BS: Alternative to Science??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 10:18 PM

Bottom line on rape???

If Romney wants to force the woman to carry a rapist's child then Romney has stepped in as "dad" and better pay that woman "child support" in the amount that would equal what she would have made if Romney didn't force her to carry the child...

I mean, let's get real here... Let's take a pre-med student... Get's raped and pregnant from it... What wo8uld she have made over the next 18 years???

All these Taliban Republicans just want to say, "Suck it up, Honey... Get over it..."

Screw them... That is the most backward thinking I believe I have ever heard of...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 10:29 PM

What if....I mean what if there are two different species of humans inhabiting the planet...some evolved from lower forms of life, ie. the traditional evolutionary process....and those who were different, ...and it could be....and how it came to be, might just be debatable
...and you can't say it isn't so!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 10:38 PM

..and you can't say it isn't so!"
Right... you can't prove a negative. But there are FAR too many who have some notion that ." you can't say it isn't so" means it probably IS so.

Why invent ideas... except poetically... that can easily be explained in other ways that at least CAN be tested?

Oh,...I remember... those invented ideas are SO much more interesting...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 10:42 PM

Bill D: "Why invent ideas... except poetically..."

NOW YOU'RE TALKIN"!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 04:20 AM

I love the internet.

Science giving us the opportunity to decry science. Unless of course, it was god, not Tim Berners Lee who had the idea?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 05:17 AM

"So you admit you have a closed mind!"

No, Lighter, I have a mind which is open to evidence. I also tend to be sceptical about claims which are not backed up by evidence - especially if someone demands that I believe those claims! I repeat it is the responsibilty of the person making the claims to provide the evidence. I have NO responsibility to believe anything without evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 12:46 PM

Shimrod: "No, Lighter, I have a mind which is open to evidence. I also tend to be sceptical about claims which are not backed up by evidence -..."

Then you should have had no problem with the video link I posted, right?..unless your mind was made up beforehand that you might not like the final analysis.

If you'd like, I could post the link again, for your scrutiny..which of course is welcome.
If there were points to discuss in the link that's OK..but to write off what you think it is about, without watching it,...well that would be silly at any level..wouldn't you agree? Because your statement: "You can call me all the names you like but it won't change my position" is only valid, if, of course, you were aware of the facts and had gone over them...but to arrive at a conclusion, without knowing what is being reviewed, is, in fact, a closed mind, narrow view, and voluntary ignorance...and that's not calling you or anyone a name...just plain true.
Take a look at it...there is not much 'supposing' in it.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 01:17 PM

I looked briefly at he video link, but was too busy with weather to go into a musical expression on electric guitar. I assume there was a message of sorts in it.

I am reminded of a 30+ year old folkish song called "You Gotta Talk My Language", written as if from the viewpoint of a slightly hard to cope with child....one line was.. "Can you make up stories I can know are true?"
It resonates coming from a childlike viewpoint. I'm not sure how it translates into adult thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 02:12 PM

Does no one here except Bill D understand the meaning of "irony"?

Apparently not. I was constantly misunderstood when I assumed irony was obvious without being labeled. Now I see that labeling it doesn't work either.

If it makes you feel better, Shimrod, I was defending you.

I am speechless (spelled as Popeye would spell it) at GfS's inability to see (even with the "irony" label) that I was using his own form of reasoning in a way to suggest how absurd it is. Calling names (ridicule) shouldn't change anybody's mind, should it?

Then he tells me I made a "sharp observation."

Jeez.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 02:35 PM

Yes..I was aware of your feelings..and the observation was sharp...even if in satire....but it was also true.
..and I still stand with my original and oft repeated position, about knowing what you are talking about, BEFORE offering a valid conclusion or theory....after all, isn't that what science is about??????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 02:47 PM

Sorry, Lighter, I did understand the ironic nature of your comments but I succumbed to the temptation to take your comment at face value so that I could express something that is seldom expressed in discussions such as this - that is the question of responsibility. Given your good intentions, this was probably a bit cavalier of me - sorry again!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 04:55 PM

..and that's why it is best to know what one is talking about! Just as your assumption was wrong about Lighter's post, it can be, and is the same with other subjects.
So in the final analysis gathering up info without preconceptions is best...wouldn't you say?

This has been an excellent illustration, and should be put to good use...unless learning is only confined to non-practical applications. I hope not!

Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 05:09 PM

The only way to 'suspect' irony in a WWW format is to be familar with the habits of the poster. *I* have to constantly remind myself. It is so tempting to go straight at a comment.... ☺... I tend not to use formats that in RT depend a lot on facial expressions, vocal tone and body language.

I now usually catch Lighter...but......

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 06:15 PM

Here's an idea... For folks who don't believe in science we could set up alternative health care facilities where tin-foilers and other misfits could pretend to know how to treat disease and injuries and other tin-foilers and misfits when they get hurt or sick could got there to be treated and subsequently...

...die...

Works for me... Let Darwinism work... We should not be saving stupid people...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 06:30 PM

Very good, Bill. I agree. I use a lot of '......'s as in a conversational phrasing. Some people don't 'get it'....also, I employ satire, cynicism, and double en-tender/humor. I've been told that sometimes ruffle feathers...good! Because often that gets people to think outside the box..in fact, sometimes it might even get people to think at all!..instead of parroting popular unthinking nonsense!
This whole divisive right wing/left wing garbage has ingrained a whole lot of folks with a contrived hostility towards each other, which is nothing more than the product of targeted propaganda...and most all of it either distorted or downright lies! ...but it definitely has cause people to think overtime, in diminished capacities!!! A lot of thinking, but never learning anything. This is primarily caused by the perpetrators of the propaganda telling people 'what' to think, instead of 'how' to think....and think objectively! People have become lazy 'thinkers', and stick to what is considered 'correct' by the party line, but incorrect when it is held up to reality!
..as a result, 'liberals' today are more like the hard nosed supporters of say the Nixon establishment of yesteryear...and more closed minded to any outside, yet enlightening thoughts or concepts, out of fear that it is going to subvert their little bubble of safe, bullshit thinking!!!
This is stupidity on a mass level.
Likewise, 'conservatives' sound more like the 'liberals' did years ago. White is black, black is white, right is wrong, wrong is right type of mentality. Morals are completely out the window...as long as 'our side' wins!...even if 'winning' means losing your liberties and freedom!
Liberals used to be the ones for peace...but threaten violence if their 'candidate' isn't re-elected. Conservatives want smaller government, like the 'liberals' of years passed wanted...Meanwhile, back at the ranch, no matter who is elected into power, while everyone is bickering over petty issues, and the persons in office, the machine is slowly and surely grinding away at everything that both sides hold sacred and take for granted!
An example: Bush ushers in the 'Patriot Act' Conservatives applaud and the liberals object, the same 'Patriot Act' that Joe Biden was the author of in the mid 90's....and that Obama implements even further with the NDAA..now the liberals applaud...because it was Obama that ran it through! WHAT????
Liberals are pissed at 'Citizens United'....as long as that doesn't include union's contributions!..WHAT????
This administration is so far removed from the 'liberal' ideal that one wonders and scratches his head at what the hell are the 'libs' thinking of!....BUT..because he is black..or half black, the liberals THINK that because he was voted into office, that 'liberalism' has come a long way...and "Oh Boy, we made progress!"...and "because I voted for him, I must be REALLY progressive now!" ...Nonsense!
now the country is about to over-re-act the other way...and think things are going to 'straighten out'...nonsense!!

As long as people's senses are dulled to abandon objective impartiality, and have that replaced with the attention span of a mayfly, we will get this kind of 'Leadership'(read: 'Dictatorship') that we've been getting...and the freedoms and liberties we grew up with, and afforded us the right to criticize, or even comment on the ills that plague our society and government, will be gone too! Note, how even the censorship goes on in here, if it doesn't go along with the 'party line'. (NOTE: it has gotten a LOT better...but their are those who would silence a dissenter of the programmed so-called liberal thought patterns, than to consider a wider point of view!

OK...enough for now.....another tactic is to say 'it was too long to follow', therefor made no sense!

Regards!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 06:52 PM

"Liberals are pissed at 'Citizens United'....as long as that doesn't include union's contributions!."

78.482% of the objections to 'Citizens United' is the ability to NOT be identified. Unions are pretty open about who they support... but CU allows 2-3 guys to 'speak' for an entire corporation. SuperPACs are worse...Unions at least usually vote on what they do.... and the union heads are elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 10:19 PM

See???
Do you think that a union block speaks for ALL its members, when endorsing and contributing towards a candidate?...and spending union dues to do such?

If you have a doubt about it, check the Wisconsin union's vote during Walker's recall election.
That should tell you all you need to know.
If you can't find it, I'll be happy to find it for you....but then you run the risk of having to bear one of my accompanying comments! (wink)

GfS P.S. Here, I'll spare you....this is one of quite a few articles.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 03:36 AM

Shit...We're back to politics......but if science is really about finding the truth, politics is definitely an alternative.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 06:31 AM

on todays featured article on CMI, dino prints in australia feature.this does have a link to a evolutionary view video link from aussie tv,though i could not get it to play.
info only-othing to add!   pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 08:05 AM

CMI? A little more explanation, please. Though if you mean "The Curse of Monkey Island", I don't remember dino prints ...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 09:07 AM

***************************NEWS ALERT****************************

------------------Vaccines 'cause illness------------------------

**************************Details @ 11***************************

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 10:44 AM

In Pete's case, CMI means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Ministries_International .. whose website is Creation.com

Various of us have noted that if that's his major source of info, his view will be...umm... limited. But he doesn't wish to entertain ideas that might possibly conflict with his faith....not an uncommon attitude... and at that web site there are articles & links to various people with 'science' degrees who can twist various data to 'seem' to deny evolution concepts.
All attempts to suggest to Pete and some others that IF there is a god, it could have made the laws of evolution seem not to have much effect... *shrug*.
Pete..(and many others)... are good folk; they just resist accepting anything which might possibly conflict with literal reading of their Bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 11:40 AM

And if there's a God, there's no obvious way to know what, if anything, he wants of us.

If there were, there'd be just one religion, plus a bunch of clearly unintelligent and/or unbalanced atheists.

Not the situation we see all around us.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 12:00 PM

The CMI dinosaur footprint story is here: http://creation.com/kimberley-dinosaur-footprints

It's really a load of utter nonsense. For example:

"A river plain of such an enormous extent is monstrous compared with the rivers on the earth today. The Broome Sandstone points to an exceptionally large depositional system."

This statement is a lie. Of course massive depositional systems exist on the earth today. Want me to list them? Better still, figure it out for yourself. That's only warming up though:

"The idea of a river plain comes from the pattern of cross-bedding in the sandstone. These beds indicate that the water was flowing as the sediment was deposited. Some of the cross-beds are very large, so large that they indicate water flows of biblical proportions. In order to avoid such an interpretation, the sand deposits with the large cross-beds have been interpreted as forming in a desert. That's right—a desert. This switch implies a puzzling sequence of environments. How could there have been a fast flowing river system, followed by a dry desert, followed by another river system? By ignoring the possibility of Noah's Flood these palaeontologists create problems for themselves as they try to interpret what was going on."

So much is wrong in this paragraph I'm going to cherry pick the bollocks dangling from it's ignorant underside, and say we know switches from environments can happen very quickly indeed. Once more, a cursory glance through the literature would show this sort of dramatic change in depositional environments have happened many times in the earth's history and are happening today. No need to invoke a god who told some 500 year-old geezer to build a boat to save whatever animals said god saw fit to survive. Note that the flood was supposed to punish mankind for his unrighteous behaviour; shame that all those innocent animals had to suffer too. Nice.

Continuing on to talk about the mode of preservation of the tracks, the article states:

"It's interesting that Steve Salisbury recognises the transience of the situation. He says, "Most of the track sites that we see probably only represent, you know, between a few days and a couple of weeks, 130 million years ago, so they really do provide a fantastic snapshot."

That is interesting. So far, so good. Transience is a key concept in science. Geologists and palaeontologists are very aware of transience. Then comes this:

"Note, "A few days and a couple of weeks", and "snapshot"."

Uh oh. From a geologist or palaeontologists point of view Steve is spot on. Any sedimentary exposure is a snapshot of time, so why take note of the bleedin' obvious? Also, I can't see an issue with the possible timeline here, the margins of any body of water can change over seconds, hours, days, weeks, months, years, eons. Fact (see NYC subway at time of writing). Look up time averaging and understand why ichnologists are guarded when it rears it's head. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Must be paranoia that a creationist might make the facts fit their version of events, not the other way around.

Next comes:

"The footprints are the clear evidence for this brief, short time frame. They were made in soft sediment, and that provides a tight time constraint. And the imprints have been well preserved, which also constrains the time before the subsequent sediment was deposited on top. If the footprints had been exposed for any longer than a few weeks they would have been eroded away."

Er, possibly, possibly not. I don't know if a paper has been published on these tracks (I have a feeling Thulborn has published on the Broome tracksite but I'd have to look it up), but I would hesitate to comment until I've read it. I suspect Sailsbury knows what he's talking about, though again I'd like to see his published research on the site before I ventured an opinion. The tracks could be exposed for much longer than a few weeks depending on the environmental conditions; in some areas of Death Valley you can still see the tracks of mules made by trains driven through by miners over a century ago.

"Clearly, people who talk about those mind-numbing time periods of 130-million years have a time problem: where do they propose to insert all those millions of years into the sediments?"

Whoa! Where did that come from? Has the bullshit fairy been? Here is the news: if 130my of sediment were still there you wouldn't be able to see the tracks. Or Broome probably. But they might not ever have been laid down, they might have been laid down, worn away, more sediment laid down, worn away again and are being exposed now. There is no time problem, except in the dim recesses of the brain of the person who wrote that ludicrous sentence. But there's more:

"The Catalyst program captured the dramatic attempts of dinosaurs trying to escape the rising waters of Noah's Flood some 4,500 years ago. Although the program made no reference to this global event, and presented the information exclusively in terms of evolution over millions of years, the evidence is plain to those who know what to look for. As my friend who brought this program to my attention said, "I have to admit I just thought of dinos running from flood waters when I saw it." "

Wow. Of course, it's entirely possible his mate is correct and the dinosaurs were running away from a flood . . . or a landslide, or another dinosaur, or an earthquake, or the smell of sauropod farts . . . or just about anything else. Citing these tracks as evidence for Noah's Flood is plainly ridiculous, as they aren't. They are evidence for an animal (or group) crossing a small part of a river system some time in the Mesozoic. The whole CMI analysis is poorly thought out, badly argued and so erroneous in it's conclusions it is deserving of the utmost contempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 01:37 PM

Why bother, SJ?

Why bother?

Some minds are hermetically self-sealed.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 02:43 PM

***************************NEWS ALERT**************************

Big Foot exists, Global warming doesn't........................

**************************Details @ 11*************************

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 03:07 PM

ah come on bill-we,ve been here long enough for you to know that i have read other stuff,-though much less than you might like.i even read sugarjacks take on the article.i posted as a matter of interest and had no expectation of changing minds.
did you get the [NON CREATIONIST] video to play BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 03:34 PM

Pete - you'd change my mind if you offered any evidence. As it is, you don't have a shred of evidence and what is presented on the CMI website is at best ill-informed speculation and at worst something altogether more nefarious. Posting crap like that won't change minds. I mean, you can't even engage in reasoned debate even though I hope you might just try.

You've already insulted me and my fellow palaeontologists by calling us dishonest, so I suppose you're not going to listen to reason now.

My mind is open. Show me evidence. Show me a horse in the Jurassic, a bony fish in the Ediacaran biota. Show me evidence of a single global flood event. Not bits cherry picked from here and there, but a comprehensive, cohesive and rigorous study that shows a single layer of sediment, deposited simultaneously worldwide which contains all known species of animals extant around 4,500 BC, and also the extinct species we find in the fossil record. All mixed up as you would expect in such a chaotic event.

Post the reference here and shut us all up.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 03:48 PM

I'd settle for "most contemporary species worldwide, plus extinct ones, including a few dinosaurs and lots of human skeletons."

Of course, if you couldn't find the contemporary species and the humans in the Flood sediment, it would be evidence for evolution, at least since the Flood. That could be tricky.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 04:10 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 04:39 PM

Jack.no way am i going to contest your arguments.but just to clarify,maybe cite instances today of water inundation to desert and then back to water.i did think of flash floods in the desert but that would be the opposite scenario.of course there is the parting and drying up of the red sea and jordan but i,m sure you did,nt mean that!

"that statement is a lie"
that does not follow does it?it may be that the author was incorrect but that does not make him a liar,does it?
but just for the benefit of this layman,maybe cite a couple of flood plains of equal or greater extent than the broomestone quoted.
i believe CMI would want to leave factual inaccuracies out of their arguments - notwithstanding your "utmost contempt".

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 05:20 PM

...but is there life after death??..or is life but an illusion?...just that it is in material bodies?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 06:08 PM

Pete... note that I said "MAJOR source of info"

I know you have looked at other stuff... I just fret over how you tend to evaluate it.

I could not find the actual video, but there is a transcript of it. Nothing in it suggests that dinosaurs were coexisting with men.... the creation.com website simply states that is is so.

Taking the geological data and 'interpreting' it to support a favored result is NOT good practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 03:17 AM

...and is matter an illusion...only detected by other matter??...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 03:42 AM

"...and is matter an illusion...only detected by other matter??..."

I think that you need to think that through, GfS. I'll leave that to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 03:54 AM

I already did..........your turn.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 05:42 AM

"but just for the benefit of this layman,maybe cite a couple of flood plains of equal or greater extent than the broomestone quoted."

The full extent of the Brome Sandstone isn't actually known (another lie in the CMI article) plus it does contain mudstones (yet another lie from the CMI author). See here: http://dbforms.ga.gov.au/pls/www/geodx.strat_units.sch_full?wher=stratno=2645

As this renders the question of which delta's on earth are bigger than the Broome system redundant. Suffice to say, if you Google delta you'll find the information you're looking for. Do the research Pete, you may never know where it will lead.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 09:00 AM

""Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity - PM
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 03:17 AM

...and is matter an illusion...only detected by other matter??...""

Run along and play on the highway Goofus.

The adults are trying to hold an intelligent conversation.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 05:34 PM

seems bill i did,nt read carefully enough but strangely you seem to have read more into my post too, as i dont recall mentioning dino and man at the same time [though i do believe that] and said the video was non creationist.
pity the video dont play-i had wondered if it might just be a regional problem when i could,nt play it.
i raised some of jacks points on the comment section as did others on that facility.tas walker replied to points raised though i expect jack will just say-more lies!
i am sure interpreting to gain a favoured result is not good practise but i am sure that evolutionists are at least as much inclined to the practise as creationist researchers.presuppositions and worldview must inform and influence research.the omission of data in the man-monkey dna correspondece that i earlier cited is a case in point.
as always,enjoying the friendly exchanges bill.
pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 05:42 PM

OK, GfS, lock your front door and then take a run at it, and attempt to pass through it. Try that again tomorrow, and the day after, and so on for a week. Try the same experiment again next year. Ask your self, "was my experience consistent?" If "yes", what are the chances that you experienced an illusion? Take a suitable number of pain killers.

Find another person prepared to try the same experiment (best of luck with that!). Did that person pass through your front door as if it wasn't there?

You might also like to consider the question: can nothing experience an illusion?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 08:19 PM

i am sure interpreting to gain a favoured result is not good practise but i am sure that evolutionists are at least as much inclined to the practise as creationist researchers

You see, pete, the thing is that you are slyly equating "evolutionists" (scientists seeking truth via scepticism) with "creationist researchers" (charlatans seeking to cherrypick "facts" which confirm their prejudices). I really wish you could see just how dishonest these people you consort with really are.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 08:24 PM

*****************************NEWS ALERT***************************

Mitt Romney today said that if elected science would no longer be taught in school but also the word itself outlawed and removed from
all dictionaries and other books even if it mean the burning of a
number of books.

****************************Details @ 11**************************

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 08:38 PM

Mitt Romney today said that if elected science would no longer be taught in school

I didn't know science was even standing. Thought it was Mitt...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 01:39 AM

Shimrod: "OK, GfS, lock your front door and then take a run at it, and attempt to pass through it. Try that again tomorrow, and the day after, and so on for a week. Try the same experiment again next year. Ask your self, "was my experience consistent?" If "yes", what are the chances that you experienced an illusion? Take a suitable number of pain killers."

OK, Did it..didn't need any painkillers though....breezed right through the door...repeatedly...no problem!!

Oh, by the way...I did lock the door as requested by you....but this is where partial information can go 'not the way you thought it should', according to your directions.....Was I supposed to close the door before I locked it???

Grinning!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 04:35 AM

Ludicrous hair-splitting, GfS - you know what I meant! A serious point in all of this silliness is that you are not taking responsibility for your own notions. When I asked you to think through YOUR notion that matter is an illusion experienced by other matter, you avoided your responsibilty and bounced it back to me. I have no further responsibilty in this ... ahemmmm! ... matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 11:28 AM

Pete- I see Steve Shaw picked on the same line that caught MY eye.

" i am sure that evolutionists are at least as much inclined to the practise as creationist researchers."

That, pete, is distorting how things work in the two different approaches. By definition, 'evolutionists' become evolutionists by their inclination to follow testable scientific progress wherever it leads; they do not simply believe it because someone in authority told them so. Now... once they are convinced that certain clear evidence leads them to accept evolution as a basic hypothesis, of course they do their studies & research within scientific realms.
When creationists suggest **scientific** evidence exists for their beliefs..(such as dino footprints near human fossils..etc.), that data is looked at and evaluated scientifically. So far, NO... that is... NONE of the suggested sites and data have stood up to rigorous examination! There are many ways to evaluate the dates and relationships between items found 'near' each other, and they all indicate millions of years between the last dinosaur and the first human.
(Some supposed 'evidence' has simply proved not to be 'footprints' at all, while other real footprints were shown to be in different geological eras.)

As to 'man/monkey'....it bears repeating that no one is claiming that somehow 'monkeys' changed into men.....it is not that simple. It IS claimed that men & monkeys (actually, apes) at some point had a common ancestor(s)..(and even THAT is too simple). DNA does prove that we humans are distantly...very distantly... related to the other higher primates. This in no way diminishes what we are...and if you wish to believe the God planned and designed the way it all worked, well... *shrug*.. fine.... but ALL the evidence indicates millions of years of complex lines of inheritance that produced US at the end of one line and apes at another.

Pete... you often note that 'some' folk with degrees in science can be found who doubt the evidence and believe very much as YOU do. I note that it is still possible to find some who believe the Earth is flat.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 11:48 AM

Shimrod: "Ludicrous hair-splitting, GfS - you know what I meant!...."

Hey, that's science...NOT starting off with what ANYBODY MEANT!..or ANY preconception....just letting the cards fall where they do, and observing the outcomes.
This happens to be the basis, regardless of subject.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 11:55 AM

A mountain of tested, re-tested and well-established evidence (about anything) is no preconception. It can't be undermined and superseded by a handful of questionable challenges based on little more than "what if" and "I was taught."

That's just a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 11:57 AM

DNA does more than that, Bill. It points to a common origin for all life. Not saying, of course, that life could not have arisen in the same manner more than once, given suitable conditions. But the fact that all living organisms are based on the same DNA coding, with many genes even shared by creatures that appear to be as unrelated as can be, speaks volumes about common ancestries - and the truth of evolution.

I find it utterly amazing that grown people can still claim that dinosaurs existed alongside humans.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 11:57 AM

Right...that's part of the difference between 'faith' and 'religion'!
..and why so many 'religions' have no faith.

GfS