Originally posted by humyThe whole does not have to be thrown out with the bath water. Just get rid of the dirty bath water.
yes, and that includes throwing out:
the whole of geology ( think old rocks not necessarily dated using radiometric dating )
the whole of nuclei physics ( think of radiometric dating )
the whole of general relativity ( think, for example, of gravitational lensing we see of distant galaxies by distant galaxy clusters with light that only could be bent that ...[text shortened]... sciences and wouldn't work at all if they were wrong -the absurdity of young Earth is complete.
Originally posted by sonhouseKeep that part which is true and discard that part which is false.
Which one of those examples would you allow, if you were the ruler of science?
I don't have any problem with computer science, so far. But I do have a problem with the hackers and dumb programmers.
Originally posted by RJHindsYes you do, you don't believe in simulations. You think they are biasaed and prooves nothing. So you've said earlier.
Keep that part which is true and discard that part which is false.
I don't have any problem with computer science, so far. But I do have a problem with the hackers and dumb programmers.
Originally posted by RJHindsAdam and Eve legend is of egyptian origin, from some 1500 years earlier than the alleged story of the black book. This is scientificly proven.
This thread is to discuss and debate problems with science. If you wish to discuss and debate Egyptian mythology and how to ward off imaginary devils, then I suggest the Spirituality Forum.
Again: This is scientificly proven, and not 'proven' by a clip from Youtube.
Originally posted by RJHindsHave you even seen the proofs why Eve&Adam legend is taken from the egyptian mythology thousands of year earlier the christian legend?
Then, it is no good.
What exactly is wrong with this science? (Don't go into religion now, we are in the Science Forum, remember?)
Hypothetically, if the title of this thread was made by a good scientist or at least someone that new what he was talking about when talking about science, it could conceivably be a perfectly reasonable title for a thread providing he really does discuss some real problems that exist for real science.
But, given the context of the fact the title of this thread was made by a religious nut and a moron that simply doesn't know what he is talking about esp when it comes to science because he understands absolutely nothing about how real science works, the title of "Problems with Science" couldn't be much more moronic. What understanding could he possible have of "problems" of something he understands absolutely nothing about? answer, he can't. He just would inevitably make up a load of crap consisting of fictitious 'problems' of science that don't exist and purely as a futile attempt to support his obvious religious agenda.
Some real problems for real science do exist, such as, for example, how to educate those who don't understand scientific method (such as RJHinds ) to understand it and thus not harmfully misunderstand science as they so often do. If these real problems were discussed in this thread, its conversations could potentially be constructive. However, absolutely none of these real problems for real science give any credence to any religious ideology let alone Creationism.
Originally posted by RJHindsYour usual evasive answer. I ask again, which one of these sciences would you through out? Or which one of these do you consider "True" and which one do you consider false?
Keep that part which is true and discard that part which is false.
I don't have any problem with computer science, so far. But I do have a problem with the hackers and dumb programmers.
Originally posted by sonhouseI don't put much crediblity in this type of speculation. If what he is doing here is called science by some, then that is another one of the problems with modern science.
http://ggreenberg.tripod.com/writings/w-egypt-eden.htm
Read this account of the similarities between ancient Egyptian mythology and Adam and Eve.
Originally posted by sonhouseI would not throw out any of the sciences. It's those that do bad science that I would throw out, like this Gary Greenberg.
Your usual evasive answer. I ask again, which one of these sciences would you through out? Or which one of these do you consider "True" and which one do you consider false?
Originally posted by RJHindsIf you want to throw out bad science, then throw out everything you learnt from your creation sites, and the bad science links from youtube. And get rid of the evilution of yours, that's just bad science.
I would not throw out any of the sciences. It's those that do bad science that I would throw out, like this Gary Greenberg.
And start to learn real science for a change.