Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Kevi still idiotic and disgusting, life =value!!There is no proven facts in

Expand Messages
  • dron
    ... From: pegasus79424 ... of this it is a superior world view. In reality,science is not adequately self-correcting and for very practical reasons cannot be
    Message 1 of 202 , Nov 30, 2005
       
      ----- Original Message -----

      > The widespread myth is that science is self-correcting, and because
      of this it is a superior world view. In reality,science is not
      adequately self-correcting and for very practical reasons cannot be
      self-correcting in any meaningful way. Scientists simply don't have
      the time nor the money to check up on the research of other
      scientists...
       
      dron> I can see Pegasus may be the most insightful person on this list, and what he says here is absolutely true. It is beyond argument to think scientists have the time to sift through the published works of other scientists. It is a known fact that the readership of scientific publications has declined by approximately 73% in the last 10 years and the number of scientific journals has declined by a staggering 63.24% in the USA alone in the last five years!
       
      Another telltale proof of Pegasus' argument is that so many of these so-called peer reviewed jscientific journals actually publish the same materials from different authors. Who can possibly keep up the with the publish or die tripe being submitted every day.
       
      The downside of all this is that those silly scientists, because they're not keeping abreast of current research, waste lots of valuable time redoing experiments they didn't know others have done before them, testing hypotheses they didn't know others have tested, recreating techniques others have previously created, blazing new trails over previously blazed trails, and spending a decade or more pursuing lines of research completed by others a decade before they started. You'd think they never heard the phrase 'reinventing the wheel.' Sheesh. How stupid are these scientists?
       
      Luckily, I have a way out of this conundrum. Let's assign ID scientists to assist the silly scientists by reading the appropriate scientific journals  for them. I know this is only a short term solution, but as ID is a young science, ID scientists currently have plenty of time on their hands. Granted, I've heard rumors they have been holding back their article submissions until the number of articles they have available to submit reaches a critical mass, and they may reach this mass any day now, but until this flood of true ID-science prowess buries the silly scientists under the sediment of their doomed atheistic science, ID scientists can display their generosity by helping out around the crumbling scientific household.  
       
       
    • flubber1947
      ... Gabor, ... newbie but dave--you re the liar
      Message 202 of 202 , Dec 8, 2005
        --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, Dave Oldridge
        <doldridg@s...> wrote:
        >
        > On 6 Dec 2005 at 12:18, flubber1947 wrote:
        >
        > > --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, Dave Oldridge
        > > <doldridg@s...> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > On 4 Dec 2005 at 18:12, flubber1947 wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > newbie
        > > > > hoaxes in evolution--there is proof
        > > > > your claims against creationists--where is your data
        > > >
        > > > YOU are my data. Almost every one of the posts by you, by
        Gabor,
        > > > and by Laurie contain lies of one kind or another. I've been
        > > > pointing them out all along and all you do is retell them.
        > > >
        > > > The devil says you need some NEW lies. The old ones aren't
        > > > working any more. You can probably get them by kissing his
        > > > behind a bunch.
        > >
        > > > Dave Oldridge
        > >
        > > newbie
        > > i ask for data and oldridge starts with the Koo-Koo stuff
        >
        > What stuff? The very previous post of yours that I read
        > contained PROOF that you lied.

        > Dave Oldridge

        newbie
        but dave--you're the liar
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.