Shithouse rat...
Freediver, tell me, at what exact point in time to you consider the science sprung into being? Or will you accept that science is a loosely defined term which describes the behaviour of human curiosity and investigation. The first men to have created stone cutting tools, spears and axes, did they not apply the methods of science to arrive at those ends? Did they then rely on empiricism in their scientific endeavours? I think you will find the answers are a resounding yes and no respectively...
At this point I would like to take issue with some more of your article on evolution, firstly:
Quote:The ancient greeks did not come up with a systematic way of studying nature, nor did they separate what we now know as science from other fields of study. Instead, they would sit under and olive tree with a bottle of wine and argue about the nature of the universe. As you would expect they didn't get very far.
Of course, Pythagoras (trigonometry, pi), Hippasus (irrational numbers), Oenopides (determined the angle of inclination from the equator to the suns path), Aristotle (early definitions of logic), Callippus (determined the length of the year in days hours minutes with reasonable accuracy by modern standards), Democritus (determined the volume of a cone or pyramid to be one third the volume of a cylinder or prism of the same base), Archimedes (archimedes screw, bouyancy etc, more discoveries than can be mentioned here), Hipparchus (trigonometry used in astronomy, motion of the moon and sun), Perseus (spiric intersection of a torus and plane), Eudoxus (early models of the solar system), were all just sitting around getting drunk and not studying nature in any meaningful way... and the list goes on and on and on, clearly the ancient greeks did not come up with a systematic way to study nature at all
Oh and if you don't want to consider maths to be science then heres some ancient greek technological advances: (from wikipedia)
Quote:Notable Greek technological inventions include cranes, screws, gears, organs, odometer, dial and pointer devices, wheelbarrows, diving bells, parchment, crossbows, torsion catapults, rutways, showers, roof tiles, breakwaters, the MULTI.cannon and many more innovations.
Greek technicians were pioneers in three of the first four means of non-human propulsion known prior to the Industrial Revolution: watermills, windwheels, and steam engines, although only water power became extensively used in ancient Greece.
Yep, didn't get far at all did they freediver?
Of course we have advanced beyond the simple methods of ancient times, but to suggest that because the ancient greeks did not follow modern scientific methods they were not engaged in science is pure ignorance. You cannot put the cart before the horse, every technological development since the earliest tools required the use of some form of scientific method.
Now, this statement is profoundly stupid:
Quote:Why is it that science arose in very few cultures and only persisted to turn into a rigourous self correcting discipline in judeo christian societies?
Say
WHAT??
Of course, gunpowder, shipbuilding, plumbing, surgery, archery, masonry & pottery, architecture, use of concrete, the wheel, metallurgy, indeed every single piece of technology invented before the time of the bible, all of these technological advances did not employ the methods of science in their creation? I suppose people just haplessly bumbled upon these things in their drunken stupor? Right?
You describe the modern scientific method as though it is the only scientific method, you suggest that science arose during the renaissance. Indeed it did become far more rigorous and this lead to a great many new inventions and an acceleration of technological development during the renaissance, but to suggest that all scientific discoveries made before the rise of the modern scientific method are unscientific is just stupid freediver. To even think that the modern scientific method and the rapid increase in discovery from the renaissance could have arisen without the scientific discoveries methods and technologies of the past, dating back to those first tools used by humans, is pure ignorance of the historical development of science.
Of course this is hardly relevant to the evolution debate since evolution adheres to to all modern scientific methods, but I just thought I would highlight some more of that broad, generalised, unresearched ignorance in your evolution article. More crap that tries to give christianity the glory for everything.
Ancient greeks achieved nothing much.... gold freediver, thats absolute gold
Only christian cultures have had scientific advancements.... pure gold, I'm laughing my @ss off here
Whats that? You weren't joking??
Forum
Pages: 1 
