NotreDame Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 There is science behind ballet shoes, believe it or not. There is science behind pretty much everything. Even if you dont deem something WORTHY, it just means youre unaware. I never said there wasn't science, I said there's no indication he has done any academic or professional research which would indicate he is a scientist... This isn't that complicated... Jeesh... the way you kids use words you don't understand, then dig in your heels when you are called out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) I never said there wasn't science, I said there's no indication he has done any academic or professional research which would indicate he is a scientist... This isn't that complicated... Jeesh... the way you kids use words you don't understand, then dig in your heels when you are called out. Youre right. Patents dont require ANY research or proof. Heck I wrote a patent about unicorns the other day... Edited February 6, 2014 by CrossCuT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Youre right. Patents dont require ANY research or proof. Heck I wrote a patent about unicorns the other day... Patents can require proper scientific research, but most don't. It's a safe assumption that patents for ballet shoes and plastic bags full of water don't, neither is either related to his actual field of study and work, which is aerospace. Edited February 6, 2014 by NotreDame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Patents can require proper scientific research, but most don't. It's a safe assumption that patents for ballet shoes and plastic bags full of water don't. Now youre assuming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Now youre assuming In light of evidence to the contrary, it's a safe assumption... and a fair one, since the burden of proof is on the person calling Nye a scientist, not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 You called him not a scientist FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 You called him not a scientist FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Which has nothing to do with where the burden of proof lies... sorry, but how is this not obvious to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 So anyone else want to bash their head in at Ken's "observational" and "historical" sciences he pulled out of thin air, as well as his attacking of disproven parts of Darwin's evolutionary theories? You know, the parts that scientists have disproven as our understanding of evolution has, pardon the pun, evolved. (And yes, this is me asking people to play nice or I'll throw this thing to the Debate Table.) I loved when he took the quote out of the book that said the Caucasian race was superior. Because rampant societal racism at the time clearly disproves evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Which has nothing to do with where the burden of proof lies... sorry, but how is this not obvious to you? How is it not obvious to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 Children, children... Shut up. No one cares anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Children, children... Shut up. No one cares anymore. I think the burden of proof is on ND to prove that the burden of proof is on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 You called him not a scientist FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!1 And actually, I was not the first to bring up scientist. He was called a scientist earlier in the thread, which is why I pointed that he wasn't. After seeing both of them called scientists again, I reiterated that he was not a scientist, so even using your faulty standard, the burden of proof is not on me, but on those calling him a scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) (And yes, this is me asking people to play nice or I'll throw this thing to the Debate Table.) What I don't understand is why a thread about a debate is not in the debate table to begin with? It's not like it's not a contentious issue. Heck, it's possibly right up there with kneeling vs standing during the consecration. Edited February 6, 2014 by NotreDame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 What I don't understand is why a thread about a debate is not in the debate table to begin with? It's not like it's not a contentious issue. Heck, it's possibly right up there with kneeling vs standing during the consecration. Because this is a discussion about the debate, not a debate in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mysisterisalittlesister Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Aw, sad. I loved Bill Nye the Science Guy videos. Maybe I'll say a novena for him. Or two :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now