Aristotle

[AV1611VET]

Nope. They're statements, of course, but when Aristotle said the second one, it wasn't scientific, it was philosophical.

Not in the current formalized methodology, no. Sure, there were things done that could have counted as science, but they did not have the formal methodology that we have now.

I detect the No True Scotsman Principle, that science runs on, being invoked.

 

[Thistlethorn]

I detect the No True Scotsman Principle, that science runs on, being invoked.

I don't understand why it's so hard for you to understand this. With the scientific method, you can call it science. Without the scientific method, it isn't science. The word has changed meaning since the invention of the scientific method. You have been told this many times, and this is the last time I'm going to educate you. Next time you drag this up, I'm going to report you for spamming, and call you a liar.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't understand why it's so hard for you to understand this. With the scientific method, you can call it science. Without the scientific method, it isn't science.

I don't know when the Scientific Method first was used, it looks like around 1885, but for the record, I'm talking about science.

You can set the Scientific Method up as a barrier between no science and science, but the Bible has science in operation in Daniel's time:

Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

Solomon, in my opinion, was a scientist.

And I don't know how many times I've used this link: 74.

In short, the Bible (and others) disagree with you, and the Scientific Method can take a hike.

 

[Thistlethorn]

I don't know when the Scientific Method first was used, it looks like around 1885, but for the record, I'm talking about science.

You can set the Scientific Method up as a barrier between no science and science, but the Bible has science in operation in Daniel's time:Solomon, in my opinion, was a scientist.

And I don't know how many times I've used this link: 74.

The Scientific Method can take a hike.

Your opinion can take a hike.

 

[Split Rock]

I was?

Sure, why not? If you can tell me how I was "indoctrinated" then I can do the same for you. Or are you going to call in another double-standard?

 

[Split Rock]

I detect the No True Scotsman Principle, that science runs on, being invoked.

And I detect something that smells bad and needs to be shoveled. Don't forget beauracrates and engineers, AVET... they are all "scientists" too!

 

[Split Rock]

I don't know when the Scientific Method first was used, it looks like around 1885, but for the record, I'm talking about science.

You can set the Scientific Method up as a barrier between no science and science, but the Bible has science in operation in Daniel's time:Solomon, in my opinion, was a scientist.

And I don't know how many times I've used this link: 74.

In short, the Bible (and others) disagree with you, and the Scientific Method can take a hike.

Again, you wrote that wrong. "In short, my interpretation of The Bible disagrees with you." Just like "The Bible tells us that" athesist worship nature, right? It doesn't really matter what atheists really do believe, or what a scientist is today... all we need is your interpretation of scripture to tell us all about everybody else.

 

[Cabal]

And I don't know how many times I've used this link: 74

And it's still as wrong now as it was when you first posted it.

 

[quatona]

Wasn´t Aristotle a theist?

 

[Danyc]

Man, I cracked up laughing in the first 2 seconds after reading the OP. AV, it is so glaringly obvious what you're trying to do, I don't know why we even bother asking you what your purpose in creating this thread was, we all know already. Maybe we just want to hear you say it, but we know you won't, because you never have in all of your other cookie-cutter threads after each of has, in turn, asked you multiple times. "No comment" is the most we get. And nobody wonders why.

Each of these threads takes a simple route:

1. You create thread.
2. You ask "seemingly" curious question.
3. We all laugh and decide to amuse you.
4. Posts are made like "Again?", and "Really, AV?" Others give straight "Yes." and "No." answers because we know that we just would like you to get to your eventual point as quickly as possible so we can provide the ever-so-obvious rebuttal, laugh, and watch you /thread.
5. We eventually arrive at your point, while along the way multiple individuals have pointed out the eventual point already and everybody knows it. Nobody is surprised when you apparently ensnare us with your booby-trapped hole in the ground of an argument that is 1-2 feet deep and is covered by a single palm frond. And this particular palm-frond has lost half of its leaves.
6. We provide necessary rebuttal (which has already been presented numerous times, and ignored).
7. You play feeble semantic games for a few pages and then leave.
8. You then have a new QV quote mine to dig into whenever the fallacious need arises.

I'm beginning to think that Step 8 is the only reason you make these threads.

 

[peadar1987]

Almost a million posts now. Have you managed to convince a single atheist that god exists? Or a single person that science is fundamentally flawed?

 

[AV1611VET]

Almost a million posts now. Have you managed to convince a single atheist that god exists? Or a single person that science is fundamentally flawed?

I've only been here 3.5 years --- that means I've still got 116.5 years to go to match Noah's record.

 

[godsmission]

I've only been here 3.5 years --- that means I've still got 116.5 years to go to match Noah's record.

If you had an argument to use it might help.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I've only been here 3.5 years --- that means I've still got 116.5 years to go to match Noah's record.

hard to do without Noah's talent.

 

[Split Rock]

I've only been here 3.5 years --- that means I've still got 116.5 years to go to match Noah's record.

I think its funny that you chose such a poor example to emulate... a drunk who failed miserably to convince anyone to repent in 120 years. At least you are not aiming beyond your capabilities.

 

[pgp_protector]

I think its funny that you chose such a poor example to emulate... a drunk who failed miserably to convince anyone to repent in 120 years. At least you are not aiming beyond your capabilities.

LOL

 

[AV1611VET]

I think its funny that you chose such a poor example to emulate...

Yet that 'drunk' was the only one to find grace in the eyes of the LORD.

a drunk who failed miserably to convince anyone to repent in 120 years.

It's the 121st year that mattered, though.

Through Noah's preaching, I'm sure many (if not all) got saved.

As they say, there are no atheists in foxholes, and Noah would have given them the One to report to for salvation.

 

[gaara4158]

Yet that 'drunk' was the only one to find grace in the eyes of the LORD.It's the 121st year that mattered, though.

Through Noah's preaching, I'm sure many (if not all) got saved.

As they say, there are no atheists in foxholes, and Noah would have given them the One to report to for salvation.

Well, in the event of an undeniably supernatural apocalypse, I'd be turning to anyone but the Judeo-Christian God. Knowing him, I'd be in the worst block of hell for masturbating too much. I'd have to hope it was Qetzalcoatl or Zeus.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Yet that 'drunk' was the only one to find grace in the eyes of the LORD.It's the 121st year that mattered, though.

Through Noah's preaching, I'm sure many (if not all) got saved.

If the ramblings of the town drunk have merit.

I especially find it amusing in light of the idea that prior to Noah, it had never rained. So not only is Noah rambling, but to his neighbors, he's rambling total nonsense... not unlike the reaction you would probably get if you warned us to repent before the Purple Oobleck comes and kills us all.

As they say, there are no atheists in foxholes, and Noah would have given them the One to report to for salvation.

I suppose that's one way to look for a silver lining, considering that, theologically speaking, everything else about Noah's mission was a dismal failure.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Solomon, in my opinion, was a scientist.

Technically, Solomon was a Sorceror-King who regularly violated almost every Biblical Law of the Old Testament during his ungodly long reign, Including (but not limited to) Summoning and Controlling Deamons for his own Fun and Profit.

I'm not saying he wasn't a Wise and Just King who ruled a very prosperous Empire. Afterall, He's something of an role-model to me. But, he was not the Model Christian that you'd like to believe, AV. He had more Gods in his Closet then Royal Advisers in his Cabinet!