Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 07-24-2002, 06:31 AM

<a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000167" target="_blank">Scientific American on "Creationist Nonsense"</a>

Anybody want to count the number of errors in Helen's posts? *Sigh* It's amazing that she is considered to be their science expert.

Note: Helen on BB is not HelenSL.
~~RvFvS~~

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

tgamble · 07-24-2002, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
<a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000167" target="_blank">Scientific American on "Creationist Nonsense"</a>

Anybody want to count the number of errors in Helen's posts? *Sigh* It's amazing that she is considered to be their science expert.

Note: Helen on BB is not HelenSL.
~~RvFvS~~

Quote:

Real science does not eliminate possible answers before it starts the investigation just because there are some possible answers it cannot test! Real science involves logic as well as interpretation.

not elimnate possible answers? like the possibility that the bible is wrong? It ain't scientists who sign statements of faith!

Quote:

Rennie begins with very questionable statements. Evolution was NOT introduced by Darwin.

That's not what he said! HE said darwin introduced evolution through natural selection.

Quote:

First of all, intelligent design is NOT, I repeat NOT, creationist. It is an entirely scientific approach to the data, asking whether or not natural systems, and in particular biological systems, show evidence that we would recognize from our own experience as being the product of intelligent design.

IDIOT!!!!
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

tgamble · 07-24-2002, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
I would also submit that if Rennie honestly thinks the fossil record shows a progression from ape-like to H. sapien, he might want to read Henry Gee’s book, In Search of Deep Time. Gee is one of the editors of Nature and considered respected in his field. Here is a little of what he says of the fossil record where man is concerned:

As an aside, I challenge anyone to tell me those quotes were taken out of context!

I challenge the administrators to allow it!

Morat · 07-24-2002, 09:05 AM

Helen's been harping on the "Science excludes the supernatural" rant for some time now. She's gotten on her high-horse and claimed they're not interested in truth.

I agreed with her. I told her, flatly, that scientists were interested in naturalistic explanations and useful, testable models.

She got upset. I pointed out that science restricted themselves to that because (1) Thinking you hold truth restricts questioning. By tossing "truth" scientists are forced to constantly reasses everything and (2) Since they have only natural tools, and natural methods, they're stuck exploring the natural world for natural explanations.

She got all huffy.

Albion · 07-24-2002, 11:17 AM

Was that when she interpreted "scientists aren't searching for Truth" to mean that scientists are quite happy with lies as long as they promote atheism, or was that another thread? I can only read that board in small doses on account of what it does to my blood pressure.

07-24-2002, 06:31 AM	#1
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	BB: Helen's on a roll again. <a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000167" target="_blank">Scientific American on "Creationist Nonsense"</a> Anybody want to count the number of errors in Helen's posts? Sigh It's amazing that she is considered to be their science expert. Note: Helen on BB is not HelenSL. ~~RvFvS~~ [ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-24-2002, 09:05 AM	#4
Morat Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 932	Helen's been harping on the "Science excludes the supernatural" rant for some time now. She's gotten on her high-horse and claimed they're not interested in truth. I agreed with her. I told her, flatly, that scientists were interested in naturalistic explanations and useful, testable models. She got upset. I pointed out that science restricted themselves to that because (1) Thinking you hold truth restricts questioning. By tossing "truth" scientists are forced to constantly reasses everything and (2) Since they have only natural tools, and natural methods, they're stuck exploring the natural world for natural explanations. She got all huffy.

07-24-2002, 11:17 AM	#5
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Was that when she interpreted "scientists aren't searching for Truth" to mean that scientists are quite happy with lies as long as they promote atheism, or was that another thread? I can only read that board in small doses on account of what it does to my blood pressure.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.