Re: Another question for IDers

On Apr 25, 4:02 pm, Damaeus <no-m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reading from news:talk.origins,
Inez <savagemouse...@xxxxxxxxxxx> posted:





On Apr 25, 11:21+AKA-am, Damaeus <no-m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reading from news:talk.origins,
"richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
posted:

On Apr 25, 9:04+-AKA-am, Damaeus <no-m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reading from news:talk.origins,
"[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxx> posted:

Inez wrote:
You also seem to think that rabies came into being after the designer
went on potty break. +-AKA-Do you think that rabies viruses are a corrupted
form of bunny rabbit or something? +-AKA-Or did there used to be friendly
viruses like the ones on Red Dwarf that turned wicked? +-AKA-Either way,
how did that happen with the designer absent if evolution is not
possible?

I should have know better then to engage you in any type of conversation.

Since no scientist takes creationism seriously, they can only respond with
jokes to make themselves laugh.

Scientists don't take creationism seriously as science because it
offers nothing of any scientific value.

Then science should broaden its range of what it considers valuable.

Science is a tool, it is not meant to be all things and it is not
meant to be the only mode of human thought.  Demanding that science
consider the non-scientific is like demanding that you be able to
hammer nails with a saw.

If I need to hammer a nail, and I have a saw, but no hammer, I set the
nail with the handle of the saw, then lay the saw blade across the nail,
and bang the side of the saw with the side of my fist.  Problem solved.  I
think an ape could probably even figure out how to do that.

That's nice, but irrelevant. One does not design a saw to hammer
nails. That is not what it is for.

They aren't interested in serious discussions because they disbelief
by default, and no proof, no matter how sane, logical, or sensible,
will be accepted by science whores, simply because it goes against the
word-for-word statements of their science.

What utter bull***! Creationism is not taken seriously as science
because it offers no evidence,

Because they can't get help from the science field to find the evidence
they need/want.

The "science field" is not a kindly avuncular fellow who helps out
those in need, it is a collection of people who study things.  There
is nothing to prevent creationists from doing scientific work other
than perhaps their inherent anti-scientific bias.  But it isn't anyone
else's job to do their experiments for them.

I see your point now.  The scientists (even physicists with Ph.Ds) who are
considered "fringe lunatics physicists" have done experiments.  It just
hit me now that the way reality works, if the scientists who do a
metaphysical experiment actually believe in the experiment, then the
participants are more likely to experience and reveal details that confirm
the truth of the experiment.  But since reality /does/ work based on our
expectations, when scientists or skeptics (James Randi types) come who do
not believe in the experiment, it is more likely to fail.  It's an example
of reality giving people what they want, even if it is frustrating for
both sides.  It's multiple living observer effects flicking the
superstrings of immediate reality to other polarities, thereby affecting
the experiences of everyone by your mere presences. :)

How interesting that your beliefs cannot be demonstrated to people who
do not already believe.

I have noticed that humans have been able to derive a huge amount of
knowledge using science, often with the results of experiments not
being what was expected. I suspect your view is wrong.

.

Loading