bull (scientific method) shit
9/20/2009 3:51:57 AM
"Scientific method"... You keep using those words - I do not think that they mean what you think they mean.
9/20/2009 3:53:48 AM
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
9/20/2009 4:06:55 AM
You don't get to be a scientist until you grow up and stop using "words" like waaaaaaaaay.
9/20/2009 4:09:10 AM
Nathan the Wise
Yeah, like that logical order of making the light before the sun ...
9/20/2009 4:11:49 AM
AAA saw your post. It was not good.
9/20/2009 5:10:54 AM
9/20/2009 5:35:42 AM
@EvoPagan: What is it with fundies and bad diction? You'd think they were all woefully undereducated or something.
9/20/2009 5:41:38 AM
Logical fallacies notwithstanding, this is actually quite funny...
9/20/2009 6:29:33 AM
YOU have to have a hypothesis which YOU can gather data for, YOU can test, YOU can analyze, and most importantly, YOU can -falsify-. Or, YOU can read about someone else's experiment (which meets the criteria I described) and YOU can do the experiment -again-.
I dare you to repeat creation as the Bible describes it.
9/20/2009 6:56:17 AM
Nothing works that way!
9/20/2009 7:34:12 AM
Ya know, if you recorded before you analyzed, you wouldn't get things so badly wrong.
As for Christ going back into schools, it's a waste of time. If he hasn't graduated after 2000 years he's never going to make it.
His expulsion was fully warranted- he knew the alcohol ban, but still turneed water into wine, and as for incident with the five loaves and two fishes, the parents of the coeliac kids are still muttering about suing the school district.
9/20/2009 7:36:00 AM
Jezebel's Evil Sister
Actually, the Genesis creation myth follows two (2) - count'em - two (2) distinct orders (compare and contrast chapters 1 and 2), and neither one is logical.
9/20/2009 7:38:24 AM
9/20/2009 7:51:21 AM
You know nothing but a few words of the scientific method.
I have an idea. Instead of putting "Christ back in schools," let's put science, real science, into your church. Poof! There goes religion.
9/20/2009 9:37:48 AM
Where the f**k do you get fourth hand from? As for rest.. there is no point trying to explain.
Have you ever read a science book, in fact have you ever read a book? Having mummy read the Wholly Babble to you before tucking you in doesn't count.
9/20/2009 9:45:27 AM
Debbie, darling, you really should avoid commenting on subjects you know nothing about, like the scientific method. It makes you look like a clueless twit.
9/20/2009 10:21:50 AM
That was one of the lamest creationist "arguments" I have ever seen.
9/20/2009 10:41:37 AM
wow major science fail. How much of that can you observe or test through evidence? Can you disprove any of it, or attempt to? If the end result remains, "because god said so", then it's not scientific.
9/20/2009 10:43:09 AM
Not only are those not the proper steps in the scientific method (no hypothesis? No interpretation? NO SCIENCE?), Debs here seems to be confused as to the meaning of "logic"
9/20/2009 11:31:00 AM
Seriously, I need to reduce my brain stuff to that of a sheep to be able to even approach that argument fairly.
No thanks. Keep it to yourself, Deb. Even, umm, 'innocent' tots have a better grasp of science than that.
9/20/2009 11:43:38 AM
You use the term "scientific method" but you don't seem to understand it that well. Don't worry I can help.
1. "God saw." In science it is not good enough for one party to observe something once. It is necessary for other parties to observe it, over and over again if need be. 2."It was good." This "analysis" is worded far too vaguely to mean anything. Good in what way? This analysis is too indefinite to be accepted scientifically.
9/20/2009 12:40:38 PM
This is so good im going to use it in my first evolution lecture of the semester tommorow morning
cheers for the monday morning amusement, im sure my students will love you for it!!!!
9/20/2009 12:56:05 PM
9/20/2009 1:23:59 PM
Put Christ Back Into Schools.
The Committe for Brain Rot, Superstition and Ignorance
9/20/2009 1:30:59 PM