Joined: June 2006
|Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,12:00)|
|Blipey, I really try my best to ignore you because it's obviously impossible to reason with, but then there was this:|
|You could, of course, ask your questions to any of the professional scientists that post on this board (and many others). I don't hold out much hope that you will. I think it more likely that you will read (or skim) your textbook, ask yourself "why" like you did when you were a girl and just like then, bottle up your questions because you already know the answer or are still really more interested in going to the bar.|
WHAT IN THE F**K DO YOU THINK I'M DOING ON THE OTHER THREAD IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH KSUDAVE? He's a friggin biology professor for God's sake, and I HAVE BEEN ASKING HIM SEVERAL QUESTIONS. Some other buy named "Woodbine" is over there with responses minus the ridicule as well. If I could stop myself from getting sidetracked by the crap that goes on here, I could focus on asking them more questions.
What is wrong with you, Blipey? Seriously...did mama drop you on your head as a baby? You are one angry, pentup little fellow. Calm yourself, and have some fun for a while. Goodness sakes.
[I know I sound mean, and that is not good. I don't like myself when I act that way. So, I love you Blipey, I just wish you would take a chill pill. Got any? Now would be a good time to indulge.]
I would applaud you for asking questions of KSUDave. I do actually think that is a great idea and I learn things by reading his posts. However, IMO, you don't actually ask him questions with the intent of learning anything from him (I may be wring, that's just my read on the matter.).
You miss the point of what he says repeatedly. I don't say this because I think you're stupid or that I want to be particularly mean to you. I say it because it is quite apparent from your posts that you lack the basic understanding of what science IS that would allow you follow what he says.
He gave a great comparison of what observational science is compared to what predictive science is. And you followed that up with a long comment listing OBSERVATIONAL things that creationists can do. You didn't see the difference between poking around in a thing and using knowledge ABOUT that thing to proposal novel ideas.
My problem with you is not that you don't know what science is. My problem is two-fold:
1. You aren't interested in knowing what science is (because it conflicts with your world-view?).
2. You pretend to know what science is. Yes, I've read the comments recently where you admit that you don't understand the literature and whatnot. This is belied, however, by the number of posts in which you pontificate on things you know nothing about. If you really admit that you don't know what you're talking about on biological issues, why is it that you think you should be able to make education policy regarding biology?
edit: the "you" in the last sentence is the collective "you".
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG
And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin