I have been drinking to extents that will, five years hence, get me arrested and re-educated. I have just corrected five typos in that last sentence. And two more in that one, I could go on…
Let’s just say that this snippet from the spambox seems to make sense to me at the moment…
a musical theme. commoner looks stark, so you can be heavy if you are purchasing helmets and carry pads. Too some consumers get tricked into scams via hyperlinks in refutable emails.
So now we know the level we are working at.
In the creationism/evolution argument (which is impossible to resolve so can never end) I have to say that Flaxen Saxon has it right.
Science cannot study religion and religion cannot be science. They are two entirely separate modes of thought. Religion believes in things. Science believes nothing. Religion is based on humanity and ithe meaning of life. Science recognises no such things.
In religion, humanity is special and is here for a reason. In science, humans are an animal classified among the primate group and there is no reason for life, it just happened.
Stewart, the ‘fairies’ thing is a strawman. It does not matter whether someone believes in fairies, whether the friendly butterfly-wings kind or the original Celtic evil spirits who were all nice and sweet and then stole your child while you admired the trinket they gave you. All irrelevant. It was a trap. We scientists do that sort of thing, it’s not personal, we do it to each other all the time.
Flaxen is also right in that if you make a statement, in science, it is your business to prove it right.
To take an old example. I can say “There is a teapot orbiting Betelgeuse. Prove me wrong.” Many have wasted hours on that one but real science would say “No. You claim it, you prove it.”
That is science. It is an entirely different thought process to religion. It accepts nothing without proof in triplicate at least.
There are religious scientists. I know a professor who is deeply Christian but he is a professor of agricultural science. It does not affect his work whether he believes the earth to be six thousand or six billion years old. It would not affect mine either. If I was a geologist or a palaeontoilogist it would be imprtant. To a microbiologist it is not.
As far as I am concerned, the entirety of the universe could have popped into being a second before I was born and it might all exist just to annoy me. So far, my observations entirely support this hypothesis even though it is statistically unlikely to be correct. We will all find out when I die and you can be reassured that I am in no hurry.
The human eye is often cited as proof of intelligent design. It is a crap design. I couild do better after another bottle of whisky. The nerves come out of the front of the retina and all pile down in one spot If they came out of the back of the retina we would have no detached retinas and no blind spot.
Human vision is also crap. I have painted a shed green when I thought it was brown. For me, ‘navy blue’ is another word for black. I have learned to buy paint based on the words on the tin because the colour of the lid or cap is variable. If someone designed my eyes he was drunker than me when he did it
Genetics that can leave one side of the chosen species seeing in almost monochrome (I have only ever met one who really does see in monochrome) while the other side of that species can see more colours than naturally exist is not evidence of intellligent design.
Is there a point to this random babble? No there isn’t and there cannot be. There can be no resolution to this argument, ever. One side believes without question, the other side questions without belief. Which side is right?
Don’t know. Don’t care.