19 Dec '11 00:30>
Originally posted by KellyJayHe saw it on TV as recently as three months ago, apparently
even I don't think science says a "...lightning bolt struck a puddle..." so
where did you get that?
Originally posted by wolfgang59All that learning - all those Phd,s - all those degrees, ...........and all meaningless if at the end of the day you are dishonest and foolish and don't know what is life
So before science can replicate a natural phenomenon it is magic?
Originally posted by DasaYes. You are unable to substantiate your "...lightning bolt struck a puddle..." claim about what 'science' says. "The last time I saw this [on TV] was as recently as 3 months ago", is not substantiation. Try some links to some material by scientists where they make the "...lightning bolt struck a puddle..." claim. I think you ought to do this.
Are you trying to communicate something?
Originally posted by FMFStop playing your mind games please.
Yes. You are unable to substantiate your "...lightning bolt struck a puddle..." claim about what 'science' says. "The last time I saw this [on TV] was as recently as 3 months ago", is not substantiation. Try some links to some material by scientists where they make the "...lightning bolt struck a puddle..." claim. I think you ought to do this.
Originally posted by DasaDasa, your misconception of what 'science' claims, based on you watching TV science programmes when you were a kid, is not evidence. If you know of scientific research pertaining "primordial soup" and "lightning", then cite it.
Ever since I was at school I have been taught by cheating science that life came from a primordial soup after it was struck by lightning........and they are constantly putting on TV science programmes about the Big bang and the primordial soup to this present day.......and using terms like random, accident, chance, time, luck and so on.
Originally posted by KellyJaySo are you saying that when the science establishment spend big money to put scientific programs on TV they are not actually saying anything at all.
I'm sorry I'd like to join you in your attempt to discredit evolution, but your
not giving me much to work with here. I saw a lot of things on TV I do not
bring them up here, unless I can actually quote the program and it carries
some meaningful message.
I've heard so many different stories on how it began it isn't funny, I do not
think you will see you go specific you have lost the debate,
because there isn't anything specific.
Kelly
Originally posted by DasaIf you want to be a credible critic of modern science, and if you know of scientific research that makes claims about "primordial soup" being hit by "lightning", then cite it and then dismantle it, if that is what the propagation of your spiritual beliefs requires. Saying you 'saw it on TV!' and 'are you saying I didn't really see it on TV?' is not evidence and it is not valid argumentation, Dasa.
These science programmes are expensive, very informative, very well produced and signed of by the current scientific theories by the science establishment of the current times.
Originally posted by FMFDoing what you do best .......playing mind games.
Dasa, you're misconception of what 'science' claims, based on you watching TV science programmes when you were a kid, is not evidence. If you know of scientific research pertaining "primordial soup" and "lightning", then cite it.
You don't seem to realize that the credibility of your spiritual "insights" rests to a large degree on the perceived quality of you ...[text shortened]... cide to submit to the same religionist "authority" that you have chosen?
Originally posted by FMFMore mind games and dishonesty.
If you want to be a credible critic of modern science, and if you know of scientific research that makes claims about "primordial soup" being hit by "lightning", then cite it and then dismantle it, if that is what the propagation of your spiritual beliefs requires. Saying you 'saw it on TV!' and 'are you saying I didn't really see it on TV?' is not evidence and it is not valid argumentation, Dasa.
Originally posted by DasaThe point is, as long as you insist on using the poisoned-well collocation "cheating science" to refer to science, then make claims about "soup" and "lightning" without evidence, and back it up with "I saw [it] on TV as recently as 3 months ago" and then back that up with "Am I to believe it is all an hallucination?" and then counter criticism of this approach as being "mind games", then your sincere and earnest opinions on science carry no weight. Allowing your opinions on science to carry no weight, sincere and earnest or not, undermines your entire spiritual advocacy on this forum.
Doing what you do best .......playing mind games.
It does seem you are defending cheating science after all.
So you are believing chemicals are life as well........ astounding.
Originally posted by DasaDishonesty? How so? Here it is again [apologies to other posters]:
More mind games and dishonesty.
Originally posted by DasaWell that is the thing isn't it, who speaks for science? TV people have their own
So are you saying that when the science establishment spend big money to put scientific programs on TV they are not actually saying anything at all.
Are you saying that the science establishment is actually Not the science establishment but something else?
What are you saying.
I see on TV all the time - our Parliament having their active debating sessi ...[text shortened]... y the science establishment of the current times.
Am I to believe it is all an hallucination?