No I wouldn't. Your projecting becuase that's what you've done, and what you were trying to do. The problem is, according to your own logic, you can't make any of the justifications you are trying to make. You've already tried to make up some crap that I don't have enough experience (because I'm a philosophy major).
I am not projecting and it wasn't specific to you. I am saying you don't have enough experience, because you don't and not in the right field. Remember a while back when I gave you that petition of the thousands of scientists who thought global warming was a load of bull? Remember the general response that you seemed to agree with? The majority of the petition was filled with scientists who were not directly involved in climate science.
Why is your case with your two years of physics any different for biology or evolution and intelligent design?
Hehe. Sorry, it's funny becuase you report to evidence which proves you wrong. From that thread:
Second of all, modern scientific surveys are amazingly accurate. That, and it is simply a landslide. 82% of scientists and 97% of climatologists. Seriously, do you somehow think that this survey magically, and pretty much mathematically impossibly, surveyed simply the scientists who agree with the movement?
97% of Climatologists, which was defined as people, "who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals n total). Of these specialists, 96.2%(76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."
I'm not a dawkinite. Not even close. In this field, you would have to call me a Heideggarian. But please, go on insisting that intelligent design is Science, when it's not by definition. Go read Francis Bacon, please.
Once again, not specific to you. It was a general reply encapsulating the entire internet debate atmosphere.
C'mon man, just admit you assumed I was a "dawkinite."
Plus, like I've said numerous times, I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools, it just doesn't belong in the Science class room. It would be like teaching Spanish in English class. That is simply not the subject matter.
Heres one of the humps. People who do have relevant degrees in the fields relating to evolution/creation debate do support ID. You cant deny they do, you cant challenge there backgrounds or degrees, and you cant dismiss what they believe. So how do you get off dismissing ID as not science without contradicting something that very clearly exists?
So um... why are you assuming every scientists actually performs Science? I go about calling it not Science based upon the
definition of what science is. Meaning, if something doesn't follow a
very exact method, meaning very exact means to an end, it is not Science. ID, and every single 'scientific' paper about ID doesn't follow these criteria, nor this definition. Also:
The New Organon . That is how any science department in the country, and in the world, is going to define modern Science.
edit: Srsly millah...srsly.
Y'know, there's a reason that the terminal degree in a scientific degree is called a Ph.D
I cant believe the same crowd that has shot me down all these times for bringing unqualified experts to the table is now supporting scheavo as he becomes a scientist with his philosophy degree. This is exactly what I mean when I say debating on the internet. You know as well as I, thats not what it means. Maybe historically, but the meaning is very obviously not philosophy in sheavos sense.
Doctor of Philosophy, abbreviated PhD (also Ph.D.), for the Latin philosophić doctor, meaning "teacher of philosophy",
That's why? Because if Philosophy isn't related, why is every single Ph.D in any science
called a "teacher of philosophy"?
And, thanks milahh... I forgot about that one.