 | | Re: You have got to be kidding me... —David Eaton
|
| | | (...) Hm. But the government DOES have business endorsing a book that would support the theory that the GC was created by erosion? Why should the government support NASA research (say), as opposed to religious research, apart from the actual (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: You have got to be kidding me... —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Because geologic theory is based in testable science rather than non-testable religion, and the Fed's choice to endorse an article of religious faith is manifestly unconstitutional. Even the claim made elsewhere that Dubya himself didn't (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: You have got to be kidding me... —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | (...) Although I doubt it's the case, what if the book were written using scientific methods? Let's suppose for a minute there were some evidence (albeit alternately explainable evidence via "regular" science) that supported the claim. The article I (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: You have got to be kidding me... —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Honestly, that's a great question! Creationists have never actually submitted anything for peer review, so if the book were indeed written using scientific methods of inquiry, then it would be greatly beneficial to them to put it up for (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: You have got to be kidding me... —J. Spencer Rezkalla
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Well since any crackpot out there can make up his/her own theories, the first step to gaining scientific credibility is to present the theory for peer review - typically by submitting an article to "the literature" journals. This allows for (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: You have got to be kidding me... —Avery Christy
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Ha ha ha, well, I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but the thought occurred to me that this almost seems to go into a realm related to Moral Relativism. Instead of seeing morals as relative, we are seeing the scientific evidence in (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: You have got to be kidding me... —Avery Christy
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Excuse me for lamely replying to my own post, but... I had another thought and that was that the Creationists of course take the belief of God as a fundamental truth of the universe much in the same way you accept the nose on your face. So, (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: You have got to be kidding me... —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | (...) Why's that a good question? I thought the govt. was supposed to be workin for us, not just to perpetuate itself. (...) Wow, you guys'll argue over just about anything. On a relative scale this seems about as vital as wrangling over whether you (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: You have got to be kidding me... —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | (...) No we won't! How dare you accuse us of that! :) (...) You may certainly buy a new one. However, if you're looking to return your Lucky Jackalope Foot, you'll have to demonstrate that it had, and then lost its powers. Or you might just need to (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: You have got to be kidding me... —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) And if we direct the government to fund said research (oh, say, a JPL probe to Neptune) then isn't that the government working for us? (...) Inasmuch as the same forces that want to have Biblical deluges offered up as "science" want to get (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: You have got to be kidding me... —J. Spencer Rezkalla
|
| | | | (...) Because religious research shouldn't be confused with scientific research and it shouldn't pretend to be. One is legitimate science that can produce beneficial results (in medicine, engineering, technology etc) - which represents a gain to our (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: You have got to be kidding me... —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Well, that's not the point-- the point isn't that to date, religious science has been a joke, it's that "what if it weren't"? Should the fact that it just happens to be religious preclude a research project from going forward, even if it's (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: You have got to be kidding me... —J. Spencer Rezkalla
|
| | | | (...) Of course not. And you are correct that such projects are generally judged on merit. Personally I like the ones involving Near Death Experiences - although it should be noted in this case that this doesn't necessarily imply it's (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
