- Jul 9, 2006
Ah, I see, you believe "serious scientific discussion" is only valid if it ignores anything not included in it's structure by definition? How enlightened.
Ummm, no. Sorry Spewn, I just had to jump in here...
"Serious scientific discussion" means a discussion concerning scientific evidence. Religion, and faith, more importantly, are the absence of evidence. It is useless to discuss actual, valid science with religious zealots because they can't deny the science, therefore they must find some way to reshape the argument to be true with regards to their ancient text written in the Bronze Age.
When we have things that are not yet learned through repeatable, testable hypotheses, religious advocates like to say, "There! You see! You don't know it, therefore God did it. I have faith that He did." The reality is that science takes a while to establish true, fundamental laws and theories because we need to be certain, using evidence, that they are credible. I find it funny that all of the technological and scientific progress throughout the years has been in the name of science. If the enlightenment never happened, we would still be burning "witches" and attributing natural disasters to the hands of an angry god. Oh wait, people still do that.