they did not need to apply the scientific method to make up their "science".

And we know that when such silly ideas come on to the forum of our understanding they lead down a very steep hill to the dark ages. we have 2 historical roads that lead down that path. Europe when Christianity took over the abundance of scientific knowledge that was built up by the roman empire was lost, things like its good to take a bath every day, pluming, even a form of steam engine was invented. And the Muslims during the dark ages they where beacon of scientific understanding of the world look at where those countries are now. The creationists and ID ists want to take us down that road again willfully or un-willfully just as long as their precious beliefs in some imaginary being can stay safe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by AZPaul3, posted 04-13-2011 7:56 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by subbie, posted 04-13-2011 9:30 AM frako has not yet responded
 Message 542 by Son, posted 04-13-2011 9:47 AM frako has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
3435
36
3738
...
41Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017