Re: Question for Dumb*** Xtian Fundies About Earth's Derivation

[chicken-*** top-posting healed for context]

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:

In article <65bd2293-2f60-4f4c-857e-ccad1ac087a6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ken Shackleton <ken.shackleton@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 23, 6:07 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fh...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article <8527a06f-a041-4973-90c8-2868cae36...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@xxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jun 23, 12:51 am, mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fh...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article
<e532e0e3-ae09-4d0e-b3df-312936513...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
However....it should be obvious, even to you, that just because we
have a good method for getting answers; it does not follow that we
should have all the answers, or even expect to be able to someday find
the answer to every question. It does follows that we should keep
trying.
if youre going to use science to decide what is true
then you better make sure science is complete
You cannot possibly be this stupid. Are you actually claiming that
science must know everything in order to know anything?
nice inversion
im sure you can wow all your friends with pseudologic like that

how do you feel about using a single system to decide all truths
when you know that system is incomplete?
It gets results...no other method does that.

does it make you cautious? or do you just push on through without regard?

OK...so? There are lots of questions that science cannot currently
okay heres a question for you
is shiva real?
No.

Is the Easter Bunny real?

you will trot out your science and say there is no empirical evidence
and therefore you will conclude no
Not real. It is true that people imagine all sorts of things. That is
more likely than Shiva being real.

how do you know this is one of those questions science cannot currently answer?
dont you think just a little humility would be appropriate
before passing judgement on beliefs other than your own
I have no problem ignoring beliefs which are unsupported by evidence.
I can quite easily reject beliefs that run counter to evidence and
have no problem ridiculing those people that hold those beliefs as
true.

answer. Science is powerful precisely because it does not pretend to
have all the answers, and the answers that it does have are useful.
if you are claiming mere utility
then you would admit the possibility of limitation
limitations? of course.

and that other methods of enquiry might find the truth
No others so far have shown this ability.

in other words it might mean non-empirical methods might find the truth
Show me how.

but you are insisting only empirical means are acceptable
Right, unless you can show that I am wrong.

why?
Because I am not insane?

You really are that stupid....
no its just you really dont understand what the scientific method is
I think that I have a better grasp on that than you do.

We know that our ancestors controlled fire, invented and refined stone
tools, agriculture, metallurgy, pottery, writing.....how was this done
then if not through a quasi-scientific process?
quasi-scientific is pretty broad door
its lets in anything you want
(in other words - youre cheating)
cheating....that's too funny from you.

observation, guesses, testing the guesses, and abandoning the wrong
guesses.....that's what I meant.

I know better. There is no reason at all to use appeals to the
supernatural to explain anything.
what would you appeal to then?
evidence.

the science which even you now admit is incomplete?
I prefer incomplete knowledge to the illusion of complete knowledge.
You apparently prefer the illusion.

You have stated that Intelligent Design is an explanation for the
observed facts of evolution [June 15th 4:51 PM]. You also stated that
it is an explanation for the observations
unlike you i dont insist there is only one explanation for the observations
For explanations to be of any use, they must be testable. This means
that they must be predictive.

ID explains nothing....it is anti-explanation. But thanks for
admitting that you now support it.

it is easy to show that the evolution of domesticated life is
Intelligent Design [June 16th, 4:45 AM].
now youre just being silly
if you really dont think farmers are intelligent
or they arent making breeding and survival decisions for their plants and animals
It's not intelligent design. They do not design their animals; they
simply select what they prefer from the available variation. It's
artificial selection, the mechanism is exactly the same as natural
selection. The distinction is that the farmer is the selective filter
rather than the natural environment. If you want to call it
intelligent selection, so be it....it's not intelligent design.

> yet another intolerant arrogant science worshipping ***
>
> when you get someone to finally admit their houses has glass walls
> and they decide they would rather throw stones than admit they > can break what else is left

Run away, little Mari; run away as fast as you can.

Tuck tail and skedaddle.

Nice to have known you. 'Ware the ass/door interface.

<dumb-ass sig snipped>

.