| Judson McClendon 2005-12-18, 3:55 am |
| "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> You claim it is simple, but you avoided the implied question of "Well,
> if it's so simple, then what do YOU think we should do?"
A. Place 1,000 burn victims in warm water and document healing.
B. Place 1,000 burn victims in  water and document healing.
C. Use method that works best, or if equal result, ignore water temperature
in advice for burns.
> Alistair post implies that the best thing to do is cold water if the
> skin has not been burned off, but to do nothing if the skin HAS been
> burned off. Your question above, implies that there's only two possible
> answers: "warm water" or "cold water", and to figure it out might simply
> involve trying both and seeing which works better. As you can now see,
> that expectation is overly simplistic and naive. There may be several
> other variables that a professional doctor would consider that have not
> been mentioned in Alistair's post.
My point was that, after millions of treatments for burns, the issue was
undecided. Yes, there could many other variables. But difficulty deciding on
one particular variable after millions of tries is clueless. Knowing what
other variables might be involved is another matter.
> Nobody's perfect. Science has been wrong before, religion has been
> wrong before. The difference is that Science is typically willing to admit
> to its mistakes, and address them, while religion typically is not.
Ever heard of "Piltdown Man"? How about "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny"?
The former hoax, and the scientific deductions made from of the hoaxed
material, were left in textbooks for years without correction, after it was
known to be a hoax. The latter was a hoax that was admitted in court by the
perpetrator when he was brought to trial for it in 1861, and I was taught it
in school almost 100 years later. I still see frequent references to it even
now. The only evidence presented at the Scopes trial was a tooth, said to be
*conclusive proof* that a certain primitive man existed. Later, the very jaw
the *pig's tooth* came from was located, along with the matching teeth from
the other side of the jaw. The field of evolutionary study (promoted hoax is
a better term) is literally *filled* with outright fraud, lies and
deception. Not "occasional mistakes" and no "willing correction", even to
*known hoaxes*.
> But in my experience, science never pretends to *know* anything. They
> merely give observations, and theories explaining what might cause these
> observations. Note that scientists do not refer to evolution as "The Fact
> Of Evolution"; usually they'll refer to it as "The Theory Of Evolution",
> and in fact, they will admit that the theory is under development, which
> means that at some point in history, there were some flaws in it.
It isn't taught as "theory", it is taught as "fact". In the U.S., even
trying to present Creationism as a possible theory is met with *fierce*
resistance by the academic community, on the very grounds that "these things
have already been explained by evolution." The battles in the court system
on this precise issue are ongoing this very minute.
> See? They acknowledge that the it's a theory, that it's under
> development, that at first not many people believed in it, but now more
> do, that there were other evolutonary theories, and that there are
> controversies surrounding the theory.
Maybe the Christians fighting in court to get Creationism taught as an
alternative explaination can use that as evidence. :-)
> As for my own posts, yes, I think I HAVE expressed that I am willing to
> accept the possibility that evolutionists may be barking up the wrong
> tree.
Yes, I was not speaking of your own posts. :-)
>
> Yes, and DNA is believe by many biologist to be a big complex mess.
> Human anatomy as well (lots of useless organs, etc.)
Hey, just because they don't know what it does, does not mean it has no
purpose. The history of physical science is one of backtracking on such
conclusions. :-) The aerodynamic community did not understand why birds have
tail feathers shaped the way they are, until they did extensive modeling and
testing, to discover the shapes were basically perfect for the purpose. :-)
>
> So how do you justify your original claim?
By hundreds of news reports of such things.
> Well, I guess we could end this whole discussion with the assumption
> that the following dialog took place:
>
> "*I* know that God exists."
> "Okay, but we don't care whether or not *YOU* know. We want to know how
> can *WE* know if God exists?"
> "Well, you can't. Or I don't know. I guess..."
> "Alright. End of discussion then?"
> "I guess so."
Well, I am trying, here. :-) Yes, I realize you are trying to be open on a
subject you feel is settled, and I appreciate that. :-)
>
> Maybe I'll give it a shot over the w end. I don't promise I'll
> nescessarily come back and report my findings here on CLC though.
Fair enough. Remember though, God is omniscent and can't be fooled. He can
detect a non serious attempt a billion years before it is conceived. ;-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
|