What is Science?

What is Science?

Ph.d. Chemist and chess master John Sarfati explains:

YouTube

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
What is Science?

Ph.d. Chemist and chess master John Sarfati explains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-HiHNhKuJM

The Instructor

Gee, now HERE is a totally unbiased fellow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sarfati

Why SURE, we believe EVERYTHING he says.......

Originally posted by sonhouse
Gee, now HERE is a totally unbiased fellow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sarfati

Why SURE, we believe EVERYTHING he says.......

He seems very welll qualified to have an idea as to what is science, don't you think? As least more that Richard Dawkins.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
He seems very welll qualified to have an idea as to what is science, don't you think? As least more that Richard Dawkins.

The Instructor

You don't get it. Or maybe you do and continue just obfuscating. He has a well recorded agenda. You cannot take ANYTHING such a biased individual has to say when it is well known he is in the EXACT same boat as you, a young Earther creationist nutter.

OF COURSE you would think him better than Dawkins.

Why don't you read HIS creds?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

It puts him head and shoulders above your cretin.

Originally posted by RJHinds
He seems very welll qualified to have an idea as to what is science, don't you think? As least more that Richard Dawkins.

The Instructor

Objectively not, Sarfati has a Ph.D. and a B.Sc. in chemistry and his work was more connected with physical chemistry than biology, Dawkins has a M.A. in zoology and a D.Phil. both from Balliol. Dawkins is an FRS, which in terms of quality of answers to the question "what is science?" gives him the better credentials. As far as comments on evolution are concerned Sarfati is off his field, whereas Dawkins is not. Sarfati is probably a better person to listen to about chess.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You don't get it. Or maybe you do and continue just obfuscating. He has a well recorded agenda. You cannot take ANYTHING such a biased individual has to say when it is well known he is in the EXACT same boat as you, a young Earther creationist nutter.

OF COURSE you would think him better than Dawkins.

Why don't you read HIS creds?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

It puts him head and shoulders above your cretin.

But Richard Dawkins is an atheist and and evolutionist and obviously has an agenda and presents things from the point of view of his biased worldview.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
But Richard Dawkins is an atheist and and evolutionist and obviously has an agenda and presents things from the point of view of his biased worldview.

The Instructor

But Richard Dawkins is an atheist and and evolutionist

that's because he is rational (hence being either an atheists or agnostic -atheist in this case ) and because he accepts scientific fact as fact (hence he is an evolutionist ).
He isn't an atheist and and evolutionist because he has an agenda nor because of his "worldview" in particular but rather because he is rational although he may well have an altruistic agenda to fight against delusional beliefs to help cure the deluded -an impossible and unforgiving task and one which he WILL inevitably fail (but at least he will try ) so I don't know why you fear him.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What is Science?

Ph.d. Chemist and chess master John Sarfati explains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-HiHNhKuJM

The Instructor

For once, I have actually watched one of your linked youtube videos.

So when you told us in another thread that there was scientific evidence regarding the shrouds origins, you were lying, because now you say that anything historical is not science? Or did you forget to watch the youtube video before posting it?

Its interesting that the guy in the video has the same claim as Kellys favourite.
So let me ask you a question that Kelly has never been able to answer:
If I find a dinosaur fossil, then am I correct to say that it is the fossilized remains of a dinosaur, or am I merely interpreting the evidence based on my preconceived world view?
I notice the guy in the video got the answer wrong ie he assumed that the fossil came from a dinosaur - essentially contradicting what he had just said.

Originally posted by humy

But Richard Dawkins is an atheist and and evolutionist

that's because he is rational (hence being either an atheists or agnostic -atheist in this case ) and because he accepts scientific fact as fact (hence he is an evolutionist ).
He isn't an atheist and and evolutionist because he has an agenda nor because of his "worldview" in particu ...[text shortened]... which he WILL inevitably fail (but at least he will try ) so I don't know why you fear him.

Atheism is a religious belief and I have an opposing religious belief of Christianity. I do not fear that idiot, I am only defending my faith from his atheist attacks.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Atheism is a religious belief and I have an opposing religious belief of Christianity. I do not fear that idiot, I am only defending my faith from his atheist attacks.

The Instructor

If atheism is a religion where are their churches, where do they meet en mass?

Would that be in science conventions? What?

Why isn't there an atheist pope or even a atheist deacon?

If you are going to claim a huge atheistic conspiracy you need to flesh it out a bit for the consuming public.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Atheism is a religious belief and I have an opposing religious belief of Christianity. I do not fear that idiot, I am only defending my faith from his atheist attacks.

The Instructor

You brought Dawkins' name into the debate, therefore it is not a defence it is an attack. You are in no position to call him an idiot - Dawkins has a proven track record in his field, as, in fairness, does Sarfati in his. I am not aware of you making any significant contributions to science, or for that matter chess. So who's the idiot?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Atheism is a religious belief and I have an opposing religious belief of Christianity. I do not fear that idiot, I am only defending my faith from his atheist attacks.

The Instructor

Atheism is a religious belief

How so? Obviously it isn't by definition.

I do not fear that idiot,

If he is an 'idiot' then I guess you must be extremely severely mentally retarded. What scientific qualifications have you got that he hasn't?
The kinds of people you keep calling "idiot" are vastly more intelligent than you or me could ever be and I take offense for you calling them idiot just like you should but don't.

Einstein, the agnostic, was against your religion (actually, all religions involving the belief in a personal god ) . I suppose you arrogantly think you also have higher intelligence than even him because of this just like with Dawkins? -OK, prove it by explaining in your own words (no copy and paste and no reference to any website ) how he deduced special relativity from scratch …. (I can do this albeit only just barely and with extreme difficulty! and, contrary to popular opinion, it had absolutely NOTHING to do with considering the relative motion of spaceships! ) . and also explain to us why YOU didn't deduce special relativity from scratch if you are so much more intelligent than him....
-you cannot? -well, how can you be more clever than him then?

I accept that there are many people who are by far much more intelligent than me and both know and understand one hell a lot more than me including when it comes to understand science -why can't you accept this i.e. those people being more intelligent than you and understanding science much more than you do?
I accept this despite my science qualifications and my good understanding of various albeit not all science subjects -if I can accept this spite that, why cannot you accept this when clearly you have NO such science qualifications nor good understanding of science subjects?

Originally posted by sonhouse
If atheism is a religion where are their churches, where do they meet en mass?

Would that be in science conventions? What?

Why isn't there an atheist pope or even a atheist deacon?

If you are going to claim a huge atheistic conspiracy you need to flesh it out a bit for the consuming public.

Not all regions are the same. If you were not so ignorant on the subject, you would know this already.

The Instructor

Originally posted by DeepThought
You brought Dawkins' name into the debate, therefore it is not a defence it is an attack. You are in no position to call him an idiot - Dawkins has a proven track record in his field, as, in fairness, does Sarfati in his. I am not aware of you making any significant contributions to science, or for that matter chess. So who's the idiot?

You are not aware of a lot of things. That only proves how ignorant you are. I know everyone can have their off days, so I must have just seen Dawkins when he seemed like an idiot by viewing him on videos on his off days.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are not aware of a lot of things. That only proves how ignorant you are. I know everyone can have their off days, so I must have just seen Dawkins when he seemed like an idiot by viewing him on videos on his off days.

The Instructor

A syllogism has to have two premises. You only have one. You need a premise something along the lines of: "People who are not aware of a lot of things are ignorant." However then you a quantifier shift between the two premises. Just because there are a lot of things I am unaware of it doesn't mean that there are not a lot of things I am aware of. You can't even manage basic logic.