- Apr 17, 2006
- 6,465
- 4,001
- 47
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Greens
I suspect Kylie is more concerned by the lack of any unbiased peer review.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I suspect Kylie is more concerned by the lack of any unbiased peer review.Read the articles check up on the qualifcations of the authors.
Or are you saying being Christian disqualifies any educational qualifcations.
I suspect Kylie is more concerned by the lack of any unbiased peer review.
Read the articles check up on the qualifcations of the authors.
Or are you saying being Christian disqualifies any educational qualifcations.
The point is that as a scientist if he had verifiable evidence he would be able to publish it in a peer reviewed journal and scientists could point out the specific flaws or not.I don't know why that does not exsit in the scientific world.
A chinese scientice used an english pharase that hinted at creationism and there was uproar.
Unbiased peer review.
I don't know why that does not exsit in the scientific world.
Read the articles check up on the qualifcations of the authors.
Or are you saying being Christian disqualifies any educational qualifcations.
Perhaps he believes in embedded age?The articles were written by Andrew Snelling. He is a hypocrite. He publishes creationist literature saying that there are rock formations that are 1.8 billion years old, and he also publishes young earth creationist material.
Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?
Christian / non Christian does not qualify or disqualifyRead the articles check up on the qualifcations of the authors.
Or are you saying being Christian disqualifies any educational qualifcations.
Aww you gave away the answerNo it doesn't. But it most definitely disqualifies one from any scientific endeavour if one starts with the answer and then looks for corroboration to confirm it. Which is what those at creation.com do (the clue is in the name).
Qualifications don't in themselves prove anything.I suspect Kylie is more concerned by the lack of any unbiased peer review.
In the mid 1700s, scientific skepticism was embraced as a fashion accessory by young nobles of the court of Louis XV.Being a scientist grants a license to just question anything.
Nobody is saying that being a christian matters. Indeed we all agree, well maybe not you, that many well educated, working scientists, are also active christians.Read the articles check up on the qualifcations of the authors.
Or are you saying being Christian disqualifies any educational qualifcations.
If science is so intellectually honest, why doesn't it:"Science" done without intellectual honesty is just garbage.
If science is so intellectually honest, why doesn't it:
- Admit cause-and-effect evidence for the existence of God?
Science doesn't deny it exists, but it cannot confirm what is unevidenced.Admit there's a spiritual world that it (science) can't see?
Lol. Examples, please.Admit they've been changing words in the Bible for years to advance their agenda?
Examples, please.Admit a zero-tolerance for anything we hold sacred; especially in public?
Admit they'll do anything they can get away with?
Your history needs an upgrade, my friend.In the mid 1700s, scientific skepticism was embraced as a fashion accessory by young nobles of the court of Louis XV.
Their misapplication of skepticism, was a silent disaster that deepened the rift betwixt gentry and peasant... and led to the revolution of 1795.
And also to the terror.
The scientists of the time, did try to explain to the young lords, that they were misusing a tool.
Alas, the lords did not listen
Thanks for the QED.How does science do that? People may do that.
- Science cannot confirm what is unevidenced.
- Science doesn't deny it exists, but it cannot confirm what is unevidenced.
- Lol. Examples, please.
- Examples, please.
How does science do that? People may do that.
- Science cannot confirm what is unevidenced.
- Science doesn't deny it exists, but it cannot confirm what is unevidenced.
- Lol. Examples, please.
- Examples, please.
Wow. Both of you would fail miserably in French history exam.Your history needs an upgrade, my friend.
Science was to blame for the French Revolution.
Their attempt to mess with things they shouldn't have been messing with was so oppressive to the common people, they decided they'd had enough.
Trying to change the times to ten-hour days, with ten-day weeks and ten-month years just didn't cut it.
Other than your ignorance of science, what do you think was demonstrated?Thanks for the QED.
I'm sure we would.Wow. Both of you would fail miserably in French history exam.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?