In article <473dd775@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> > No not really, feel free to doubt it. if you do then you must have a 
 
> > reason to do so, which implies you have another theory
> 
>   Once again, that is completely flawed logic.
> 
>   There's no law in science which says that you must have an alternative
> theory in order to reasonably doubt an existing theory.
> 
Quite true. He got that much wrong. However, these people are not 
saying, "I doubt its true.", and leaving it at that, they are giving a 
theory that can't be tested, basically, "The magic invisible something 
somehow, in some way we can't describe, or possibly know, may have 
twiddled with things instead, to get the results we see." Well, at least 
the dishonest ones. The honest ones say, "We doubt your version because 
it conflicts with what 5% of the Christians in the world think is 
literal history, instead of badly written metaphors, and therefor we are 
right." The only difference between the two seems to be how much you 
have to push them before they blow a fuse and start telling you, "God 
did it and that's the only answer you need!"

Its also dead wrong. No, I will use the phrase someone else did, its 
"Not even wrong." To be wrong you have to first have a theory, which is 
supported by something, and have it turn out not to work. All these 
people have is an endless laundry list of things they don't think are 
adequately explained (even when those complaints have been debunked 
50,000 times) and the declaration, "If any of this is true, the only 
answer is our answer." There is no theory, no suggestion of how to test 
anything vaguely similar to a theory and an impervious lack of 
comprehension when confronted with *anything* that suggests they are 
wrong.

If they stopped with, "I don't know, lets find an answer.", no one would 
have a problem with them, at least with respect to their position on 
science.

There would still be some issues with the idea a) that religion is 
anything but a fancy story design to obscure basic civil laws and ideas, 
for the benefit of the clergy and those with power or b) you need it for 
anything. Imho, if it wasn't given absurd levels of respect, then it 
wouldn't be any more or less **important** than people becoming trekkies 
and pledging to live their lives by the standards of Starfleet. Some 
people would think they where damn wierd, other would sort of admire 
them, but you wouldn't have to parade around claiming that you believe 
Spock talks to you while meditating and told you to ban stem cells and 
gay marriage, just to get selected as a possible candidate for 
President. And I wouldn't have to listen to people that want me deported 
or sent to gitmo because I don't go to church tell me five minutes later 
than there is a vast and unimaginable conspiracy to undermine the near 
total control they have over everything in the country, and that the 
proof of this is that I sent them a Happy X-Mas card, instead of one 
with a guy stappled to a cross and the full name of the holiday on it.

But **that** is a separate issue from the science, which is merely a 
subset of the irritating BS we have to put up with (albeit probably the 
single most important one). I would love if they stopped pissing me off 
on other issues too. But when they attack science, usually by doing 
nothing but repeating claims of "gaps" and "problems", which have been 
addressed over and over and over and over and over again, I really kind 
of have two choices, laugh at their antics, or go postal. Which would 
you prefer. lol

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message