 Quote: |
Originally Posted by Jefferson Quote: |
Originally Posted by foundit66 Quote: |
Originally Posted by Jefferson So... because I'm challenging your narrow little view, and I may not agree with you, you assume that I'm ignorant. You assume I'm not educated and/or that I'm fully unfamiliar with science and education.
Wow. So I'm qualified to teach at the college level, but you're suggesting that I go to college. Okay Bubba.  | Your list of "qualifications", and how often it grows, is consistently astounding.
Your resume must be rather daunting!
<end sarcasm>
Anybody who says: "Scientific theory is NOT the hightest form of knowledge. It is THEORY." has just DEFINITIVELY PROVEN that they are fairly unfamiliar with science. You have no concept of what "theory" means in science, and the importance that is laid upon that word...
You reference it with the same mistakes that a lay-person would...
The truth of the matter is that there is no real dispute on the age of the earth (to the degree you are disputing it) in SCIENTIFIC arenas. Any "dispute" on the matter typically comes from RELIGIOUS perspectives, based on RELIGIOUS tomes with NO science to back them up.
Your replies on this issue have typically come from the realm of throwing out questions without actually substantiating the VALIDITY of those questions...
And for the record, I don't think you are "challenging" anybody's view on this issue. You're tossing out lame speculation. Asking questions which reveal your own ignorance of the subject instead of demonstrating repute of the issue at hand.
To "challenge" a scientific conclusion, you would first need SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to base your challenge upon.
You have none. None whatsoever.
Plenty of "what if" questions demonstrating you aren't familiar with the topic in the first place... But no facts. | So "scientific theory" is "proven fact".
Ever take philosophy? | I never said ""scientific theory" is "proven fact"."
Take your straw-man arguments elsewhere...
Lying about my position only diminishes your own credibility...
Scientific theory is not "proven fact", but it is a LOT MORE than just the casual means you referenced it.
In some ways, your response also demonstrates that you STILL do not understand what "scientific theory" is...
Do you have ANY CLUE as to how many issues in science are still referenced as "theory"?
(That, and referencing "philosophy"?
YOu're only proving my point...) |