bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 35,715
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Sure. But he's wrong.Ken Ham would say that this kind of repeatable science is different from "historical" science (where you can't truly repeat history)Trust is the exact opposite of science. If you are doing trust, you are asking to be bilked.
A scientific paper consists largely of detailed instructions on how to check the work done by the authors, so that you don't need to trust them - you can repeat their experiments and observations and see for yourself whether their conclusions are valid.....
https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/two-kinds-of-science/
Yes. But it's not related to how true the conclusions are. Debating society prizes don't cure diseases, or put men on the moon, or build computer networks that span the globe. They just make liars look smart to ignoramuses.Clever is related to how persuasive arguments can be.... and how plausible they seem....Clever isn't science either. Rigorous, comprehensive, and repeatable are science. Clever is for debating society trophies. Science is for finding out about reality.....
- though the person might not have a solid foundation in science.... but be aware of many of the key evolutionist arguments....
It's not a debate. There are no 'arguments' worth a bucket of cold sick. There are facts, and there are falsehoods. The only way to reliably sort one from the other is science.