Re: Evolution Flunked the Science Test

All-seeing-I wrote:
On Oct 18, 8:32 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

I've never claimed that religiously based web sites were universally
invalid. If you want to use them for devotional purposes, that seems
appropriate and it's entirely fine with me. The problem is that you try
to get your science from them with predictably poor results. Conversely,
I wouldn't recommend using T.O. in religious discussions since it isn't
focused on religious issues.

So you are saying that YOUR science is the only valid sourse of
information on this planet?

No, I'm suggesting that we let scientists determine what is science, just as we let theologians determine what is religion. Not all information is scientific information. I wouldn't necessarily rely on a scientist to tell me about morality or finance, for example.

muah..no kid. Sorry. It's not.

This thread, which I believe that you started is entitled "Evolution
Flunked the Science Test". It sounds to me like you want to discuss
evolution (a scientific theory), it seems to me that referring to
evolution-specific web sites would be appropriate. You seem to think
otherwise.

Why do you want to ignore, even discredit the opinion of other web
sites that differ from your own opinion? Do you always put your
fingers in your ear and claim what differes from your opinion is
false?

No, I don't. I'm open to listening to other people's opinions, but I reserve the right to reject those opinions when they can't back them up properly. (Yes, *I* get to determine what constitutes "proper" for me and for me alone.) Opinions is one thing, but factual errors is quite another. When a web site portrays obvious errors (the length of the roots of T. rex teeth, for example) as truth, those web sites deserve to be called on their errors and any information that they present that is based on those errors should *not* be trusted. That's reasonable, isn't it?

Do you feel only what YOU believe may be 100% true? Where did you get
this absolute truth from anyway? Please do not say science unless you
are willing to say science has found absolute truth.

I'm quite certain that there are things that I believe that aren't true. I try to understand what those beliefs might be, why I am attracted to them, and I try not to take action on those beliefs to the detriment of other people.

If you read what I said, (paraphrasing), "for the purpose of this
discussion the TO website is invalid". And it is. It puts a spin on
the information. Anyone with 1/2 a brain can see that.
I understand that you don't like the implications of evolution. I
sympathize with that. I really do. But I will also point out that not
liking something does not automatically lead to the conclusion that that
something is wrong.

Physician! Heal thyself. Please.

If you can claim my sourses invalid then I can do the same. It really
is just THAT simple. If you accept my sourses, then I may reconsider
TO as a valid source in some things. Because there are a few places
where they got it right IMHO.
[] nonsense.
... and still no acknowledgement that your "information" about T. rex
teeth was wrong. My prediction is looking good, eh?

I bet you do not percieve this as a childish response. huh...

It's a poke. It's nowhere near the most adult thing that I've ever written, 'tis true. It's purpose, though, is to serve as a reminder to you that you hold patently false beliefs that you are entirely apologetic about, even when called on them. Every once in a while, everyone is wrong about something, and it does no harm to acknowledge one's errors. Making mistakes and admitting to those mistakes is how one learns, after all.

That is ok. I do believe you are rather intelligent regardless if you
are 5 or 105

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: THE GENESES OF THE FALSE THEORIES IN PHYSICS
    ... Then try studying the facts of history. ... You look at others opinions of how science works. ... Working daily with scientists that are doing science was necessary. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Evolution Flunked the Science Test
    ... No, I'm suggesting that we let scientists determine what is science, just as we let theologians determine what is religion. ... I'm open to listening to other people's opinions, but I reserve the right to reject those opinions when they can't back them up properly. ... When a web site portrays obvious errors as truth, those web sites deserve to be called on their errors and any information that they present that is based on those errors should *not* be trusted. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Abiogenesis
    ... Science cannot explain how it occurred. ... thinking and writing on abiogenesis. ... ordinary scientists, amateurs, and grad students. ... I admit that my opinions on abiogenesis are only opinions, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Aaaghhh! Another horrible vet experience.
    ... Which many "mainstream" scientists today do not do. ... The history of science contains quite a few cases where the ... opinions regarding scientific topics. ...
    (rec.pets.dogs.behavior)
  • Re: OT: Global warming stuff
    ... That forms the bulk of the "science" you describe. ... http://ssec.wisc.edu if you'd like to look at what my colleagues are ... vaunted "10s of thousands of scientists" argument. ... I do not make any secret of the fact that I am expressing my opinions. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)