Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
300 online now:
jar, Percy (Admin), Theodoric, vimesey (4 members, 296 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,730 Year: 21,766/19,786 Month: 329/1,834 Week: 329/315 Day: 7/78 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Something BIG is coming! (AIG trying to build full sized ark)
Coyote
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 17 of 261 (594308)
12-03-2010 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by bluescat48
12-02-2010 11:54 PM


Re: Fantasy and Make Believe are fun
Personally, I'm eager to see them build this thing. But I only wish they would try making it float. What an amusing disaster that would be.

Not only float, but filled with all the species and enough food to last the total time listed in Genesis and 8 people (4 men and 4 women) taking care of it the same way they would have had to, with no conveniences of any kind.


That's the last thing they'll do.

Everyone knows this whole ark story is a myth. As Tolkein wrote, "The tale grew in the telling."

But some folks still pretend to believe the whole silly story could have actually happened. Neither evidence nor reason will sway that belief, as neither was used in forming that belief. It is all just a big joke.

(I want the mead concession at the Thor theme park! At least people will get something for their money.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by bluescat48, posted 12-02-2010 11:54 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by bluescat48, posted 12-03-2010 1:26 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 27 of 261 (594376)
12-03-2010 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by subbie
12-03-2010 9:09 AM


What are they going to do for an encore, drop two objects of differing weight off the Leaning Tower of Pisa? Try to find out what happens when you strike steel and flint together?

No, that would be doing science.

The goal of the ark project is to reinforce belief, not to do science. And maybe they think they will make a little money off the gullible.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 12-03-2010 9:09 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by subbie, posted 12-03-2010 9:20 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 29 by jar, posted 12-03-2010 9:35 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 70 of 261 (595592)
12-09-2010 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by jar
12-09-2010 12:01 PM


Re: Damn good thing ...
Damn good thing ...that the Biblical Flood never happened then.

You could say that it would have been the final solution, eh?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 12-09-2010 12:01 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 130 of 261 (613367)
04-24-2011 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by slevesque
04-24-2011 8:17 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
slevesque writes:

First published:

Technical Journal
8(1):26–36
April 1994

It's the peer-reviewed creationist journal.


Creationists can claim "peer review" but this is just another example of their dishonesty.

Peer review has both a specific meaning and a specific implication. The specific meaning is in the world of science, where peer review refers to review by experts in the field. The specific implication is that they are looking for errors or problems with the submitted article. I've been through peer-review from both sides and have a good idea how it works.

The way creationists use it is dishonest. They say, "Hmmm. Scientists want peer-reviewed articles so we'll do it ourselves. Our way."

Only it isn't the same and everyone knows it.

Real peer review, done by scientists, first and foremost makes sure the submitted articles conform to the rules and methods of science. This is exactly what creationists seek to avoid in their "peer review." They can't conform to those rules and methods, so they have to fake it with their own "peer review." Dishonest.

This is much the same (failed) tactic they tried with creation "science." Creationism was tossed from the classrooms by a U.S. Supreme Court decision, so they simply changed the name and tried again. When that was tossed they changed from creation "science" to ID.

How dishonest can you get??

If your ideas and beliefs can't stand the test of the marketplace and scientific scrutiny, maybe they're wrong. Trying to disguise them as science when everyone knows that they are the exact opposite of science is just plain dishonest.

So don't cite creationist "peer review" as if it meant anything.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 8:17 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019