1 2 3
Huh? The words are English but they don't make any sense. Or this person has no idea what evidence means.
2/6/2011 5:24:00 AM
In your world, science is the Sunday school, isn't it?
2/6/2011 5:38:21 AM
I guess he means "people change the theory to match the evidence."
Which is how science is done, by the way.
If new evidence surfaces it would be abssurd not to.
2/6/2011 5:38:53 AM
Oh not this crap again... I'm not sure what this is supposed to say, but i have a hunch. I think you dude have never looked up the "facts" and "evidence" you speak of, otherwise this post of yours wouldn't be as messed up as it is.
2/6/2011 5:39:16 AM
Yes, if the 'facts' don't match the evidence, they are not facts, therefore we use the evidence to inform new facts.
That bit I can deal with.
"That is not science," however, couldn't be more wrong if it was selected as a special Wrongday gift to the Wrong Honourable Prime Minister Wrong by the Queen of Wrongia.
2/6/2011 6:07:00 AM
I don't think you understand what science is. Has anyone bothered to even tell you how the scientific method works?
2/6/2011 6:20:26 AM
I still can't understand why people this stupid are able to remember to breathe.
2/6/2011 6:28:39 AM
That's exactly what science is. Unlike you maniacs who don't change the "facts" of Creationism even when the evidence is staring you in the face.
2/6/2011 7:00:50 AM
In Evolution people change the facts to match the evidence.
Then it shouldn't be hard for you to cite an example of this happening, then, should it?
2/6/2011 7:22:30 AM
I read about the afterlife
Oh dude, I think you kind of slipped because I'm sure you meant "intelligent design" when you said evolution. It's okay, dude. Just fix it asap.
2/6/2011 7:45:31 AM
Isn't that how the Goat Herders Guide to Brainwash the Gullible (aka The Bi(b)le) was thrown together?
2/6/2011 7:46:40 AM
Scientific "facts" are things we hold to be true because that is the best way to explain the evidence. If we get more evidence, we sometimes have to shift what we hold as fact to account for new data - "facts" evolve. What you describe and then dismiss is pretty much what science is. Because you are so used to dealing with dogma, you are unable to accept the fluidity of scientific knowledge, or the concept that we never really stop being able to learn new things about the world. You should read that essay by Asimov about how scientific examination changes the facts as we know them.
2/6/2011 7:47:58 AM
2/6/2011 7:55:38 AM
You've confused "evolution" with "creationism" again, I see.
2/6/2011 8:03:14 AM
I actually posted in the first thread this fellow ever posted on The Escapist. It was about how atheists atack the "good Christians" by lumping them in with the "bad Christians", but then went on to assume moral superirority and invoke Pascal's wager. I wrote quite a heated response which was promptly ignored.
I don't get the impression that he's a real, hateful, Conservapedia-style fundie though. He comes off more as a confused kid who genuinely doesn't understand what people are telling him. Not that this makes his nonsense any more palatable, but it makes it harder to seriously resent him for it.
2/6/2011 8:06:59 AM
I think you misspelt "creationism."
But seriously, how do you change facts?
2/6/2011 8:37:20 AM
Actually, it kind of is. This person is obviously a troll.
2/6/2011 8:43:15 AM
Percy Q. Shunn
2/6/2011 8:59:57 AM
That's very true. So I suppose it's a good thing that evolutionary biologists don't (and don't need to) change facts to match evidence.
See! They're finally getting it!
2/6/2011 10:21:48 AM
And there goes another irony meter, dammit
2/6/2011 10:35:01 AM
Irony? Is that you?
2/6/2011 10:40:18 AM
2/6/2011 11:33:49 AM
Uh...yes it is.
2/6/2011 11:47:37 AM
No no no no, you can't take what creationists do, turn it around and say evolutionary scientists do the same thing.
2/6/2011 12:12:56 PM
Herp derp irony.
2/6/2011 12:27:25 PM
1 2 3