 | | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) 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...
|
|
(...) 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...
|
|
(...) 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...
|
|
(...) 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...
|
|
(...) 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)
|
