Quote:No decent scientist would assert that there is an intelligent designer...or that there is no intelligent designer.
I hate to go to the flying spaghetti monster well again, but why would a scientist assert there is none as if there was one to disprove? Why stop there? Why deny that there are 9 foot tall invisible rabbits? What is the logic? When someone makes an assertion accept it as true if it can't be disproved? Okay. When no one is looking you put on a dress and rub your nipples. If anyone is watching or secretly recording you, then you don't do it. Now tell us, when will you stop putting on dresses and rubbing your nipples? I'm a scientist, so I won't assert that you don't do this.
PS. Hope I didn't out you ;-)
as Set said earlier, Frank has had his undies hung out by many and he still retains his POV as something on which science even wastes time . Hes a golfer, not a scientist.
Im not sure about his taste in undies, although I dont want to have that image anywhere near me on a do-nothing day like today.
I wanna watch the Eagles lose and not think about Apisa doing his own shopping at Victoria's Secret.
If you let Frankoie know you are a scientist, he will quit debating and begin his mantras. His favorite debate skill is interminable phrase chanting.
PS he doesnt listen either. Thats one of the most annoying things about him.
I like to talk ABOUT him than TO him. (Its a cheap shot I know, but he isnt beneath doing it also).
SO, welcome to the boards and have fun. Youre a chemist yes?
I wanna watch the Eagles lose
I knew it! farmerman and Brian DO have a religion!
That one makes as much sense to me as God does to you guys.
So then you're saying that people do already know about these proclivities of yours? Interesting.
It does seem silly; doesn't it. But how is it different than your argument to declare that I should not state there is no intelligent designer? Is there any more or less evidence for an intelligent designer than there is that you wear dresses and rub your nipples?
Good points. Many theists say that their convictions are based on belief (i.e., acceptance of things without evidence). Science involves practices that require evidence.
One question I would pose would be if belief is a reliable way to make decisions about the world?
No, I would say that the evidence gathered relative to the evolution of species suggests natural selection is the best and most appropriate conclusion.
I think that the geological sciences have used their data appropriately to explain the theory of tectonics and stratification. I think radiometric dating has provided an adequate theory for the age of natural materials. From these examples and the data from other sciences I think that we have evidence in support of evolution and no evidence in support of an intelligent designer.
The logic of your argument, Frank, that belief is not believing in something, and because that something is not falsifiable, is what leads to arguments that you wear pretty little dresses and rub your nipples...
...which people are talking about and are saying is not the most flattering look for you. It could be true. Right? If you want to fall upon that prosaic argument that anything is possible. However, I will stick with the likelihood of you wearing a dress is greater than the likelihood that there is an intelligent designer. If I was a betting man, I would bet that you do not actually wear dresses. But perhaps a picture will surface on the internet and I will have to re-evaluate my theory. Fair?