Originally Posted by
Gaffer
He has a theory. Its not proved in anyway. When he has real scientist that are not fundimentally motivated support his theory then he will have some credibility. And I say he has a unproven theory because its fundimentally based, not scientically based, and is not even a true scientific theory.
I find these guys to be offensive. They attempt to spin science to achieve their particular agenda of making the bible appear literally true when it is not. It's simply a blueprint for civilization.
This guy has as much credibility as al gore.
Dude - EVERY scientist goes about proving a hypothesis the same way - they presume. They start with a particular point of view, and seek to prove it. Macro-evolution violates a HUGE portion of the scientific method, yet it's somehow MORE plausible than what the guy in quesiton suggest? You're likely well-versed in science; So were popular scientists who shouted from the rooftops 'the world is FLAT!'. It took a man of FAITH to show it was, indeed, NOT-flat, right?
Open your mind and read the guy's claims...chew on 'em...study and see if he's right. IF he's right...it certainly changes things, right?
“… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.
Reply With Quote