It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
No offense, but your categories of scientists are silly. As others have said, in the real world, they aren't categorized like that and associating one "type" of scientist with drinking is an absurd generalization, just like each category you created. I was trying to get you to stop using generalizations to describe science, but you try to explain your position by doing it more. You can claim it's just for humor, but you don't present it as such, you present it as if it is factual or as if each scientist can be pigeonholed into that personality set. You did the same thing to atheism earlier in the thread.
Where are you basing these sterotypes from? No I am curious, because... they are cliche, caricatures, but you got these wacky ideas from somewhere. I am pretty sure you do not mix with many actual scientist. Which is ok, but ummm no. Those are not how one breaks down types of scientists. We are all human, and thus much more varied.
Now I will over generalise for the sake of giving others people a reason to criticise me, which they usually do anyway so hey!
Sorry but I don't see how you posting that disclaimer changes anything. It's like someone saying "I know I'm going to get flamed for this but...". It doesn't mean that what follows isn't what they think.
So you were just trolling? That's always helpful in a conversation.
originally posted by: kennyb72
Sorry, but no, to predict you will get flamed means you are about to make a controversial statement, to state you are about to over generalise means you are about to depart from reality and the following should not be taken literally.
So you basically admit to trolling? Interesting technique. You got two of us to correct you, civilly too. We both read the whole post, we just choose to correct the large steaming heap of inaccuracy.
You say you can't convince me of your anti science bent? It is posts such as this which reinforce that perception to me. Just as threads such as this reinforce that creationist are not willing to have open and honest dialogue.
Also, why bother posting something that is meaningless? I honestly give the posters that called you out the benefit of the doubt because it stands to reason that if you posted it, chances are that you stand behind it, the exception being sarcasm but you already said it wasn't that.
The disclaimer doesn't make it clear that you don't stand behind your post.
You dislike something about science, and scientists. You have a problem with evolution, or you would keep out of this.
Look kid, I've been online since the early 1990's. I've seen your excuses before.
Indeed this thread is a demonstration of nothing more than people who dislike evolution as an idea, trying to discredit it.
What do you, kennyb72 have to say with regards to the OP that will add to this thread?
Abiogensis does not need to be even considered to understand evolution.
I agree but that is a very narrow understanding of a subject
as life had to start somewhere 'a priori'
Scientists who study evolution is not concerned about abiogenesis. It is not necessary for the theory of evolution.
It is just that evolutionists see evolution as the only possible explanation for our adaptation over time.
I have explained several time now, how a programmer using object oriented programming to introduce diversity would look exactly the same as the evidence discovered by science.
So you think evolution has some kind of 'inherent program' going on that we are not seeing? Something that is underneath? Well if we were to discover that that would be a fundamental discovery that add MORE to how life evolve. Perhaps mathematically driven (or as you say intelligently driven). That still won't change the theory of evolution but ADD to it.