This was a response to 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry: A point by point response to Scientific American Interesting enough. I'd like to know people's opinions. One thing is pointed out though, they attack evolution but never review themselves in a critical manner...how sad...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! LMAO!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Funny...well, let's get the debate on!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
From another article linked to from the article linked above: "If God created the universe, then who created God?" --Jonathan Sarfati As if the question is more illogical than the reasoning: We say god exists (though it can't be proven), and we say god exists outside time and space (though it can't be proven), therefore god exists outside time and space (though it can't be proven), therefore god is timeless and uncreated (though it can't be proven), therefore to ask how god came to be is illogical because our definition automatically renders it so (in part, because it can't be proven). QED" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And that is the well-spring of creationism and of creationists logical defense of it, as well as their opposition to naturalism and materialism.
After reading the link provided by ~The_Chosen~, I wonder if Tony1 was around at the writing of the responce. It has remarkable overtones of which we see the like of within sciforums. In fact much to my amazement, it looks a lot like what goes on here.
Data, please? Which are two different forms of scientific process. To observe gorillas in the wild to confirm a hypothesis about their behavior, you don't capture them and put them in a lab. Your conclusions are still subject to the same standard of peer review as a repeatable experiment. I could go on, but alas... I'm tired of reading this kind of stuff. My hats off to the soldiers out there in the courts and schools keeping this crap from passing as science. This article is a political and moral tract, a refutation in Christian argumentative terms (preaching to the choir), but hardly a logical analysis of Mr. Rennie's statements. This isn't even a scientific article, just an article about a scientific article. le coq
America is only so advanced because we have a lot of previously unexploited land that is arable and mineral rich, and a government that cant afford to be OPENLY corrupt. In other words, we have had it good from the start. England, on the other hand, had to make do with a tiny piece of land that has been molested for the last 2000 years.
Then you would suppose that American science was at its greatest back in the days of the Puritians, buckles and The Crucible.
Okay. I'll bite. Give us the OZ perspective on which is the "Most scientifically advanced nation", if it's not the USA? This I've got to hear. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Given our concentration of population in rather new cities, Australia beats the USA. For general literacy and numeracy, USA is beaten by Australia, Sweden, Japan, and a bunch of other places. USA Probably wins on sheer volume spent on research, but all benefits are not distributed among the society.
countries on previously virgin land always have more vitality than older countries. Why? Because they have more unused rescources, no archaic and crippleing laws, fewer nonindustrial or residential buildings, and those who live there are of a pioneer mentality. Due to its core of unarable land Australia will eat the rest of us alive soon enough. (metaphorically)
