Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is rather difficult to be a science denier and be pro education.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do humans have genes for full body hair?
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
I'm not a science denier.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, you are. You have repeatedly demonstrated that here when it comes to evolution. And vaccines. Almost forgot those.
Depends on what the experience is and what I'm reading.
I don't need to experience massive head trauma from a couple of .45 rounds to the head to trust that what I have read is sufficient in its descriptions.
I don't trust what some people on here write and call facts and in my experience what I read pretty much matches what I understand in that regard.
I think you are. The evidence supports that conclusion.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
There's absolutely nothing that I believe that would make a bit of difference in getting a good education in the sciences.
Not according to what you have been writing. If your statement is true, then what conclusion would expect others to draw from your previous record? I know the conclusion I would draw.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
I would, however, trust my personal observations about exactly what kind of damage each caliber does over something I got from a book. I have had this discussion with someone on here who apparently still thinks a wimpy .223 causes more damage than a 30 caliber bullet simply because it comes out of a so called "assault rifle".
Denying some of the keystone aspects of science as you seem, would, at best, result in a very poor education in the sciences. The logic you have used on here would be a big impediment as well. You have to be able to get outside of the box to take full value of education.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
I have no idea what you're referring to. Nothing I believe effects getting an education one way or another.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Hopefully not. You probably have no power over the school board, but that would have nothing to do with whether or not you are a science denier.
By the way, there is a proper way that someone could try to oppose the concept of evolution. But creationists never use it. That is why it is a ridiculously safe bet that if you see a creationist you are also seeing a science denier.
Do you want to know the proper way to oppose an idea in the sciences?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
You totally missed the point.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So you have no children. Or if you do they have grown up. But still, why use this red herring? It does not affect whether or not you are a science denier.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You don't seem to have a point. Which is normal.
I doubt that your experience would consist of enough variety to match what is likely to be summarized in a review of a subject.
My Sig Sauer does a pretty good job of messing things up with a .223. I shot through a 3/8" caste iron plate with it. But I don't pretend to know everything there is to know, so I read.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Well that is quite the strawman argument. That is not why a round from a .223 can be more destructive.
I have trouble accepting that you do not know what I am talking about. It isn't as if months passed by since you wrote some of that evidence earlier. You've made comments deriding education on past threads as well. You can know more cuz you done did it than no college boy is ever gonna learn from books seems to be the sentiment that I have observed.
I've read accounts of subsistence hunters that have brought down bears and moose with a .223. It's about skill and shot placement in a case like that. Of course that was in a book, so it can't be true. Or so the argument has been made.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If one wants to make the simplified claim that it is all about caliber, I would give him a .30 caliber handgun, yes such beasts exist, and have it match up against a .223 from a full length rifle. With a hot load for the .223 of course. Some "assault rifles", I am no fan of the term either, are engineered for very hot loads. And of course barrel length makes a difference. Some rifles are considered to be " brush guns". They are designed for use in heavy woods. The thirty thirty was one such gun when I was a lad. I am very out of date for what is available today. They tend to have shorter barrels. And fired ammo that with significantly less powder than a 30-06, which was more of an open area rifle. Both have their uses.
I'm one of those guys that does read instructions and manuals. I just finished fixing a vacuum cleaner issue by reading the instructions. Imagine that. Reading prior work gave me a tool to take my experience and go further with it.
We should create a system like that. Where prior knowledge, logic and a little testing the unknown lead to further knowledge. We could call it science.