Mart

If it's any scientific theory then it has to be falsifiable. Doesn't matter who thinks it up. But when they do they have to propose an experiment. It's more economical that way.

Swansont has agreed with me that scientific theories should be falsifiable. Therefore (if you agree) then it's up to creationists to propose an experiment that can test their theories.

Good. We are in agreement at last. Progress has been made.

Thanks Cap'n. Seems to me that unless you can clearly state your position shouting STRAWMAN at somebody is just another STRAWMAN or another way to win a point unfairly. But who gives a rat's arse about fairness.

Strawman. You've lost me. You need to be less cryptic with simple folk like me.

Would you agree that science (a) is based on proving assertions to be false? (b) students would benefit from understanding what makes creationism not-science? (They would not necessarily have to be taught this in a biology class.)

Wiped out sounds a bit brutal unless you were you referring to the gene pool. I don't imagine that genes feel anything. Perhaps that's why they need us?

It's true that if they don't have a concept of fairness they won't appreciate it if we practice it. But we appreciate it.

I get it. Your talking about domestic animals. Yeah man. THE system.

If you mean by fair that we ought to treat others who don't have our skills with respect I'm with you 100%. But IMO this is not a matter that science can decide. It doesn't deal with oughts.

So are you saying that everything we consider in our universe is continually interacting with something else?

So can interact is not the same as is interacting? If a thing is for the time being not interacting what is it doing? And where is it?

Us being who exactly?

That's interesting. On another thread it was said that things don't exist unless they can interact with the universe. But if a thing is for the time being not interacting what is it doing? And where is it?

How does consciousness indirectly interact with the universe? Would there have to be an intermediary?

We need to agree about what we each mean by pain and injury. When I use the word pain I take it to be a subjective experience - I can say it exists for me but you can't because you can't experience my pain. Injury is a shared experience in that both of us can agree that it exists. My experience of my pain only happens when I am conscious of my pain. If you want to say that you have no consciousness when you experience a pain then you're fundamentally not like me.

I though all matter was photo sensitive. It interacts with light.

Post #142 You said "You can't prove it true. I don't want it taught in science class because it's not science" Are you saying that there is no connection between your two sentences? If there isn't, what reason do you have for bringing in the concept of proof? ^2

Anthropomorphisms. Is there more than way of being anthropomorphic? You don't say whether you think this would be a useful scientific stance.

OK. I thought you were making some serious point. My mistake.

We can say a crime was committed. We can say he was a suspect. You claim that whoever did the deed was "in the sludge at the bottom of the gene pool" . What do you mean by this?