I have now met a real life creationist.

[funinspace]

Yup. The topic was whether or not knowledge or faith is the best protection against evil. In support of his theory that knowledge is a doorway to evil he mentioned the evil non-existent "Academic Pedophile Lobby".

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...fe-creationist&p=413735&viewfull=1#post413735

What's the most entertaining about this religion vs science discussion is how absurd it is.. The stated and only goal of academia and science is to figure out what it true. So if you're against science you're also against the truth. If you think there's a conflict between science and religion you, by definition, think that religion is spreading lies. I'm constantly waiting for the irony of this to hit home among religious fundies.... nope. Never happens. They just don't grasp the topic well enough. They're constantly saying stuff that implies that they're suspicious about truth, but have faith in falsehoods... and don't get what they just said.

Add to that the misunderstanding of what science is. As if it's a person. So any statement said by any scientist that's proven wrong proves all of science wrong. Ehe... no. It proves that science works. But you need to understand how science works to understand that. The fundies clearly don't.

FALSEHOOD IS EASILY HIDDEN BY FLOWERY LANGUAGE
Advantages
Science has minimized our hardship and has increased pleasures and comfort. Now it cures our maladies, shortens distances, bridges gulfs and brings comforts and lifts up the veil of nature’s mystery.
Travelling: The quick means of travel has made the world a very small place to live in.
Computers: The computer, the greatest gift of the 20th century, has relieved man from manual and mental labor to a great extent.
Television: After his day’s work in his workplace when he feels bored, he may watch his TV which gives relief to his tired nerves.
Telephone: Through telephone he speaks to his distant friends or consults his physician.
Medical Science: He can get the benefit of modern drugs or surgery, which is the products of science.

Disadvantages
Yet, there are some disadvantages*of science.
Science has not only invented a robot, but has turned a man into a robot in some cases.
Satellites are widely*used for espionage purposes.
Excessive*industrialization has lead to air pollution and other health hazards.
It snatches the soul of a man when he runs a race in mad pursuit of material prosperity.
Science, at the same time, has given him frightful nuclear weapons. If there be a third world war, it will abolish the whole mankind from this planet. Peace on earth is at peril now

What I find a total crack up, is that you think a Skybeast is in charge. Why do you care about such a silly human nuclear war threat? Is not your Skybeast in charge? Is he too weak to prevent a nuclear war, if it isn’t part of his plan? If it is part of his plan, why do you fight against your Skybeast?

Health impacts.*
The invention of some chemicals has increased the chances of health issues such as respiratory and skin diseases.
Increased chances of warfare.*Most countries have acquired bombs, arms and ammunition, fighter planes and the like which have led to many dangerous wars with increased death of people.

Again, what is the alternative? Why do you ignore the tens of millions of children’s lives saved each year in the same breath? Repeating my comment:

This article catalogs early 17th Century Demographics. The reason the populations still managed to grow, is that humans were acting more like rabbits. Going back 400 years gets you back to a 60% death rate for children not making it to adulthood. There are roughly 130 million babies born each year now. And without all that science/technology, roughly 60% of them would die before age 16 (see bottom reference to 17th century life). That would roughly be 78 million unnecessary child deaths each year, equating to a WWII death stat every single year.

https://www.plimoth.org/sites/default/files/media/pdf/edmaterials_demographics.pdf

A man or woman who reached the age of 30 could expect to live to 59. Life expectancy in New England was much higher, where the average man lived to his mid-sixties and women lived on average to 62.
<snip>
Demographers estimate that approximately 2% of all live births in England at this time would die in the first day of life. By the end of the first week, a cumulative total of 5% would die. Another 3 or 4% would die within the month. A total of 12 or 13% would die within their first year. With the hazards of infancy behind them, the death rate for children slowed but continued to occur. A cumulative total of 36% of children died before the age of six, and another 24% between the ages of seven and sixteen. In all, of 100 live births, 60 would die before the age of 16.
<snip>
The following diseases, while affecting all ages, were common causes of death in childhood. Whooping cough, diphtheria, dysentery, tuberculosis, typhus, typhoid fever, rickets, chicken pox, measles, scarlet fever, smallpox and plague under their period names, were all listed as causes of death in children.

Again, my summary question of what is the alternative?

One can’t remove the “bad” science without losing the “good” science like inoculations, nutrition expertise, cleaner energy for large populations. Without such changes and inventions, the world would be in an even bigger mess, unless you have a plan to go back in time a millennium and convince humans to no longer want sex much. It is sort of a ying-yang thing. Humans would have to magically contain their sexual desires, or do it by some sort of totalitarian controls keep the human population somewhere below about 300 million people living a deadly and short lived primitive agrarian life. The problem is that living in such ignorance, they would not know that they needed to keep their population down. You might as well be arguing for pink unicorns sharing cotton candy with everyone; and everyone having their own planet to play on. Or maybe your Skybeast should have put out a memo on overpopulation.

 

[funinspace]

<blah blah blah>
Conclusion:*
On one hand, science has given us the physical comfort. But, on the other hand, it has caused many problems for mankind.*People have begun to fight against the misuse of science.
http://www.importantindia.com/16255/paragraph-on-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-science/

My conclusion is that you aren't well educated enough to know what it is you are criticizing. Could that possibly be the case? Could it be that you're just reposting stuff others have said, but that you don't understand yourself?

For a fundie Christian, isn't the greatest advantage of science that it frees lots of time up that you can spend studying the Bible? Do you think that an organisation like Jehovas Witnesses would be at all possible if it wasn't for an industrial economy freeing up your time to do missionary work. JW has everything to thank science for, yet are extremely ungrateful. Why do you think that is?

My conclusion is that, while I do agree with some of them, you are not smart enough to realize that I did not write any of those opinions.
I gave you my sources.
Take it up with them.

This tis funny. Ah, you provided a source, not “sources”. And that source is an opinion piece by someone…which is about all I know of him. The other thing is that is if you are going to post large sections of text from another source, at least put it in quotes, if not utilizing the “wrap quote” function. You seem to have figured out how to make fonts come alive with color and size changes, you should try the “wrap quote” function. As it is you smeared your comments within about half the text being from a link making people dig thru to figure out your comments from what was in the linky.

And if you didn’t write “any of those opinions”, then you failed to source where you got all of this from, as it wasn’t from the one source you provided:

Health impacts.*
The invention of some chemicals has increased the chances of health issues such as respiratory and skin diseases.
Increased chances of warfare.*Most countries have acquired bombs, arms and ammunition, fighter planes and the like which have led to many dangerous wars with increased death of people.

Over-dependence on invention.*
Most people depend on invention to work. Others have gone to the extent of looking for robots to so their job.

Increased pollution.*
When computers are out of fashion and others are invented, they end up being damped which is a health hazard. The increased use of chemicals also causes pollution.

Increased competition.
Powerful countries end up having unhealthy competitions on who is going to invent what first. This leads to enmity among nations.
Conclusion:*
On one hand, science has given us the physical comfort. But, on the other hand, it has caused many problems for mankind.*People have begun to fight against the misuse of science.

Ironically, you left out this person’s (Ravi Sharma) conclusion. Here is the actual conclusion from the article:

However, Science cannot be blamed for its abusive uses. Man is responsible for the abuses of science. It fully depends on us whether we shall have our science to destroy the creation or to conquer hunger, poverty and disease for a happy and prosperous world.

 

[DrZoidberg]

My conclusion is that, while I do agree with some of them, you are not smart enough to realize that I did not write any of those opinions.
I gave you my sources.
Take it up with them.

Hold it right there. YOU are sharing them. It doesn't matter who first wrote it. What matters is who is sharing it. You are obviously sharing it because you think they've formulated it intelligently. Well, why do you think that it's intelligently formulated? If you don't know why, and can't answer it, then it's disrespectful against the rest of us to share it.

There's nothing worse than an uniformed opinion IMHO. It's many many times worse than no opinion, because it's noise that risks blocking out the intelligent stuff. People expressing uninformed opinions is our times biggest problem today and worst evil. There is no other problem that is a greater threat to humanity right now. If people would leave the solution of global warming in the hands of scientists we wouldn't have a problem. All our problems with it now stem from idiot politicians, and in extension, idiot voters who have opinions about stuff when they don't even have the most basic understanding of the subject. Right now, team Trump, is making a bad problem a lot worse.

You've been going on and on about how good you are and that you're such a warrior against evil. But that's not how you come across. Your heart seems to be in the right place. I'm just sorry bad people have taken advantage of your trust and good heart. Because that's how it looks to me.

Please stop sharing information before you've taken the time to understand the information you are sharing. Don't be afraid to ask if you are unsure. If not the people who wrote it, then this forum. This forum has some very smart people on it. Some of us are scientists. I'm not. But there are. The ten years now (gosh, time flies) I've spent here I've learned so much and grown in the process. That's the reason I keep coming back.

 

[wilson]

My conclusion is that, while I do agree with some of them, you are not smart enough to realize that I did not write any of those opinions.
I gave you my sources.
Take it up with them.

Hold it right there. YOU are sharing them. It doesn't matter who first wrote it. What matters is who is sharing it. You are obviously sharing it because you think they've formulated it intelligently. Well, why do you think that it's intelligently formulated? If you don't know why, and can't answer it, then it's disrespectful against the rest of us to share it.

No! YOU hold it. You cannot tell me what I think, and you certainly don't know what it means to be disrespectful.
You are a very fortunate person in that, because of my beliefs, I am unable to respond to you in kind.
Have you noticed that I don't hit back at you? Here's why:
“. . .Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. 18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men. 19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” 20 But “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.” 21 Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.” (Romans 12:17-21)

So, I have decided to say nothing more to you, even though your obvious hatred of what I stand for will not let you cease and desist.
In the meantime, I, and the rest of JWs, will continue to do what we do best, that is, to continue teaching the good news of God's kingdom to all who will listen, until our God lets us know it is enough.
There is nothing you, or anyone, can do to stop this work.
You can stay here and stew, if you like. The world that you love will turn on you. The science that you idolize will cause your death.
And to those three who keep addressing me, you can tell them that I stopped reading anything they say to me awhile back.
How about that?

 

[funinspace]

Hold it right there. YOU are sharing them. It doesn't matter who first wrote it. What matters is who is sharing it. You are obviously sharing it because you think they've formulated it intelligently. Well, why do you think that it's intelligently formulated? If you don't know why, and can't answer it, then it's disrespectful against the rest of us to share it.

No! YOU hold it. You cannot tell me what I think, and you certainly don't know what it means to be disrespectful.
You are a very fortunate person in that, because of my beliefs, I am unable to respond to you in kind.
Have you noticed that I don't hit back at you? Here's why:
“. . .Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. 18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men. 19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” 20 But “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.” 21 Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.” (Romans 12:17-21)

LOL Yeah, you have in fact done so. Just because you pretend you don't doesn't make it so. Calling people liars, without showing it. Telling people you know what they are actually thinking, when you nothing of the sort, is insulting. Saying you don't have time to answer questions, but insist others have to, is arrogant. You bitch about me not admitting (I actually did admit it indirectly by satire) a trivial typo, but don't acknowledge your own. I'm pretty sure I've missed a few others. I see that you haven't bothered checking the mirror for that log still...

So, I have decided to say nothing more to you, even though your obvious hatred of what I stand for will not let you cease and desist.
In the meantime, I, and the rest of JWs, will continue to do what we do best, that is, to continue teaching the good news of God's kingdom to all who will listen, until our God lets us know it is enough.
There is nothing you, or anyone, can do to stop this work.
You can stay here and stew, if you like. The world that you love will turn on you. The science that you idolize will cause your death.

boohoo Are you taking your toys out of the sandbox....? Stew? Is that a beef stew, or maybe cioppino? Personally, I'd go for some Pho.

And to those three who keep addressing me, you can tell them that I stopped reading anything they say to me awhile back.
How about that?

Them apples are fine. Actually, it has been pretty obvious that you have been reading them at least some of the time. John-the-Baptist vs Jesus ring a bell? Anywho, kind of like you said, there is nothing you can do to stop other people from reading the countering information to your lame arguments and preaching...

Oh, and don't you think it is more than a tad childish to pretend you aren't responding to Person B, when you post asking Person A, to tell Person B, something? But I know, you aren't talking to me...or reading this, so how would you know you are being childish.

 

[Elixir]

I've noticed that nobody - I mean NOBODY - can use crayons like a creationist.

 

[none]

Golden rule, ignore certain people, ignore a lot of things

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hold it right there. YOU are sharing them. It doesn't matter who first wrote it. What matters is who is sharing it. You are obviously sharing it because you think they've formulated it intelligently. Well, why do you think that it's intelligently formulated? If you don't know why, and can't answer it, then it's disrespectful against the rest of us to share it.

No! YOU hold it. You cannot tell me what I think, and you certainly don't know what it means to be disrespectful.
You are a very fortunate person in that, because of my beliefs, I am unable to respond to you in kind.

And you're saying that I'm deflecting. Lol.

What's worse, pointing out another's lack of respect or that persons lack of respect?

Have you noticed that I don't hit back at you? Here's why:
“. . .Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. 18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men. 19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” 20 But “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.” 21 Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.” (Romans 12:17-21)

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5515877

So, I have decided to say nothing more to you, even though your obvious hatred of what I stand for will not let you cease and desist.
In the meantime, I, and the rest of JWs, will continue to do what we do best, that is, to continue teaching the good news of God's kingdom to all who will listen, until our God lets us know it is enough.
There is nothing you, or anyone, can do to stop this work.
You can stay here and stew, if you like. The world that you love will turn on you. The science that you idolize will cause your death.
And to those three who keep addressing me, you can tell them that I stopped reading anything they say to me awhile back.
How about that?

I assure you there's no hate on this side. But I respect your path to happiness. Good luck whatever you chose to do. We all have our path to follow in life

 

[Elixir]

We all have our path to follow in life

Creationist credo:

 

[funinspace]

I took a look, maybe I'm wrong but it looks like Wilson mentioned pedophilia first

Yup. The topic was whether or not knowledge or faith is the best protection against evil. In support of his theory that knowledge is a doorway to evil he mentioned the evil non-existent "Academic Pedophile Lobby".

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...fe-creationist&p=413735&viewfull=1#post413735

What's the most entertaining about this religion vs science discussion is how absurd it is.. The stated and only goal of academia and science is to figure out what it true. So if you're against science you're also against the truth. If you think there's a conflict between science and religion you, by definition, think that religion is spreading lies. I'm constantly waiting for the irony of this to hit home among religious fundies.... nope. Never happens. They just don't grasp the topic well enough. They're constantly saying stuff that implies that they're suspicious about truth, but have faith in falsehoods... and don't get what they just said.

Actually, it (underlined above) does happen. Happened to me, some 20 years ago. Though, I would be more accurately covered by the label "evangelical" without today's war-mongering ethos. Ironically, what seeded the splinter in my mind was a bible study that had a video with some people explaining why the Deluge is explainable. They spouted (what I know know to be fabricated BS) stuff pretending to be analytical and factual. As I had never really squared the Deluge with reality, I found their claims interesting. So I wanted to know more, and started digging into what they said. What I found was that it was a combinations of delusion and lies. In that digging though, I ran into more questions of theology. Long story short: Evidently I was tested beyond what I could bear, and found my way out into the light...so to speak.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And to those three who keep addressing me, you can tell them that I stopped reading anything they say to me awhile back.

Childish AND untrue. If you didn't read my posts, how would you know that i was still addressing you, wilson, and not just talking about you to others?

Creationists just suck at thinking things through, don't they? Probably comes from working backwards from conclusion to opening.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yup. The topic was whether or not knowledge or faith is the best protection against evil. In support of his theory that knowledge is a doorway to evil he mentioned the evil non-existent "Academic Pedophile Lobby".

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...fe-creationist&p=413735&viewfull=1#post413735

What's the most entertaining about this religion vs science discussion is how absurd it is.. The stated and only goal of academia and science is to figure out what it true. So if you're against science you're also against the truth. If you think there's a conflict between science and religion you, by definition, think that religion is spreading lies. I'm constantly waiting for the irony of this to hit home among religious fundies.... nope. Never happens. They just don't grasp the topic well enough. They're constantly saying stuff that implies that they're suspicious about truth, but have faith in falsehoods... and don't get what they just said.

Actually, it (underlined above) does happen. Happened to me, some 20 years ago. Though, I would be more accurately covered by the label "evangelical" without today's war-mongering ethos. Ironically, what seeded the splinter in my mind was a bible study that had a video with some people explaining why the Deluge is explainable. They spouted (what I know know to be fabricated BS) stuff pretending to be analytical and factual. As I had never really squared the Deluge with reality, I found their claims interesting. So I wanted to know more, and started digging into what they said. What I found was that it was a combinations of delusion and lies. In that digging though, I ran into more questions of theology. Long story short: Evidently I was tested beyond what I could bear, and found my way out into the light...so to speak.

I don't think I've ever been so happy to be wrong about something. Welcome to the... erm... dark side.

 

[bilby]

People with the correct disposition benefit from the work of JWs - even some of those in prison:

A Letter of Thanks From a Prison Inmate

From Spain comes the following letter:
“First of all, I’d like to thank you for the effort you are making to reach all sorts of people with the Bible’s message.
“The first time I had contact with Jehovah’s Witnesses was 15 years ago in Tiranë, Albania. I was surprised that a Witness had the courage to approach us, because we were a gang of ten youngsters. Nobody dared to talk to us, yet that brother did so despite our weapons. He fearlessly spoke to us about the Bible. His courage impressed me a lot.

“Four years ago here in Spain, a Witness visited me in prison and offered me a Bible study. I accepted, and since then I have changed for the better. I am no longer a violent, aggressive man. It’s been years since I last got into trouble. I have come to know Jehovah, and this has given purpose to my life. I try to live in peace with people around me, and I have been serving as an unbaptized publisher for over a year.
“Although I have been in prison for 12 years now, during the past 4 years, I have experienced happiness and peace of mind that I never felt before. I thank Jehovah for this every day.

“Some weeks ago I watched some videos on jw.org. The video about a brother who had been in prison in the United States really moved me. I am not an emotional man, but when I saw the changes he had made in his life, I could not hold back my tears.
“May Jehovah keep on blessing your efforts to reach all sorts of people by translating the good news into so many languages and also by visiting those of us who are in penitentiaries.
“Thank you very much.”

A personal experience:
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/...tExpTransformations/docid-502013390_E_1_VIDEO

People with the 'correct' disposition can benefit from any regime; for a given value of 'correct' and 'benefit'.

People with the 'correct' disposition benefited from the Mongol hordes*.

The trick is to find ways of living that benefit a large majority of people of all dispositions.




*Example chosen in mindful denial of Godwin.

 

[Lion IRC]

...What's the most entertaining about this religion vs science discussion is how absurd it is.. The stated and only goal of academia and science is to figure out what it true. So if you're against science you're also against the truth.

Well said!

...If you think there's a conflict between science and religion you, by definition, think that religion is spreading lies.

Or science. In science they're not called lies, they're called 'mistakes' or 'tentative' claims.

...I'm constantly waiting for the irony of this to hit home among religious fundies.... nope. Never happens. They just don't grasp the topic well enough.

I'm a fundy. And I love science.
Sadly, a lot of atheists falsely think that science doesn't love me back.
And a lot of atheistic/scientistic academics goes berserk when you suggest that intelligent design should be an available menu option in the science classroom.
If the quest for truth is so important, why the strident censorship of competing ideas?

...They're constantly saying stuff that implies that they're suspicious about truth, but have faith in falsehoods... and don't get what they just said.

Nope. They aren't "suspicious about truth".
They are suspicious of falsehoods - those mistakes which science itself keeps correcting.

...Add to that the misunderstanding of what science is. As if it's a person. So any statement said by any scientist that's proven wrong proves all of science wrong.

Oh. You don't like generalizations?
...but you happily label Fundies and knock down strawmen who are "suspicious about truth".

...Ehe... no. It proves that science works. But you need to understand how science works to understand that. The fundies clearly don't.

Aren't you just another science fundy?

 

[DrZoidberg]

...If you think there's a conflict between science and religion you, by definition, think that religion is spreading lies.

Or science. In science they're not called lies, they're called 'mistakes' or 'tentative' claims.

Yup. You're absolutely right. They're not lies. They're mistakes. Wrong of me. It's a big difference

...I'm constantly waiting for the irony of this to hit home among religious fundies.... nope. Never happens. They just don't grasp the topic well enough.

I'm a fundy. And I love science.
Sadly, a lot of atheists falsely think that science doesn't love me back.

I'm happy to hear that, and glad that there's a fundy who likes science.

And a lot of atheistic/scientistic academics goes berserk when you suggest that intelligent design should be an available menu option in the science classroom.
If the quest for truth is so important, why the strident censorship of competing ideas?

It's not censorship. It would be wrong to teach obsolete ideas in a science classroom. Intelligent design is religion. Or possibly history of scientific ideas. If you think intelligent design is compatible with the current scientific theories, you need to read more science. Intelligent design is a competing theory in the same way that alternative facts are also true facts.

Rephrasing creationism as intelligent design was just a dishonest way of trying to sneak back Christianity into the science classroom. That btw is not an honest mistake. That's just religious people doing some bold faced lying, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Aren't you just another science fundy?

Um.... sure. If the science is solid, well tested and backed up by the majority in the scientific community I'll believe it's true.

But there's a huge difference. Science rests on the scientific method. Religious texts rests on because-I-said-so. You can't compare them. Religious texts aren't a method by which to learn anything about the world. Religious texts are only valuable if you want to learn about the religion in question. They aren't valuable for anything else.

 

[none]

Well said!

...If you think there's a conflict between science and religion you, by definition, think that religion is spreading lies.

Or science. In science they're not called lies, they're called 'mistakes' or 'tentative' claims.

Pseudoscience a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method
The tentative claims are just tentative claims,

 

[bilby]

Well said!

Or science. In science they're not called lies, they're called 'mistakes' or 'tentative' claims.

Pseudoscience a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method
The tentative claims are just tentative claims,

Even if it was the case that scientists got it wrong [...], the self-correcting nature of science is among its strengths: not its weaknesses. And when scientific knowledge is wrong, the only reason we ever find out is thanks to newer science. That means that the claimant’s major premise, that “science was wrong,” takes for granted something we only know thanks to science, which, according to the claimant’s own conclusion, cannot be relied upon.

http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2017/05/05/why-the-asbestos-gambit-fails/

Science gets some things wrong, and corrects its errors.

Religion gets sone things wrong, and defends its errors to the death, until forced to correct them by overwhelming evidence from science.

Not once has a scientific error been corrected after a closer look at religion.

Lion IRC's attempt to declare the two approaches to be equally valuable is demonstrably bullshit.

 

[Lion IRC]

Science and religion aren't equally valuable.

God is way more important than science.

 

[Lion IRC]

The bible says;
Genesis 1:1. The universe came into existence.

Science says;

1. The universe had always existed.

2. No, wait, there was a Big Bang and its only 13.7 billion years old.

3. Whoops. Sorry folks, false alarm it has always existed, expanding and contracting over and over and over. Back to our first guess.

4. Stop the clock! We now think there are multiple universes popping into and out of existence.

5. ? As scientists we always keep our options open. Logical positivism and falsifiability are so antiquated. The "elegance" of a theory is enough.

...meanwhile Genesis 1:1 still says the same thing it has always stated.

 

[bilby]

I am not sure how illustrating the point with an example of how shit your epistemology is compared to the scientific method is supposed to persuade people that it isn't; but thanks anyway for underscoring my point.

Your highly inaccurate summary of the two positions is some nice comic relief, if nothing else.