My Aliens challenge

[Shemjaza]

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.

 

[Tolworth John]

I suspect Kylie is more concerned by the lack of any unbiased peer review.

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.

 

[Kylie]

Read the articles check up on the qualifcations of the authors.

Or are you saying being Christian disqualifies any educational qualifcations.

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?

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

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.

That he only publishes in a location with a financial and philosophical connection to a specific answer is suspicious.

 

[Kylie]

I don't know why that does not exsit in the scientific world.

There isn't any because research based on creationism doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Companies that drill for oil don't go to young earth geologists to get them to use creationist theories to discover new oil reserves, after all.

 

[Bradskii]

• Read the articles check up on the qualifcations of the authors.

Or are you saying being Christian disqualifies any educational qualifcations.

No 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).

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

Perhaps he believes in embedded age?

 

[Astrid]

Read the articles check up on the qualifcations of the authors.

Or are you saying being Christian disqualifies any educational qualifcations.

Christian / non Christian does not qualify or disqualify
anyone for anything.
That's a non issue.
The issue with religion v science in this case is
very simple.
Christian equals not "yec".
It is impossible to be a yec, and also maintain intellectual
honesty. *
" Science" done without intellectual honesty is just
garbage.

*Do you understand why it is impossible?

 

[Astrid]

No 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).

Aww you gave away the answer

 

[Astrid]

I suspect Kylie is more concerned by the lack of any unbiased peer review.

Qualifications don't in themselves prove anything.
There were ads by a doctor promoting the use of opioids as non addictive.

Before that they were advertising health benefits of smoking.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Being a scientist grants a license to just question anything.

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

 

[Mr Laurier]

Read the articles check up on the qualifcations of the authors.

Or are you saying being Christian disqualifies any educational qualifcations.

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.
This is a fact that nobody disputes.
It was a christian, Father Georges LeMaitre, who discovered the so called "big bang".
And it was several other christians that discovered the antiquity of the earth.
These active christians... many of them ordained clergy... refuted Young Earth Creationism before it was even made up by the SDA church.
But the Young Earth Creationist movement, is neither Christianity, nor science.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Science" done without intellectual honesty is just garbage.

If science is so intellectually honest, why doesn't it:

1. Admit cause-and-effect evidence for the existence of God?
2. Admit there's a spiritual world that it (science) can't see?
3. Admit they've been changing words in the Bible for years to advance their agenda?
4. Admit a zero-tolerance for anything we hold sacred; especially in public?
5. Admit they'll do anything they can get away with; so long as they can blame it on someone else?
6. Admit they periodically push doomsday scenarios that are as false as eyelashes?
7. Admit they give other religions equal airtime to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If science is so intellectually honest, why doesn't it:

1. Admit cause-and-effect evidence for the existence of God?

1. Science cannot confirm what is unevidenced.

2. Admit there's a spiritual world that it (science) can't see?

   Science doesn't deny it exists, but it cannot confirm what is unevidenced.

3. Admit they've been changing words in the Bible for years to advance their agenda?

   Lol. Examples, please.

4. Admit a zero-tolerance for anything we hold sacred; especially in public?

   Examples, please.

5. Admit they'll do anything they can get away with?

How does science do that? People may do that.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Science cannot confirm what is unevidenced.
2. Science doesn't deny it exists, but it cannot confirm what is unevidenced.
3. Lol. Examples, please.
4. Examples, please.

How does science do that? People may do that.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[Astrid]

1. Science cannot confirm what is unevidenced.
2. Science doesn't deny it exists, but it cannot confirm what is unevidenced.
3. Lol. Examples, please.
4. Examples, please.

How does science do that? People may do that.

It's like super dishonest not to just admit to anything that anyone wants to make up.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

Wow. Both of you would fail miserably in French history exam.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Thanks for the QED.

Other than your ignorance of science, what do you think was demonstrated?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow. Both of you would fail miserably in French history exam.

I'm sure we would.

Anyone who believes Jesus walked on water deserves to fail any exam, don't they?