{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/13/2015 8:10:28 PM
1
-
-
Your argument makes no sense. You go and point out the flaws in a scientific theory, then you claim that nullifies the theory. You then use something that isn't even accepted by the scientific community to prove your statement. I would have accepted intelligent design... maybe, but God? You can't fight a battle with science then use god as the answer. It just doesn't make sense.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 7/13/2015 8:42:57 PMThe truth isn't accepted by the "scientific" community because they want to test the supernatural with tangible tools. How well do you think that would go? The point of God existing isn't to satisfy their thirst for a daily appearance.
-
I love how you put science in quotes, as if science isn't defined by a clear set of actions. If you find me some intangible tools I'm pretty sure the scientific community would be happy to use them. As long as you prove that they exist and work of course.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 7/13/2015 8:50:30 PMScience is defined by it's denotation (i.e., the science of pharmaceuticals is different than the science of nuclear engineering). Of course you are aware that your requested task is impossible?
-
I would define science with the scientific method. Although yes this is not the definition of science, it is the best why to answer things scientifically. If it's impossible then how do I know it's real?
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 7/13/2015 9:00:24 PMHuh, I would use the etymology of a word to define any word.[spoiler]I didn't understand your question.[/spoiler]
