eisenreich
New member
bowhunter, I'm curious and don't in any way mean this as an insult, but what was the highest level of education you achieved?bowhunter said:
Himalayas a billion years old?
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
bowhunter
New member
I was about 13 credits shy of an electronics engineering degree. Why do you ask?
I did not like electronics and chose sales instead. I have owned my own businesses, have seen many parts of the world, love to read, etc. Why do you ask? You trying to show your elite intellect by asking? Or are you astonished by my erudition on this subject?
I find it amazing that you would even resort to this level of banal attack. You really should be ashamed of yourself.
I did not like electronics and chose sales instead. I have owned my own businesses, have seen many parts of the world, love to read, etc. Why do you ask? You trying to show your elite intellect by asking? Or are you astonished by my erudition on this subject?
I find it amazing that you would even resort to this level of banal attack. You really should be ashamed of yourself.
Real Sorceror
New member
So your saying a massive number of scientist are being paid to say the world is old? They are being paid to make up evidence?bowhunter said:
Real Sorceror
New member
Your looking in the wrong places for the wrong things. I am not the closed minded sheep you so often claim I am.bowhunter said:
Real Sorceror
New member
Indeed they do. However, I speak of things which many thousands of scientis across the globe have studied, are they all shams and fakes?bowhunter said:
bowhunter
New member
Well, thousands of "real" scientists use to wash their hands in dirty water and couldn't figure out why their experiments failed in the death of the lab animal.
Thousands of "real" scientists believed "bleeding" people would make their diseases go away.
Thousands of "real" scientists believed the earth was flat.
Guess what sonny, them there "real" scientists had inertia and opinion pushing them to their ultimate WRONGNESS. Just like these do. They can only see "evolution" in the lense they are looking through. Luckily, the polls show they are not having much impact on society.
Thousands of "real" scientists believed "bleeding" people would make their diseases go away.
Thousands of "real" scientists believed the earth was flat.
Guess what sonny, them there "real" scientists had inertia and opinion pushing them to their ultimate WRONGNESS. Just like these do. They can only see "evolution" in the lense they are looking through. Luckily, the polls show they are not having much impact on society.
Real Sorceror
New member
Right. Well you've convinced me of nothing, other than the fact that you are mildly paraniod. If you see all my sources as blind baffoons, then abviously my arguments will mean nothing to you, and I see no reason to continue. By the way, a scientist who is wrong is still a scientists, so the guys you support arent total failures.
And to come up with these 3 examples of thousands of scientists being wrong, in all 3 cases you had to reach back several hundred years, before science as we know it now even existed. Can’t make your point using something more recent?bowhunter said:
BTW – The “earth was flat” idea has not been the scientific norm for over half a millennium, and in many places, not for several millennia.
hatsoff
New member
Funny you should mention this. Let's address the claims....
I'm not sure about the accuracy of this one. Where did you hear this?
Bloodletting, as it is more accurately called, is an ancient practice with unknown roots. However, it is fair to say it was never a scientific innovation. It was subsequently practiced for thousands of years. By the time scientific method began to take hold, bloodletting quickly fell out of favor, with few exceptions. So, scientists, in the modern sense of the word, have almost never condoned that ghastly procedure.
About 600 BC or so, Greek thinkers (one cannot rightly call them scientists) accepted the spherical earth. In the third century BC, Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of the earth with surprising accuracy. Christians, however, and especially Christian leaders, often insisted the earth was flat at least until about 800 AD. It wasn't until 1100 or so that the Roman Catholic Church had predominantly accepted the spherical earth notion.
You gave three horrible examples, but you are correct insofar as scientists are often wrong. The problem is, what alternative do we have? Look at evidence, and trust those who do the same. Scientific method is one of the greatest innovations humans have yet put forward. To reject it, in favor of "this book says so," or "this guy says so," betrays a foolishness too powerful to overcome. Fiat reasoning simply does not work.
bowhunter said:
I'm not sure about the accuracy of this one. Where did you hear this?
Bloodletting, as it is more accurately called, is an ancient practice with unknown roots. However, it is fair to say it was never a scientific innovation. It was subsequently practiced for thousands of years. By the time scientific method began to take hold, bloodletting quickly fell out of favor, with few exceptions. So, scientists, in the modern sense of the word, have almost never condoned that ghastly procedure.
About 600 BC or so, Greek thinkers (one cannot rightly call them scientists) accepted the spherical earth. In the third century BC, Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of the earth with surprising accuracy. Christians, however, and especially Christian leaders, often insisted the earth was flat at least until about 800 AD. It wasn't until 1100 or so that the Roman Catholic Church had predominantly accepted the spherical earth notion.
You gave three horrible examples, but you are correct insofar as scientists are often wrong. The problem is, what alternative do we have? Look at evidence, and trust those who do the same. Scientific method is one of the greatest innovations humans have yet put forward. To reject it, in favor of "this book says so," or "this guy says so," betrays a foolishness too powerful to overcome. Fiat reasoning simply does not work.
Real Sorceror
New member
Yes, you are certianly being the bigger man.bowhunter said:
bowhunter,
You attempted to give us an example of thousands of scientists making crap up. Here is what you came up with:
You attempted to give us an example of thousands of scientists making crap up. Here is what you came up with:
In actuality, the whole process and methodology of science was being formulated around these times. You must remember that the scientific mindset is extremely young. I must ask you, what studies were conducted on these topics? Can you list some papers? These were beliefs that weren't based on any evidence. They were not formulated and tested scientifically. Does that sound familiar at all?
You're right. And once they get caught by other scientists their careers and reputation get ruined for it. That whole debacle was a testament to the power of peer review and modern science.