You need to look at what the military does. It demands strict discipline at mediocre pay and is designed to inflict serious harm on others should the need arise.
That's some things the health care or social security just can't operate like. Also, there are stories all the time about waste and the uselessness of military projects and the costs of supplies. Look at the amount of money that is thrown at the military, the constant race (generally using private companies) to build the better killing machines and more ways to dominate an opponent.
Besides, the military is the only thing in which you mentioned that is constitutionally permissible. The federal government has no authority to control and provide health care unless you either ignore the constitution, stretch some clause well beyond it's intent, or ignore the entire structure and limitations plus role the federal government is constitutionally allowed.
Actually, it is for most people. The same mechanisms in play for believing in religions, miracles and so on is in play for believing evolution. Despite not having any empirical evidence to support parts of evolution which is more or less logical conclusions drawn from recorded evidence, most people will never have access or the abilities to weigh the information and draw their own conclusion and rely on a faith or trust in other interpretations being correct. That's is the same mechanism in the beliefs of religion, miracles, cults and so on.
Killing people wouldn't necessarily be evil. Killing people for no reason or aggressive reasons would be but self preservation and the preservation of innocent life could be seen as good.
The problem is that if it is wrong to do at all, then it is wrong to do. It doesn't really matter if they are king of the hill, it matters if it is right or wrong to do. The biggest problem is that if you can justify an exception then other can and will too and it will never cease to exist.
Are you sure? OEM software is typically passed to the manufacturers of the computer. MS has a credit system that passes the OEM crap back in the form of a credit for a new purchase. However, the retail software does mention MS directly. Could you be confusing the two?
You said: "there is not real speciation unless you much with the definitions to make it work. Point to one event that has been observer and does not do this"
This sentence does not parse. But let's try again:
Your an idiot. The sentence is the same one you cited below this one. Turn much into alter and they are identical in context and intent as has been stated several fucking times now. Quit being a prick and acting like a 3rd grade drop out retard.
So, I'll ask again: What is your definition of speciation? What "event" are you looking for, that you say has not been observed?
Fuck dude, this is pretty simple, speciation is moving from one species to another. And yes, that was already defined in an earlier post. It seems that you have a severe reading comprehension problem or your just fucking stupid on purpose. And yes, I'm going tire of your dumber then though act.
Fixed that for you. You believe in magic teapots, don't you? There might be one orbiting our planet right now, you can't disprove it, so I take it you will give serious consideration to such a possibility? I do hope you don't ignore it, along with an infinite number of other conceivable entities.
Here you are being plain silly and showing how ignorant you really are. You changed the comment I posted in what is typically called a straw man fallacy and it no longer retains a resemblance to the point I made. You also are confused about a few things, First, there is no overwhelming evidence of macro evolution and speciation. There is actually, none at all outside of specific theorized and contrived interpretations of things. You have no empirical evidence of speciation, no transitional fossils, and the entire idea of speciation in evolution is an extreme of an observation of minor changed within a species. But our own human history doesn't follow that logic, we have dogs that have been manipulated in breed since the beginning of civilization and they are still dogs, not frogdogs or whatever because we have never been able to observe speciation. The same it true for cows and other livestock which have been manipulated since the begining of civilization. As I said before, you have absolutely no evidence of speciation that doesn't manipulate the definition of species without that new definition failing to apply universally.
Now you can go on treating macro-evolution as a religion and just believing what isn't there, that is your own choice. But don't expect not to be challenged when your brain washing makes a public appearance.
Your being facetious with self idolizing and insignificant tripe that just isn't relevant to the conversation. You have attempted to do this crap for a couple of posts now and it just doesn't matter, it's all your opinion and irrelevant to the situation.
Regarding the claim that religion once served a use thousands of years ago, to propagate some good ideas, including scientific ones, there I don't disagree.
Your opinion of if religion stopped being useful somehow after a thousand years ago. It's completely irrelevant and isn't supported at all.
As I say - if religion was once about doing observing, theorizing and testing, it's a shame that that's no longer the case.
Again, opinion and meaningless to the conversation. I never set out to claim more then I did and do not want to.
You are confusing methods with institutions. Religious organisations may sometimes give useful information - no one disagrees with this. But this is not comparable to science, as a method. The comparison was not about "religious organisations versus scientists", it was religion versus science as disciplines, as ideas, as methods.
No, you are confusing the two, not me. They are both the body of knowledge unless you expect everyone to perform the same experiments in order to have the same understanding. What you are describing is the ability to believe when you have no empirical or personal evidence. That is not the same as X=y because someone else done the math. That is you having to do the math to know X=y.
So tell me, how does one use "Religion" as a body of knowledge? What method is this that you speak of that allows us to find new facts about the Universe? Read the Bible? That contains a mixture of truths, and complete falsehoods, without any way to tell the difference. Furthermore, reading a book is not how we find out new knowledge - that's simply how it may be explained to other people (it would be like saying we conduct science by "reading a science textbook"!)
The same way science is used as a body of knowledge. This isn't difficult, or it shouldn't be to someone who pretends to be intelligent. You have a set of knowledge that is known, written down, passed on to others, and they use that knowledge to interact with others and the environment around them. As for new knowledge, I didn't say any of it was new, that's somehow your opinion and irrelevant unless you are attempting to understand why someone was or is. Of course that is what I said about microorganisms.
Universities are religious now? Do they believe in god?
Wow, for someone who claims to be intelligent, you sure are missing some facts. Universities were started by religious organizations, I did not say they had to be religious nor did I claim any requirement to believe in god. This is little more then a historical fact that religion perpetuated the idea of education and modern science was born of those religious institutions.
Anyhow, whatever you say about the past, the issue I raised was: it's a shame that that's no longer the case.
No, what you are saying is, you want it to be a certain way and because it isn't (probably never was) you are going to completely ignore it. That makes you less smart and lacking in several areas of knowledge. Some of which will put you at a disadvantage.
There are things which alchemists discovered that are useful. This doesn't mean that alchemy itself ever had any chance of being true. This doesn't mean that "Alchemy and Science are both bodies of knowledge", as if there existed alchemy methods that weren't science, but still useful. The only useful things that alchemists did were things which were science.
Perhaps your just fucking stupid and don't want to listen to anything that disagrees with you. You need to check out Young Kyu Kim's assesment of the date which places it within the first century as I mentioned.
However, it's fucking irrelevant because absolutely no one besides you is attempting to claim the letters aren't authentic. There are a few in dispute but a larger consensus on the ones not in dispute then there is for global warming of Evolutionary biology in it's current state of theory.
BTW, calling someone else a liar when you are obviously so fucking wrong is a but childish isn't it? I mean come on, show me some serious scientist that has evidence and a claim that the letters are not real. And no, not having the originals means absolutely nothing.
We didn't have to but we did. And yes, the US is sovereign over itself, the administration and congress decided to do it. Then when they put the treaty into law as the constitution demands, we got the DMCA.
Ignorance is no excuse. Regulated as in the second amendment means you can hit what you aimed at. It doesn't mean a disciplined army rife with regulation.
Aslo, there is a semicolon there for a reason. Check out the DC keller case which goes into great detail on this.
The DMCA is about two WIPO treaties we signed and ratified. It doesn't matter who introduced it into legislation, it was mandated by out signature and ratification of the two treaties which required Clinton to sign regardless of any veto override. Congress cannot bypass the president on treaties.
You should have looked at the context, rather than assuming the illdefined question at that point meant something that it didn't. I've clarified what the thread was about now.
No, I answered a very fucking specific question/claim. It is your fault that you couldn't follow it. I even quoted the damn question in my reply.
I agree that people were doing observations and so on, long before the concept of the Scientific Method was formally established.
And that book was published by a religion hence a useful prediction religion has made.
I believe that the method that we now refer to as the scientific method is the way to find out about the universe. The fact that the method existed before we called it that doesn't change the point. I don't care if you call it science, religion, or magic.
Actually, it does matter because religion is the organization that propagated the information and made it useful to others. Like I said before, Religion and Science are both bodies of knowledge.
If religion was once about doing observing, theorizing and testing, it's a shame that that's no longer the case.
Religion is about controlling populations for the perceived betterment of society. Observing, theorizing and testing are all actions within that goal. However, you must be forgetting where the modern concept of science comes from. That's right, the religious universities in which science was developed over the years.
I'm not sure anyone's ignoring contributions. Obviously when looking at the history of science, we should look at all contributions. Some contributions came from people who happened to be religious, yes. Newton believed in alchemy, but I don't think that means we should give alchemy any special consideration today. If someone said "What useful knowledge have we got from alchemy?", I'm not sure it matters that Newton also happened to believe alchemy.
Actually, our early metal alloy compounds came from Alchemy. Arsenic was added to copper through the actual act of attempting to make one metal something it wasn't. Now we use Tin to make bronze and have many more alloys when Alchemy gave way/folded into metallurgy. The body of useful knowledge gained from Alchemy is still in use today. There is no need to ignore it at all. Another piece of knowledge that effect your every day life is that we didn't posses the ability to turn common metals into rare metals like hold which was used as a currency throughout the years. This still allows for a sort of financial stability in monetary systems even when they don't base their currency on gold because gold is often used as a second currency.
There are NOT "fragments" that contain parts of the letters. The EARLIEST copies - even PARTIAL copies - we have of ANY of the Pauline letters are HUNDREDS of years younger than any originals would've been.
There isn't? Then what is Papyrus 46 to the first century before the reign of Domitian (pre 81)[64] although other scholars have disputed his early dating. Oh yea, when was it that paul was killed? That's right, around 65.
Well, it sounds like you life would be over or something if they were true. There are fragments dating back to the first century that contain parts of the letters.
You are the one defying scientifically and historically accepted fact. Because you don't want it to be true doesn't make it so.
What I'm asking is: what is your definition of speciation? What "event" are you saying has not been observed?
If you still don't understand after saying it twice, then you probably will never understand it. As for speciation, we have never observed it without changing the definition of species specifically for the instance claimed. And when those changes are compared to a broad set of conditions, the sillyness of them are obvious.
Where did I say any of that? On the contrary, we should adjust our views when new evidence arrives. For example, when we have overwhelming evidence of evolution, it's perhaps time to let go of the idea that it was all done by some magic being.
Lol.. So when you have no evidence of something, then we should completely ignore it right? You have no evidence of it not being done by some magic being, you actually only have scant evidence of evolution and can only observe it on a micro scale within the same species. So why, if evidence is needed, are you blabbering on about ignoring something when you have no evidence of it's falsehood?
I'm sorry, which world is that - the real one, or the one of magic and make believe?
If your unsure, I suggest you should get some professional help. I'm not your shrink.
It's sort of irrelevant if I believe in any gods or not or whether they actually exist or not. We are talking about something written by man which was supposed to be inspired by a god, but the fact is somethign was written long before it was actually discovered in detail.
"Religion" and "science" are not beings - they don't have knowledge themselves.
Actually, both are bodies of knowledge. That's perfectly in line with my comment.
Really? Let's go all the way back, shall we? The OP was: ID does not add anything useful to the discussion, because it postulates a "theory" that can neither be proven nor disproven, and doesn't make any kinds of useful predictions.
It was only the response that twisted this to the ill-defined "religious systems". Then you came in with irrelevant points about what people knew thousands of years ago, despite the fact that there is no evidence that this knowledge was obtained through any means other than observation, and later theorizing and testing.
God Damn, your fucking stupid. Obviously someone observed it, it was written in a book. Religions were doing the observation, theorizing and testing long before science was a concept. It still doesn't remove it from any religion.
So yes, let's go back to the OP - give me a prediction that the "theory" of Intelligent Design has made?
Why must I answer a question I never commented about? The question I answered was about religion not ID. IF for some reason you meant something else, then you should have stated the question that way.
Okay - do we agree that learning about the universe is done through the process of observation, hypothesising, testing (i.e., science), and not religion, magic, or anything else?
No, I don't think we can agree. While Science is the proper path, you cannot arbitrarily ignore contributions made from other areas. When you do, you are poisoning the science and understanding you are attempting. Let the information stand on it's own merrits regardless of where it comes from. That's the only way to increase your knowledge.
Lol.. I understand now. Science is awsome only when you agree with it right? I mean we have none of the originals from evolution, we have no intermediate or transitional animal fossils, and about the same quality of evidence supporting abiogenesis (which to this date still hasn't been reproduced by man) and you completely accept that but want to refute all scientific evidence of the authenticity of letter written by one of the apostles because it isn't reliable. Your a real character there.
BTW, Paleography doesn't just identify the era, it identifies the generation of the writing and can group them together. Science and people working in and with science have determined the letters to be authentic. The only people who dispute it are trolls attempting to push an agenda. Get over yourself.
Science - much like your god - is not a sentient being. It doesn't "know" anything.
My god? You have no idea about me or any Gods I hold. Don't make stupid assumptions.
What happened is that humans knew that some things seemed to have a useful effect - based on observations - and later on we analysed them and finally understood how things works. This is all part of scientific progress. That the Bible documented the earlier stages doesn't mean this is "religion" - people obviously didn't start doing this because it was written in the Bible! You've got it backwards - people discovered it, and the Bible documented people's behaviour.
Gee, you have repeated what I said. It was there and written down as part of the religion well before science had the concept.
Let me make the question clear: What method do you propose for finding out about how the universe works, that isn't science? And what knowledge has such a method produced?
That's not the question and never was. The question was to present the useful predictions that religion has made.
Or do you concede that learning about the universe is done through the process of observation, hypothesising, testing (i.e., science), and not religion, magic, or anything else?
Concede? I never stated anything to the opposite. Please understand what you have read and what you are saying before posting.
Do you actually have an argument, or are you just mistaking ad hominem for a valid debating tactic?
It's obvious that you saw the argument, you addressed it bellow.
What example of speciation are you asking we observe?
As I said, there is not real speciation unless you much with the definitions to make it work. Point to one event that has been observer and does not do this.
Nor did I. Try again - I said: "Your views are certainly incompatible with the scientific consensus, as supported by overwhelming scientific evidence".
I love that, overwhelming evidence. SO science is settled right? It can't ever be different or changes when new information is discovered? It's fact right, unbending facts and looking at it in any other way is blasphemy right?
No one is attempting to support Christianity idiot. It's attempting to look at the evidence in science for what it really is instead of some anti religious bent that has been placed on it.
I still find it hard to believe that you're actually serious. I find it difficult to accept that even a deeply religious person would claim that the bible actually predicts that microorganisms can cause disease. You are basically telling me that Pasteur could have read the bible instead of doing experiments, and that he would have come up with the same theories?
This is patently absurd and ridiculous.
It's not absurd at all. And if you relax your contempt for religion, you will see how close to showing an understanding it was. How else would you explain the rules against touching infected people or the burning of their cloths? All that is left is figuring out why that was or why it worked (microorganism) and once that was found, more effective ways of dealing with it were found.
Your logic is akin to saying "writing a story involving the stars in the sky is the same as building a spacecraft in order to fly to mars." The fact that you observe shining dots in the sky does not mean that you have predicted space travel. Likewise, observing that some people who live clean don't get sick as often does not mean that you have predicted microbiology.
You see, right here is where your contempt is interfering with your judgment and thought process. You do not need to believe in a god, you do not need to even believe in a religion, but equating the bible to a random story of the stars is so far off that it isn't even funny. The bible and religions have been used to control populations, they are more or less a rule book for a functioning society and presented mostly in a historical context as X happened. The laws in the bible, even if you don't believe in the religion or god were written to keep the society healthy and strong. When it talks about disease, it isn't making shit up (and yes, there are some strange things like killing doves and burnt offerings and crap which were more of an atonement then a cure), it is prescribing behavior that is effective.
This isn't also just observing some people who live clean. The bible talks about burning cloths that touched the infections, it talks about getting sick from being around the dead, it's specific to illnesses of the time and what to do to prevent the spread of it.
Slashdot Mirror
You need to look at what the military does. It demands strict discipline at mediocre pay and is designed to inflict serious harm on others should the need arise.
That's some things the health care or social security just can't operate like. Also, there are stories all the time about waste and the uselessness of military projects and the costs of supplies. Look at the amount of money that is thrown at the military, the constant race (generally using private companies) to build the better killing machines and more ways to dominate an opponent.
Besides, the military is the only thing in which you mentioned that is constitutionally permissible. The federal government has no authority to control and provide health care unless you either ignore the constitution, stretch some clause well beyond it's intent, or ignore the entire structure and limitations plus role the federal government is constitutionally allowed.
Actually, it is for most people. The same mechanisms in play for believing in religions, miracles and so on is in play for believing evolution. Despite not having any empirical evidence to support parts of evolution which is more or less logical conclusions drawn from recorded evidence, most people will never have access or the abilities to weigh the information and draw their own conclusion and rely on a faith or trust in other interpretations being correct. That's is the same mechanism in the beliefs of religion, miracles, cults and so on.
Killing people wouldn't necessarily be evil. Killing people for no reason or aggressive reasons would be but self preservation and the preservation of innocent life could be seen as good.
The problem is that if it is wrong to do at all, then it is wrong to do. It doesn't really matter if they are king of the hill, it matters if it is right or wrong to do. The biggest problem is that if you can justify an exception then other can and will too and it will never cease to exist.
Are you sure? OEM software is typically passed to the manufacturers of the computer. MS has a credit system that passes the OEM crap back in the form of a credit for a new purchase. However, the retail software does mention MS directly. Could you be confusing the two?
Your an idiot. The sentence is the same one you cited below this one. Turn much into alter and they are identical in context and intent as has been stated several fucking times now. Quit being a prick and acting like a 3rd grade drop out retard.
Fuck dude, this is pretty simple, speciation is moving from one species to another. And yes, that was already defined in an earlier post. It seems that you have a severe reading comprehension problem or your just fucking stupid on purpose. And yes, I'm going tire of your dumber then though act.
Here you are being plain silly and showing how ignorant you really are. You changed the comment I posted in what is typically called a straw man fallacy and it no longer retains a resemblance to the point I made. You also are confused about a few things, First, there is no overwhelming evidence of macro evolution and speciation. There is actually, none at all outside of specific theorized and contrived interpretations of things. You have no empirical evidence of speciation, no transitional fossils, and the entire idea of speciation in evolution is an extreme of an observation of minor changed within a species. But our own human history doesn't follow that logic, we have dogs that have been manipulated in breed since the beginning of civilization and they are still dogs, not frogdogs or whatever because we have never been able to observe speciation. The same it true for cows and other livestock which have been manipulated since the begining of civilization. As I said before, you have absolutely no evidence of speciation that doesn't manipulate the definition of species without that new definition failing to apply universally.
Now you can go on treating macro-evolution as a religion and just believing what isn't there, that is your own choice. But don't expect not to be challenged when your brain washing makes a public appearance.
Your being facetious with self idolizing and insignificant tripe that just isn't relevant to the conversation. You have attempted to do this crap for a couple of posts now and it just doesn't matter, it's all your opinion and irrelevant to the situation.
Your opinion of if religion stopped being useful somehow after a thousand years ago. It's completely irrelevant and isn't supported at all.
Again, opinion and meaningless to the conversation. I never set out to claim more then I did and do not want to.
No, you are confusing the two, not me. They are both the body of knowledge unless you expect everyone to perform the same experiments in order to have the same understanding. What you are describing is the ability to believe when you have no empirical or personal evidence. That is not the same as X=y because someone else done the math. That is you having to do the math to know X=y.
The same way science is used as a body of knowledge. This isn't difficult, or it shouldn't be to someone who pretends to be intelligent. You have a set of knowledge that is known, written down, passed on to others, and they use that knowledge to interact with others and the environment around them. As for new knowledge, I didn't say any of it was new, that's somehow your opinion and irrelevant unless you are attempting to understand why someone was or is. Of course that is what I said about microorganisms.
Wow, for someone who claims to be intelligent, you sure are missing some facts. Universities were started by religious organizations, I did not say they had to be religious nor did I claim any requirement to believe in god. This is little more then a historical fact that religion perpetuated the idea of education and modern science was born of those religious institutions.
No, what you are saying is, you want it to be a certain way and because it isn't (probably never was) you are going to completely ignore it. That makes you less smart and lacking in several areas of knowledge. Some of which will put you at a disadvantage.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. In order to make tha
Perhaps your just fucking stupid and don't want to listen to anything that disagrees with you. You need to check out Young Kyu Kim's assesment of the date which places it within the first century as I mentioned.
However, it's fucking irrelevant because absolutely no one besides you is attempting to claim the letters aren't authentic. There are a few in dispute but a larger consensus on the ones not in dispute then there is for global warming of Evolutionary biology in it's current state of theory.
BTW, calling someone else a liar when you are obviously so fucking wrong is a but childish isn't it? I mean come on, show me some serious scientist that has evidence and a claim that the letters are not real. And no, not having the originals means absolutely nothing.
We didn't have to but we did. And yes, the US is sovereign over itself, the administration and congress decided to do it. Then when they put the treaty into law as the constitution demands, we got the DMCA.
Ignorance is no excuse. Regulated as in the second amendment means you can hit what you aimed at. It doesn't mean a disciplined army rife with regulation.
Aslo, there is a semicolon there for a reason. Check out the DC keller case which goes into great detail on this.
The DMCA is about two WIPO treaties we signed and ratified. It doesn't matter who introduced it into legislation, it was mandated by out signature and ratification of the two treaties which required Clinton to sign regardless of any veto override. Congress cannot bypass the president on treaties.
No, I answered a very fucking specific question/claim. It is your fault that you couldn't follow it. I even quoted the damn question in my reply.
And that book was published by a religion hence a useful prediction religion has made.
Actually, it does matter because religion is the organization that propagated the information and made it useful to others. Like I said before, Religion and Science are both bodies of knowledge.
Religion is about controlling populations for the perceived betterment of society. Observing, theorizing and testing are all actions within that goal. However, you must be forgetting where the modern concept of science comes from. That's right, the religious universities in which science was developed over the years.
Actually, our early metal alloy compounds came from Alchemy. Arsenic was added to copper through the actual act of attempting to make one metal something it wasn't. Now we use Tin to make bronze and have many more alloys when Alchemy gave way/folded into metallurgy. The body of useful knowledge gained from Alchemy is still in use today. There is no need to ignore it at all. Another piece of knowledge that effect your every day life is that we didn't posses the ability to turn common metals into rare metals like hold which was used as a currency throughout the years. This still allows for a sort of financial stability in monetary systems even when they don't base their currency on gold because gold is often used as a second currency.
There isn't? Then what is Papyrus 46 to the first century before the reign of Domitian (pre 81)[64] although other scholars have disputed his early dating. Oh yea, when was it that paul was killed? That's right, around 65.
Now go and cry that you are wrong.
Sure would, Congress ratified two WTO treaties which means they had to pass it.
Well, it sounds like you life would be over or something if they were true. There are fragments dating back to the first century that contain parts of the letters.
You are the one defying scientifically and historically accepted fact. Because you don't want it to be true doesn't make it so.
It's sort of irrelevant if I believe in any gods or not or whether they actually exist or not. We are talking about something written by man which was supposed to be inspired by a god, but the fact is somethign was written long before it was actually discovered in detail.
Actually, both are bodies of knowledge. That's perfectly in line with my comment.
Lol.. So going back before I even chimed in to answer a specific question down the thread doesn't count now right? I answered the question of "Please present the useful predictions that religion has made, or STFU." I offered those predictions.
God Damn, your fucking stupid. Obviously someone observed it, it was written in a book. Religions were doing the observation, theorizing and testing long before science was a concept. It still doesn't remove it from any religion.
Why must I answer a question I never commented about? The question I answered was about religion not ID. IF for some reason you meant something else, then you should have stated the question that way.
No, I don't think we can agree. While Science is the proper path, you cannot arbitrarily ignore contributions made from other areas. When you do, you are poisoning the science and understanding you are attempting. Let the information stand on it's own merrits regardless of where it comes from. That's the only way to increase your knowledge.
Lol.. I understand now. Science is awsome only when you agree with it right? I mean we have none of the originals from evolution, we have no intermediate or transitional animal fossils, and about the same quality of evidence supporting abiogenesis (which to this date still hasn't been reproduced by man) and you completely accept that but want to refute all scientific evidence of the authenticity of letter written by one of the apostles because it isn't reliable. Your a real character there.
BTW, Paleography doesn't just identify the era, it identifies the generation of the writing and can group them together. Science and people working in and with science have determined the letters to be authentic. The only people who dispute it are trolls attempting to push an agenda. Get over yourself.
Try looking up the Lake Missoula floods and the scablands in eastern Washington which also has the same formations.
And yes, you need to look it up because you will never learn unless you do. You should probably look into the works of Harlen Bretz while your at it.
My god? You have no idea about me or any Gods I hold. Don't make stupid assumptions.
Gee, you have repeated what I said. It was there and written down as part of the religion well before science had the concept.
That's not the question and never was. The question was to present the useful predictions that religion has made.
Concede? I never stated anything to the opposite. Please understand what you have read and what you are saying before posting.
It's obvious that you saw the argument, you addressed it bellow.
As I said, there is not real speciation unless you much with the definitions to make it work. Point to one event that has been observer and does not do this.
I love that, overwhelming evidence. SO science is settled right? It can't ever be different or changes when new information is discovered? It's fact right, unbending facts and looking at it in any other way is blasphemy right?
Get over yourself and step into the real word.
Obviously you don't trust science then. The letters were dated by historians using very scientific methods like Palaeography.
But hey, if you want to remain ignorant and break things up based around your lack of knowledge, who am I to criticize.
No one is attempting to support Christianity idiot. It's attempting to look at the evidence in science for what it really is instead of some anti religious bent that has been placed on it.
It's not absurd at all. And if you relax your contempt for religion, you will see how close to showing an understanding it was. How else would you explain the rules against touching infected people or the burning of their cloths? All that is left is figuring out why that was or why it worked (microorganism) and once that was found, more effective ways of dealing with it were found.
You see, right here is where your contempt is interfering with your judgment and thought process. You do not need to believe in a god, you do not need to even believe in a religion, but equating the bible to a random story of the stars is so far off that it isn't even funny. The bible and religions have been used to control populations, they are more or less a rule book for a functioning society and presented mostly in a historical context as X happened. The laws in the bible, even if you don't believe in the religion or god were written to keep the society healthy and strong. When it talks about disease, it isn't making shit up (and yes, there are some strange things like killing doves and burnt offerings and crap which were more of an atonement then a cure), it is prescribing behavior that is effective.
This isn't also just observing some people who live clean. The bible talks about burning cloths that touched the infections, it talks about getting sick from being around the dead, it's specific to illnesses of the time and what to do to prevent the spread of it.
And ID pretending to be science isn't religion interfering with science?