Replies

It is interesting that you have defined things about science, its focus, its concerns, its cares, its opinion, etc. like science is a conscious rational thing & entity when science is a methodology, used by people and each science stands on its own.

What is also interesting is the analogies that posters like yourself use to define concepts you revile & while not claiming to be a scientist, ostensibly speak for science on these threads. This is gathered from the amount of material you put on these threads.

I gather from your writings that you cannot describe the creation of life and its origin, that 'science is still working on it' and yet it is seems a perfect argument for you to include (the being that is beyond all human conception) as equal with concepts that Santa Claus, the Pleadian reptile people, etc. etc. were the origins of life.

That is the revealing thing, not a msg board debate, but the pejorative analogies and metaphors that spew out of your & others mouths under the guise of intelligent argument.

Now I ask you.. Do the writings here of donh (and several of the rest on these threads) represent the methodology, the logic, the core of science and its scientists? Or are these things just the world as donh sees it?

Wolf

I gather from your writings that you cannot describe the creation of life and its origin, that 'science is still working on it'

You want a published conclusion before the research is complete? That's the way religion works, not science.

... and yet it is seems a perfect argument for you to include (the being that is beyond all human conception) as equal with concepts that Santa Claus, the Pleadian reptile people, etc. etc. were the origins of life.

You have misunderstood what was said. The argument is that "there is the same amount of evidence for (the being that is beyond all human conception) as for Santa Claus or the Pleadian (sic) reptile people or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or...".

Now I ask you.. Do the writings here of donh (and several of the rest on these threads) represent the methodology, the logic, the core of science and its scientists? Or are these things just the world as donh sees it?

Does it come as a big relevation to you that discussions on a conservative political discussion board are not the same thing as science?

Since I pretty much just explained the distinction between my opinions and the scientific evidence, not-so-sly innuendo to the effect that there is something disrespectable about my having opinions about how science works doesn't even rise to the level of a decent insult.

uI gather from your writings that you cannot describe the creation of life and its origin

Maybe not, but since I pay attention to what science does manage to know, I can make way more entertainingly detailed and someday testable guesses than that an indetectable supernatural entity did it.

conscious rational thing & entity when science is a methodology,

I would argue that you cannot demonstrate that science is not a discrete entity with a discernable set of opinions. I would also argue that science is a great deal more than "a methodology".

each science stands on its own.

Not even close.

What is also interesting is the analogies

Are you suggesting there is a problem with trying to communicate by analogy or metaphor? What would that problem be?

that posters like yourself use to define concepts you revile & while not claiming to be a scientist, ostensibly speak for science on these threads. This is gathered from the amount of material you put on these threads.

I presume you also have a problem with all the people on these threads who presume to speak for God--which, frankly, seems quite a bit more presumptuous to me.