Two types of science

He gave these in his OP;

quote:

---

... other sources of knowledge (like mathematical improbability, or historic writings) ...

---

Until he gets more detailed I will assume he is talking about:1. Non-mathematicians with no experience at probabilities speaking of watches in forests and 747s in tornados.C. That collection of hundreds-of-years-old oral myths embellished at each telling scratched onto parchment by zealous mystics some 3500 years ago then embellished with each redaction. I believe it's called Genesis.But then he may surprise us and choose one from your list. You never know with these people.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Then it is a good thing that no one, except creationists looking for a straw man, posits that DNA, the flagellum or any other biologic object just "fell" together by any process at all. Poof is only an explanation in religion. It does not work in evolution. There are always precursors, plenty of them, over more time than your religious fantasies wish had occurred. Edited by AZPaul3, : oops

So typical. You find a list about "knowledge", do not bother to read the rest of the site and end up with no idea what they are actually talking about.Did you see their information on "Skepticism" and how it relates to these areas of knowledge you listed? No.Not only did you not consider this you did not consider that what they were talking about is that this list of yours are ways to gather "knowledge" as in "information", not "knowledge" as in some universal TRVTH^TM. These are the sources of data; data inputs for ... wait for it ... the scientific method!Can you even fathom where data from "introspection" could possibly be used in a science of some sort somewhere? You really think this puts some kind of chink in the scientific armor? You really have no conception of what it is you are reading, do you. You are so bent on finding something, anything to use as a weapon against science you throw thin air at it.What this says is that we have to be cognizant of what information actually pertains to the problem at hand and what information does not. That is pretty much what study design, experimental protocols, control groups and peer review are all about in the scientific method.Why do creationists do these things in such a half-assed manner?No. Don't answer that. That was rhetorical. We already know why.[abe=just because I have the time]That site for the above quote talking about being cognizant of the information? It also list these as "sources of knowledge":Racial Memory
The Collective Unconscious
Extrasensory Perception
Recollection from a past life
Spiritualism
The Occult
Ouija boards
Tarot cardsand your favorites, I'm sure ...Faith
Supernatural RevelationFallacy of Presumption anyone?[/abe]Edited by AZPaul3, : Addition. Not the math type but as in appending additional verbiage to an existing screed.Edited by AZPaul3, : oopsEdited by AZPaul3, : more oopses.Edited by AZPaul3, : had the timeEdited by AZPaul3, : OK, I stop now.

As I said in my message, nothing in biology just "fell together" by this or any other process. Any biological system you care to mention did, however, evolved through this process of mutation/selection from other precursor systems.What was plain in my message was that your contention that these complex systems just "fell together" in a random process is BS.And yet you did not respond to that. You chose to misrepresent what I said. Or are you going to claim you did not understand the obvious?Regardless, either your reading comprehension or your personal ethics require work. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Wow. Are you being deliberately obtuse or is this natural for you?In those blocks up above there do you see the words in the first block?They read in part ...

quote:

---

You find a list about "knowledge", do not bother to read the rest of the site and end up with no idea what they are actually talking about.

---

You see that reference to "the rest of the site"? That's important. If you can try to hold on to that and do try to remember.Then came ...

quote:

---

Thanks for telling me what I didn't read.

---

This isn't germane to the issue but, you're welcome.The next part asks you ...

quote:

---

Did you see their information on "Skepticism" and how it relates to these areas of knowledge you listed?

---

That ties rather directly into the "rest of the site" reference in the first quote. It isn't the least bit subtle or obscure. You do see this, yes?Then comes the most astonishing piece of obtuse reasoning I have seen in quite some time ...

quote:

---

The word "Skepticism" doesn't appear on either of my links I put in message 20.

---

Marc, We already know your links did not contain the word. That isn't the issue here. The issue is that you did not bother (or you did but chose to ignore) to look at the rest of the site where there was other information pertaining to your list.This right off the top of your response to me. With this rather shining example of your lack of ... what? Intellect? Ethics? Both? ... I'm not well disposed to respond to the rest of your drivel.But,I'll go just this one more. Yes, of course! I would have thought that also was quite obvious. Until something more powerful and productive than the scientific method comes along this is indeed the most mighty, the most great and the most powerful method of knowing ever devised. All others, Marc, all other methods of knowing are miniscule or non-existent in comparison.Your insistence that your poofoo voodoo majik super-skydaddy connections to the ultimate answers to the ultimate questions of life the universe and everything are real, while not once, ever, having been able to show anything productive that has ever come from such a knowledge source, is the surest sign of someone who has lost touch with reality and has nothing left but to piss and moan about something they are powerless to change.Science, all of it, however many different kinds you care to divide it by, is the 800 pound gorilla of all "knowing" in this world. Anything you care to put up on your "other sources" list are ants by comparison.This may sound like nothing but hyperbole to you but this is the reality.I take it back, you do have a chance to change this. Show us otherwise. Show us something real, something productive for society, something useful for humanity, something that all would agree is a wonderful nugget of knowledge brought to us by one of your poofoo voodoo majik super-skydaddy sources.Go ahead, Marc. Show us.

Dr. A and others took care of this little bit of revisionist history. I'm so blind with rage right now I just cannot see the keyboard to fashion an appropriate response which might be along the lines of, "Oh Yeah? Well, so's your mother!", or some such equally witty retort. I guess I'll just have to leave this one where it is.Onward, though.You are trying to ward off the challenge put before you in the rest of my message. I realize you have gotten yourself into a number of differing issues with all the inanities you have put out there so I will give you periodic reminders so that as it gets to the point where no answer will ever be forthcoming I can sit back, cackle, and declare glorious victory because you have no answer since there actuality is none.So let me remind you of the challenge. The subject is "other sources of knowledge".

quote:

---

Science, all of it, however many different kinds you care to divide it by, is the 800 pound gorilla of all "knowing" in this world. Anything you care to put up on your "other sources" list are ants by comparison.

​

This may sound like nothing but hyperbole to you but this is the reality.

​

I take it back, you do have a chance to change this. Show us otherwise. Show us something real, something productive for society, something useful for humanity, something that all would agree is a wonderful nugget of knowledge brought to us by one of your poofoo voodoo majik super-skydaddy sources.

​

Go ahead, Marc. Show us.

---

Given your reading comprehension problems let me rephrase this for you.Can you show us any knowledge of value ever given to human society by one of your other sources of knowledge? Something other than the emotional comfort you people get from killing others as justified by your religion that is. Something substantial that we would recognize as being a good thing for the species would be nice.So, go ahead and show us, Marc.

This is good. We can all respond to marc by sending our messages to NoNukes. It's good to share inundations.My point to you, NoNukes ... er ... marc, is that the names listed are famous for a reason. They got it right for the most part (thank you, Mod). The legions of others who got it wrong and were being corrected by these famous guys are buried deep in the history books, if listed at all, and are quite forgettable.I hope you are now not feeling inundated.As for Nukes on the other hand ... If you get blind with rage let me know. Apparently I've been there recently and I have an app for that.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

And here I thought I was being facetious. Should have known.

quote:

---

What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient allies.

​

-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, June 20, 1785

---

quote:

---

Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.

​

-- James Madison, letter to Bradford, January 1774, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

---

quote:

---

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.

​

-- James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., April 1, 1774, quoted from Edwin S Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation (1987) p. 37, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

---

quote:

---

Experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

​

-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, June 20, 1785

---

quote:

---

Wilson: Early Presidents Not Religious

​

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity.... Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."

​

-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831; first sentence quoted in John E Remsbert, "Six Historic Americans," second sentence quoted in Paul F Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15

---

quote:

---

Are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal ecclesiastics already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality?

​

-- James Madison, on a bill to establish the office of Congressional Chaplain.

---

Since there is nothing to be known of the man except through his writings I think it fair to say that Madison was not an especially religious man and had great contempt for the christian churches and their leadership.I don't know, and neither do you, if Madison was actually an atheist in the sense that we mean that term here or not. He may well have been since his writings lean that direction. But one thing we do know - he sure weren't no christian.

The Constitution does not mention healthcare in any manner. What is does say, however, is that the congress of the people will provide for the common welfare of the United States. The congress can establish a universal healthcare system if it damn well wants to and can tax the people to support it.See Article I, section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes ... and provide for the general Welfare of the United States.

History is full of examples where religious corruption and mind control inspired many to be passionate, even violent, in regaining their personal liberty, freedom and right to their own conscience from the priests. Especially from the fundamentalist Biblicans.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

The Onion, the Bible, hell the The National Enquirer, they're all the same to him. If they comply with his fantasies he believes them. It hardly seems worth engaging him on any point. Where's the fun in that?

5 very pointed quotes direct from the man himself is hardly "cherry picking".So who gives a flyin' flip about the Senior Pastor Reverand Witherspoon? He is not James Madison, the actual subject of the posts. Your deflection is but a smoke screen why? Because you know Madison was NOT a christian in any sense, by his own words, regardless of where he went to school or under whom he studied.Pull your head out of it man.

I have not only heard of it but have read it. More importantly, I have read some of the surprisingly few cases where SCOTUS, over generations, interpreted the clause in relation to the Commerce clause and other amendments.You may find this hard to believe but we the people set up the Supreme Court to arbitrate these things and we gave them the last word on such subjects. I do not recall there being any Walter Williams on the bench.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.