Re: Here's a possibility,but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"hecandoit
- From: Gary Bohn <garybohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:26:11 +0000 (UTC)
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:TvSMe.374$L03.353@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
<snip for space>
>> No, John. "Sensory data" is not directly relevant to scientific
>> observation. You've been shown that you are quite alone in regarding
>> theory as "fact", except for a few t.o. evolutionist fanatics and
>> idiot atheists. Theory is an explanation of existing facts. Theories
>> are explanations, potentially wrong ones, that purport to explain
>> facts.
>
> OK. Having decided not to argue the logic of it all, you decide to a)
> repeat your original assertion, b) appeal to unnamed authority,
> apparently some kind of majority of something, and c) repeat your
> original assertion again. We seem to be going nowhere as usual. In the
> future, I will respond if there's anything to respond to, but not if
> there isn't.
>
The then problem becomes; is it a direct obsevation you are making or
just an illusion? Glenn believes that the frequency of occurance
determines the validity of the illusion.
Q: What do you call an illusion of an illusion?
A: A creationist post that contains information.
<snip more stuff>
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
.
- References:
- Question for Creationists- What would convince you?
- From: MagentaStudios
- Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science," he can do it
- From: T Pagano
- Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"he can do it
- From: John Harshman
- Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"he can do it
- From: Glenn
- Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"he can do it
- From: Richard Forrest
- Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"he can do it
- From: Glenn
- Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"he can do it
- From: Richard Forrest
- Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"he can do it
- From: MitchAlsup
- Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"hecan do it
- From: Tracy Hamilton
- Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"hecan do it
- From: r norman
- Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"hecando it
- From: John Harshman
- Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"hecando it
- From: Glenn
- Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"hecandoit
- From: John Harshman
- Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"hecandoit
- From: Glenn
- Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"hecandoit
- From: John Harshman
- Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"hecandoit
- From: Glenn
- Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"hecandoit
- From: John Harshman
- Question for Creationists- What would convince you?
- Prev by Date: Re: Why a presumption of literalism?
- Next by Date: Re: So, I burnt myself ...
- Previous by thread: Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"hecandoit
- Next by thread: Re: Here's a possibility,but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"hecandoit
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
