Re: 2007, but no homosexual gene, protein, hormone, enzyme or evidence.

In article <1176792325.863269.196090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
derdag <derdag@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 16, 11:30 pm, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1176776352.674136.185...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,





derdagi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 16, 9:38 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article <1176772987.680332.112...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

derdag <der...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One way to start would be to stop offhandedly dismissing people's
opinions as bull*** merely because you disagree with them.

I considered it carefully before I decided that plausibility based on
assumptions which were hypothetically proposed didn't equate to
scientific evidence. It just didn't take a lot of taxing cerebration
to arive at my conclusions.

Nobody has the facts yet, and you're trying to pretend otherwise.

Is that what offends you?

Your a-priori "conclusions" are offensive.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!

Congratulations! You have identified the very reason that most
creationists or ID people have a problem with the ToE. Same reason.

You are wrong in many ways. Bu trather than leave you hanging as to how,
as is your typical habit, I will explain.

Scientists do not pretend they have all the answers. Creationists
pretend they do: the Bible. What's more, they pretend that scientists
pretend they have all the answers. Although it's been told to you many
times that scientists don't, you still pretend that they do. Why is
that?

Creationists use one a-priori assumption: the Bible is inerrant and
contains a factual account of Creation. All kinds of fanciful proposals
have been put forward to try to bend the evidence to fit Genesis; none
of them equate to scientific evidence; most of them have serious
procedural errors. What's more, you've used all kinds of
misrepresentations of both the Bible and of Evolution theory to support
other a-priori assumptions about human nature. Why do you lie about what
the Bible and TOE state?

The a-priori assumptions in science are that the world is knowable,
follows discoverable rules, and is not subject to supernatural
intervention. These are reasonable, for if any are violated, there can
be no science. If the world is not knowable, then just give up right
now. If there is not a set of simple, discernible rules that can explain
and predict phenomena, then there's nothing to build on. If you accept
supernatural (meaning that it does not follow the laws of physics)
intervention then there can be no predictions, no proofs, no disproofs.
Anything that doesn't turn out the way you wanted it to is explained
"goddidit." Do you not accept these assumptions?

The Bible does not present any verifiable laws of physics. Since it
admits to miracles, nothing can be truly investigated or predicted. The
Bible is not a scientific textbook. How can any rational person pretend
otherwise?

The scientific question is not "How can we present the evidence in such
a way as to support Genesis?" as the Creationists do, but "What does
this evidence tell us about what happened?" Science progresses with an
open mind (but not so open that scientists' brains fall out), honesty,
and integrity. It has, in fact, been vastly more successful at learning
the nature of Nature than Biblical "science" every has, and it is
reasonable to conclude that biblical "science" never will.

I know better than to await a carefully considered rebuttal of my
statements of fact. The response I expect from you is a hastily
conceived stinging one-line dismissal.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Can I ask one thing? How about a real comment on the "thanks Good
site" idea? I hope that who ever is doing it is also clicking 5
bulbs, but they must be. Who ever it is; they don't really hate me.
I know that much.

I knew that you could not address any of the points of fact I presented
here. I knew that you had to deflect attention from that somehow. You're
a waste of space, Derdag. You're not worth the hide you're printed on.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!

.