Science, Creation & EvolutionSomething for Tuppence: Science definedThat's ridiculous. I'm involved in a one on one discussion with someone and if they are trying to prove a point they have to lay it out. Saying "it's already been talked about and I'm right. Find it", is hardly proper debating form. In any case, he provided the link and that's acceptable and appreciated. However it seems him and the admiral have been delving in deeply enough, so for the sake of redundancy I'll let them continue from their point in the argument. LOL!!! That's the most sensible thing I have seen you post. Of course it applies EQUALLY well to the reverse. Attacking evolution does not prove creation. That would be creating a false dilemma fallacy. The problem here is that the evidence for evolution stands up fine when TRULY understood and referenced from complete and unbiased sources. Creationism has about as much support as a rubber crutch. Hence the "attacking" of each other's position. If all minds are open, truth will eventually win out. That's precisely my point. The reason the dissidents aren't taken seriously is that they are only identifying gaps of knowledge that all AIDS researchers KNOW exist. But gaps of knowledge does not a theory dispute. The point is that unless and until they can come up with a BETTER theory that fits the facts, they are just being a nuisance. The HIV=AIDS paradigm has enough evidence to accept it as a fact. See this is where religious people go round and round in a merry old circle. They have a hard time truly understanding the definitions and appropriateness of the words theory, fact and proof. Theories are accepted as facts if they evidence enough predictions and terms that are testable and repeatable. Thus it becomes a theory AND a fact. The "proof" is in the ability for anyone to reproduce the same evidence. This is where people like yourself that are trying to put Creationism on an equal level of respectability as evolution for a scientific theory keep going off the rails on a crazy train. The simple truth is that you don't understand enough about science to see your critical thinking flaws. Also you aren't in the field and obviously do not study the issues with as much time and intensity as a scientist. Nor should you. It's not your profession. Doctors may not be always right, but anyone with common sense would accept that they have a far greater chance of giving you an informed medical opinion then someone subscribing to "Health News". So there will always be disagreements, and debates within ANY field, but when the great majority have a consensus of opinion, then does it not stand to reason that the chances are far greater exponentially that they are taking the most logical and correct stance? For the few people who really buck the system, and the AIDS dissident Peter Duesberg is an excellent example, I have a cute saying I heard once. If one man calls you an ass, ignore him. If 100 people call you an ass, buy a saddle. Of course in debates like this it is usually laypeople arguing the viewpoints. So all we can do is delve in to research and use the info that most scientists probably have ingrained in their brain that could shred an ignorant argument in two seconds flat. They probably just don't have the time or inclination to educate people that are that far off on the religious side. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame