RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (341) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: UnReasonable Kansans thread, AKA "For the kids"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,09:15   

Quote (lcd @ July 11 2008,10:11)
Quote (olegt @ July 11 2008,08:58)
I'm still waiting for lcd to provide some reference to data confirming Setterfield's hypothesis.

Setterfield has his own evidence in his paper.

To answer Nerull's question, no I don't think you're a liar.  It is perfectly reasonable for people to look at the same data, see what needs to be done and disagree totally on how it is supposed to be done.

I have that same issue whenever I get together with the other engineers and we're supposed to collaborate and do something.  The way it is solved and how we do it many times is not based on merit but who yells the loudest, who's in charge or who has the purse strings.

Now I hope you understand where I am coming from when I really wonder why some is accepted as science but other voices, Behe, Setterfield and others aren't.  As they don't control the purse strings nor are they in charge, their work is ignored or marginalized.

Okay, lets look at this from an engineer prospective.

You've done calculations on the stresses on a bridge. Some of them say its okay, and some of them say it's in danger of collapse.

It would be expensive to repair said bridge.

Is it honest to pick only the results which say the bridge is safe, and toss out the rest without consideration? Or does said engineer deserve jail time when the bridge collapses and kills people?

Is it okay for someone who claims to be a 'scientist' to ignore any data which doesn't fit what he wants the data to look like?

Even most YECs think Barry has no credibility because of this. The only people willing to overlook it are the fringe of the fringe. Ftk is one such - nothing is too silly or too obviously wrong if it confirms her bible. She would believe the sky was hot pink if one of her "Alpha male" (Her words) figures told her it was important to her beliefs.

To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

  10200 replies since Mar. 17 2007,23:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (341) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]