Pastor AIO:

Sir, that something contradicts the Biblical account in Genesis is no argument for Atheism.  It is an argument against the factual accuracy of the Bible but not an argument against the existence of God.  Of course I know you will limit your position to picking cheap shots against the bible for no other reason than you can do it.  

Would I advocate the teaching of Astrology alongside Astronomy?  Yes I would.  Of course there is so much to study in this world and knowledge is unlimited.  Perhaps I wouldn't make it essential reading (astrology nor astronomy) but I would make it available to those who should wish to pursue it as a form of further education.  

I don't know much about miasma theory of disease so I couldn't comment however I do know that I would study beyond the germ theory of disease.  Why?  Because I know the other theories to work in instances where Germ fighting doesn't work.  And this is not just a personal quirk.  It has taken a few decades, but today most doctors will admit that there is something to alternative medicines and they will even go as far as recommending it.  I know out of personal experience that chinese medicine is potent as well as Ayurvedic medicine, not to mention the traditional african herbs that I used to take for my asthma.  IT WORKED!!!!  

Your position is that of a doctor who will not accept alternative medicines and will go as far as to try to get the government to ban them.  You do a disservice to society.  Just because you have Germ theory you will not abide anyone else having their own theory.  How different is your position from that of the religious bigot and his tyrannical stance?  

Whatever class you want to put ID in it doesn't matter just as long as a society that wants it's young to be acquainted with the theory are indulged.  

einstein was not an extension of Newton by any means.  Newton considered Time to be constant and his entire theory was based on this premise.  Einstein proposed that Time and space is relative.  It's a totally different cosmology from that of Newton's.  

That it contradicts the bible makes the biblical accounts and thus god less likely.  By itself, any one contradiction may not be an argument for atheism, but it is the collection of various lines of reasoning that gives the strength to the atheist position.  For instance, what sort of god should we believe exists?

Is it an omnibenevolent, omipresent, omniscient being wrote came down on earth through a virgin teenager and had himself killed and subsequently resurrected and flew back into heaven?

Or is it Mithras, Zeus, Sussicorn, etc, etc.  What god do the theists advocate?

Yes, I agree with you about teaching stuff, but they should be done in the right context.  Astrology, clairvoyancing, miasma, etc are certainly NOT for the science classroom, but more suitable for a course in the history of ideas class.

Are you suggesting that Einteinian mechanics invalidated Newtonian mechanics?  If so, how come we are able to design bridges, buildings, satellites, space travel etc using Newtonian mechanics if the latter was invalid?

~Lady~:

Well considering that the Old Testament was written before Jesus walked the earth, I would have to say that creationism is a fact too, based on your own criteria on fact, abi.
Ma'am learn about Christianity before you open your mouth and show your ignorance. Human beings did not start with Jesus. Jesus took the form of human from another human, you know Mary, his mother?

Seriously the lack of reasoning of 'intelligent' people amazes me.

Why not? Why did it just decide to end?
What about the ape, is it still evolving? Will the be a Jack and Jill showing up out of no where? Will the evolve from an ape, buy a house and get education tomorrow?
I mean why the stop in evolution?

Why?

Well you thought wrong. You didn't even give me an explanation on evolution, all you said was we stopped evolving.

Madam, you lack of knowledge on the theory of evolution is so palpable, it is unbelievable. Except that you are a creationist who never stop to educate yourself.

huxley:

That it contradicts the bible makes the biblical accounts and thus god less likely.

which is exactly why i'm worried that you expend so much energy arguing about something you are convinced does not exist.

davidylan:

which is exactly why i'm worried that you expend so much energy arguing about something you are convinced does not exist.

Thanks for your concern. But don't worry about it. I really enjoy doing this. It is for a greater good, the benefit of posterity.

huxley:

Thanks for your concern. But don't worry about it. I really enjoy doing this. It is for a greater good, the benefit of posterity.

I also enjoy reading you to huxley, your posts are so entertaining i believe you should be posting more in the ^jokes section. These days any time i need to unwind i just look for huxley's latest amusing post. Always sure to provide good entertainment

Madam, you lack of knowledge on the theory of evolution is so palpable, it is unbelievable. Except that you are a creationist who never stop to educate yourself.

Sir, incase you missed it, I asked you for more information on evolution, to skip that and move on to something else not directed at you gives me way to assume that you do not want to explain evolution to me.
Dude or dudette responded with no explanation, and stated that he or she has given me enough explanation, therefore I let he or she know that he/she has given me no explanation.
Incase you didn't notice I stated creationism is a fact based on the criteria that mammustawac or whatever his or her name is. I am using her own reasoning to show how much she lacked it.
So if you can't understand the tone of my writing, keep away from it.

Once again it amazes me how 'intelligent' people lack reasoning.

~Lady~:

Sir, incase you missed it, I asked you for more information on evolution, to skip that and move on to something else not directed at you gives me way to assume that you do not want to explain evolution to me.
Dude or dudette responded with no explanation, and stated that he or she has given me enough explanation, therefore I let he or she know that he/she has given me no explanation.
Incase you didn't notice I stated creationism is a fact based on the criteria that mammustawac or whatever his or her name is. I am using her own reasoning to show how much she lacked it.
So if you can't understand the tone of my writing, keep away from it.

Once again it amazes me how 'intelligent' people lack reasoning.

I beg your pardon for my brashness, but your statement "Seriously the lack of reasoning of 'intelligent' people amazes me." got me riled.

I take it you want to learn about evolution; Ok, let me start by asking you a few basic scientific questions. Bear in mind that TTE is a vast subject and cannot be cover adequately in a forum such as this. Nor am I fully qualified as a biologist to discuss the intricacies of the subject. Anyway, here we go;

1) How old do you think the earth is?
2) Do you know what the geological column is?
3) What are fossils
4) What are stromatolites
5) What is the Cambrian period?

Give these questions a go as honestly as you can and I shall respond back with the basic rudiments of TTE.

huxley:

1) How old do you think the earth is?
2) Do you know what the geological column is?
3) What are fossils
4) What are stromatolites
5) What is the Cambrian period?

I love the way ignorant athiests who cant think outside the box think that beating the drums of fabulous scientic names is a good way of sounding intelligent.
As a christian, i firmly believe the earth is more than 6000 yrs old (the bible strongly supports the notion of an earth that existed well before the creation of Adam).

Geological column - It is merely a subjective description as no one has EVER walked back in time to accurately determine the validity of this.

davidylan:

I love the way ignorant athiests who can't think outside the box think that beating the drums of fabulous scientic names is a good way of sounding intelligent.
As a christian, i firmly believe the earth is more than 6000 years old (the bible strongly supports the notion of an earth that existed well before the creation of Adam).

Geological column - It is merely a subjective description as no one has EVER walked back in time to accurately determine the validity of this.

One down, four to go. Why don't you try the four three?

1) How old do you think the earth is? - Definitely more than 6000 years old. The bible talks of an earth that existed before Adam was cretaed.
2) Do you know what the geological column is? - That is somebody's subjective idea.
3) What are fossils - Even animals that died merely 1000 years ago are being discovered as fossils.
4) What are stromatolites - what have these got to do with the issue?
5) What is the Cambrian period? - I don't know neither does anyone else. Where is the conclusive, objective proof that such a period ever existed? where you there?

 For instance, what sort of god should we believe exists?

A God that you can experience and engage with!

Yes, I agree with you about teaching stuff, but they should be done in the right context.  Astrology, clairvoyancing, miasma, etc are certainly NOT for the science classroom, but more suitable for a course in the history of ideas class.

And why not Science?  Thanks for telling me about Miasma, I'm going to use that in an argument further down.

Are you suggesting that Einteinian mechanics invalidated Newtonian mechanics?  If so, how come we are able to design bridges, buildings, satellites, space travel etc using Newtonian mechanics if the latter was invalid?

Not at all.  Theories are not facts.  They do not invalidate each other.  Certain facts are mutually exclusive.  Like the fact that it is Night time invalidates the fact that the Sun is shining.  However given certain facts one can keep conjuring up theories to explain why the fact is so.  A Theory is an attempt to explain how something occurs, an attempt to provide a mechanism.  Just in case you didn't know what a theory is.
For instance say I hear that you have lost your job.  Well I could theorise that you lost your job because you spend too much time posting nonsense on the internet.  Someone else, say Pilgrim1, might theorize that it is because you are simply crap at your job.  The FACT is you've lost your job, The THEORIES attempting to explain why are not facts but are guesses, educated-intelligent guess as to what is most likely to be the cause.  

For example Miasma theory says

Miasma is considered to be a poisonous vapor or mist that is filled with particles from decomposed matter (miasmata) that could cause illnesses and is identifiable by its nasty, foul smell (which, of course, came from the decomposed material).

As a result of this theory people started cleaning up and getting rid of rotten decomposing matter because it was believed that the vapour from them caused illness.  The theory 'worked' because when you improved sanitation you reduced disease.  Perhaps it was a lucky coincidence.  Germ theory says disease is caused by germs not vapours from rotting matter.  So you see an unlikely theory can still 'work' fortuitously and therefore the fact that a theory can be applied and found to 'work' does not mean that the theory is valid.  Coincidences abound.  

There are flaws in Newton's theory.  It is not accurate however it is accurate enough for us to build bridges and whatnots.  When it comes to making accurate predictions of interstellar events then Einsteins theory works a lot better.  Yet even Einstein's theory is not absolute.  It does not work at sub-atomic scales.  Instead Quantum mechanics is found to work better.  Yet Quantum physics totally contradicts Einstein's theory.  It has since been a drive of modern physics to unite the two theories into an single ToE, that is Theory of Everything.

There have been many theories of everything proposed by theoretical physicists over the last century, but none have been confirmed experimentally. The primary problem in producing a TOE is that the accepted theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity are hard to combine.

From here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

So you see, Theories are attempts to imagine the likely story behind the Facts.  They are not facts in themselves and Theories often contradict each other.  Some Theories work better in certain contexts while others work better in other contexts.  Theories are limited only by our imaginations.  The less imagination you have the less able to come up with theory you'll be.

Imagine you have a bachelor friend and you are trying to set him up with a wife.  You introduce him to many girls but it keeps falling through.  That is merely the fact of the matter.  No woman likes him.  You can now start to theorize.  You can say to him:  'Jimi', let's imagine his name is Jimi,'Jimi please be brushing your teeth before you go on dates, haba'.  That is one theory.  However you recall that you didn't brush your teeth the first time you met your wife.  But then maybe your breath isn't quite as virulent as Jimi.  Someone else can come up with the theory that it is because Jimi doesn't know how to dress sharply and he talks too much, enough to drive anyone round the bend.  That is just another theory.  Yes, he talks to much but how do you know that there is  a correlation between his verbosity and his inability to attract women. . . .

So it is with theories.  They are only likely stories.

davidylan:

1) How old do you think the earth is? - Definitely more than 6000 years old. The bible talks of an earth that existed before Adam was cretaed.
2) Do you know what the geological column is? - That is somebody's subjective idea.
3) What are fossils - Even animals that died merely 1000 years ago are being discovered as fossils.
4) What are stromatolites - what have these got to do with the issue?
5) What is the Cambrian period? - I don't know neither does anyone else. Where is the conclusive, objective proof that such a period ever existed? where you there?

Man, you need education. Hense my zeal in posting. Why are you so defensive? These are simply factual question. Do any of them suggest any agenda besides simple science?

I beg your pardon for my brashness, but your statement "Seriously the lack of reasoning of 'intelligent' people amazes me." got me riled.

Now you know how Christians or religious people feel when you attack, them. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you feel you will be riled by such statements and you do not approve of such statements then don't make them about someone else. Once again do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I take it you want to learn about evolution; Ok, let me start by asking you a few basic scientific questions. Bear in mind that TTE is a vast subject and cannot be cover adequately in a forum such as this. Nor am I fully qualified as a biologist to discuss the intricacies of the subject. Anyway, here we go;

Yeah, ah crap, I am late for class. I will return possibly tomorrow. So be on the look out.
-

huxley:

Man, you need education. Hense my zeal in posting. Why are you so defensive? These are simply factual question. Do any of them suggest any agenda besides simple science?

What type of "education" do i need? The type that ensures i can only reason with a one-track mind? Bro no boasting but i have a masters deg and working towards a phd in the next yr, it hasnt stopped me from believing with all my heart in the existence and goodness of Jesus Christ.

You said - these are simply FACTUAL questions - - the only problem is that things like "cambrian period", "geological columns" ARE NOT FACTS but a product of someone else's personal ideas. Where you there to confirm the existence of these periods?

Defensive? - I'm not, simply asking you (as you've always asked me to prove the existence of God) that you prove the existence of those scientific theories you ignorantly proclaim as FACT.

Science is not that simple - it is an ever-evolving discipline that is sometimes based on subjective reasoning.

davidylan:

What type of "education" do i need? The type that ensures i can only reason with a one-track mind? Bro no boasting but i have a masters deg and working towards a phd in the next yr, it hasnt stopped me from believing with all my heart in the existence and goodness of Jesus Christ.

You said - these are simply FACTUAL questions - - the only problem is that things like "cambrian period", "geological columns" ARE NOT FACTS but a product of someone else's personal ideas. Where you there to confirm the existence of these periods?

Defensive? - I'm not, simply asking you (as you've always asked me to prove the existence of God) that you prove the existence of those scientific theories you ignorantly proclaim as FACT.

Science is not that simple - it is an ever-evolving discipline that is sometimes based on subjective reasoning.

May I ask, what is the subject of your Masters and PhD?

huxley:

May I ask, what is the subject of your Masters and PhD?

not relevant.

davidylan:

not relevant.

I am extremely surprised that a PhD candidate is incapable of answering such simple question. PhD is becoming really cheap these days.

huxley:

I am extremely surprised that a PhD candidate is incapable of answering such simple question. PhD is becoming really cheap these days.

your "questions" (if we can dignify them as such) are meaningless.

I asked a cogent question - did the cambrian period REALLY exist? Where you there? where is the concrete evidence? Who coined the term, why and on what basis?

Phd's may be cheap but go get your own first.

davidylan:

your "questions" (if we can dignify them as such) are meaningless.

I asked a cogent question - did the cambrian period REALLY exist? [b]Where you there? where is the concrete evidence? [/b]Who coined the term, why and on what basis?

Phd's may be cheap but go get your own first.

With that comment you have just revealled just how un-educated you are (despite your attending schools/university). Let me ask a slightly different question;

Supposing you return home one day only to fine your home had been burglarised in your absence. The fact that you were not there, does that mean your home was not burglarised? Do you think, it is concievable that the burglars left behind traces of evidence that might be studied forensically to determine who the culprits?

If it is, why could such techniques not be applied to study the geological past?

huxley:

With that comment you have just revealled just how un-educated you are (despite your attending schools/university). Let me ask a slightly different question;

Supposing you return home one day only to fine your home had been burglarised in your absence. The fact that you were not there, does that mean your home was not burglarised? Do you think, it is concievable that the burglars left behind traces of evidence that might be studied forensically to determine who the culprits?

If it is, why could such techniques not be applied to study the geological past?

Poor analogy. There is CLEAR evidence that your house was burgled no?

Ok lets discuss your cambrian period - it has a date (488 million years ago) . . . now buddy, WHO made that date and based on what evidence? Please don't tell me carbon-dating because we all know its nothing but speculation at best.

wikipedia defines the geography of the cambrian period as such - Cambrian continents are thought to have resulted from the breakup of a Neoproterozoic supercontinent called Pannotia. The waters of the Cambrian period appear to have been widespread and shallow. Gondwana remained the largest supercontinent after the breakup of Pannotia. It is thought that Cambrian climates were significantly warmer than those of preceding times that experienced extensive ice ages discussed as the Varanger glaciation. Also there was no glaciation at the poles. Continental drift rates in the Cambrian may have been anomalously high. Laurentia, Baltica and Siberia remained independent continents since the break-up of the supercontinent of Pannotia. Gondwana started to drift towards the South Pole. Panthalassa covered most of the southern hemisphere, and minor oceans included the Proto-Tethys Ocean, Iapetus Ocean, and Khanty Ocean, all of which expanded by this time.

Pay close attention to the number of times "possibilities" are being passed off as "FACTS". Can someone give me concrete proof that any super continents once existed? Who called them pannotia and gondwana? How are we sure that 400ma there was no ice at the poles?

O boy this is the best science can do, make educated GUESSES at what life could have been in the past. It is nowhere close to conclusive and objective proof. Its funny that the same fellows hankering for "proof" of the existence of God prefer to bask in the uncertainty that much of science is, believing it is evidence of their own "intelligence".

. . . all this goes back to my post

huxley, theories are products of educated guesses

if with ur "education" u pass of guesses whether educated or not as facts,

the fate of science i laughable at best

davidylan:

Poor analogy. There is CLEAR evidence that your house was burgled no?

Ok lets discuss your cambrian period - it has a date (488 million years ago) . . . now buddy, WHO made that date and based on what evidence? Please don't tell me carbon-dating because we all know its nothing but speculation at best.

wikipedia defines the geography of the cambrian period as such - Cambrian continents are thought to have resulted from the breakup of a Neoproterozoic supercontinent called Pannotia. The waters of the Cambrian period appear to have been widespread and shallow. Gondwana remained the largest supercontinent after the breakup of Pannotia. It is thought that Cambrian climates were significantly warmer than those of preceding times that experienced extensive ice ages discussed as the Varanger glaciation. Also there was no glaciation at the poles. Continental drift rates in the Cambrian may have been anomalously high. Laurentia, Baltica and Siberia remained independent continents since the break-up of the supercontinent of Pannotia. Gondwana started to drift towards the South Pole. Panthalassa covered most of the southern hemisphere, and minor oceans included the Proto-Tethys Ocean, Iapetus Ocean, and Khanty Ocean, all of which expanded by this time.

Pay close attention to the number of times "possibilities" are being passed off as "FACTS". Can someone give me concrete proof that any super continents once existed? Who called them pannotia and gondwana? How are we sure that 400ma there was no ice at the poles?

O boy this is the best science can do, make educated GUESSES at what life could have been in the past. It is nowhere close to conclusive and objective proof. Its funny that the same fellows hankering for "proof" of the existence of God prefer to bask in the uncertainty that much of science is, believing it is evidence of their own "intelligence".

One little step forward.  so you agree that one's presence is not required in order to study the past.

Clearly you do not know a great deal about science. Roughly speaking, it is a systematic methodology for investigating nature.  It does not claim perfection, but that does not mean that it cannot get close to it.

In my previous career as a design engineer we designed and build engineering installations from Nuclear power station, offshore platform, etc using the value of pi = 3.14 and g=10.  These were perfectly good and safe design.  However, these are not the precise values of these parameters, but those approximations were good enough to be useful.

So too are many areas of science.  What is the precise mass of a hydrogen atom?  Well no one know, I suppose, but we have an approximation good enough to allow the design of nuclear reactors, X-ray machines, etc, etc.

Using the same techniques, we can derive good enough approximations of the past.  And science is honest and cautious enough to say just that.  Hence, the tentative nature of the description you posted.

Have you ever heard of radiometric dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating)?  RD are particularly accurate (not precise.  I hope you understand the distinction) at  determining dates in the distant past.  Carbon dating has a limit to about 100000 years and beyond that RD is used.

Have you ever heard of a phenomena called magnetism?  It too can be used to study the history of the earth.  The earth has an enveloping magnetic field, which permanently leaves its imprints on rocks as the solidify from say, lava. Studying the orientation of magnetisation in rock it is possible to trace the positions and movement of rocks over the crust of the earth.

Man, do yourself  a favour and educate yourself, rather than drinking from the cesspit of religion and the bible.

bluespice:

. . . all this goes back to my post

huxley, theories are products of educated guesses

if with your "education" u pass of guesses whether educated or not as facts,

the fate of science i laughable at best

Suppose, you were taken ill and rushed into hospital for X-ray, NMR, ultra-sound , etc. Would you be laughing at the fate of science. In fact, these very scientific products have saved many of my close friends and family from severe medical emergences. For which I am very thankful to science.

That you are using a computer to communicate with me right now is a great triumph of science. That you do not appreciate this is testament only to your ignorance.

huxley:

Clearly you do not know a great deal about science. Roughly speaking, it is a systematic methodology for investigating nature.  It does not claim perfection, but that does not mean that it cannot get close to it.

clearly you have an over-inflated ego. You think you know a lot about science . . . sorry, its not the gauge of intelligence.

huxley:

In my previous career as a design engineer we designed and build engineering installations from Nuclear power station, offshore platform, etc using the value of pi = 3.14 and g=10.  These were perfectly good and safe design.  However, these are not the precise values of these parameters, but those approximations were good enough to be useful.

The value of pi has nothing to do with the issue at hand. [size=18pt]Did the cambrian period exist or not and what proof is there of its existence?[/size]

you seem to be stumbling around for any excuse.

huxley:

Using the same techniques, we can derive good enough approximations of the past.  And science is honest and cautious enough to say just that.  Hence, the tentative nature of the description you posted.

No we cant. Did a super planet ever exist? What is pannotia? Was there ice at the poles 400ma ago?

huxley:

Man, do yourself  a favour and educate yourself, rather than drinking from the cesspit of religion and the bible.

Do us all a favour, educated speculation is not a substitute for truth.

davidylan:

clearly you have an over-inflated ego. You think you know a lot about science . . . sorry, its not the gauge of intelligence.

The value of pi has nothing to do with the issue at hand. [size=18pt]Did the cambrian period exist or not and what proof is there of its existence?[/size]

you seem to be stumbling around for any excuse.

No we can't. Did a super planet ever exist? What is pannotia? Was there ice at the poles 400ma ago?

Do us all a favour, educated speculation is not a substitute for truth.

why don't you read up a bit about the Burgess Shale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgess_shale) and learn about the animals of the Cambrian?

huxley:

why don't you read up a bit about the Burgess Shale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgess_shale) and learn about the animals of the Cambrian?

How does he know this occured in the cambrian period if such ever existed? Your own wikipedia link describes the biota thus: [size=18pt]The biota of the Burgess Shale appears to be typical of Middle Cambrian deposits.[/size]

Even they are not sure and yet you are so confident these animals were from the cambrian period? This man sef.

davidylan:

How does he know this occured in the cambrian period if such ever existed?

ok, i see your problem is with the name.  let us call a period about 450 mya owomuloyean. from radiometric dating we know the earth is about 4.3 billion years old.  so there must have been a period 450 mya, called owomuloyean, correct?

davidylan:

How does he know this occured in the cambrian period if such ever existed? Your own wikipedia link describes the biota thus: [size=18pt]The biota of the Burgess Shale appears to be typical of Middle Cambrian deposits.[/size]

Even they are not sure and yet you are so confident these animals were from the cambrian period? This man sef.

just as we don't know the true value of pi or square root of 2, this language is the geological equivalent of approximation in geological description. they can hardly said "it was approximate typical of . . .".

huxley:

ok, i see your problem is with the name. let us call a period about 450 mya owomuloyean. from radiometric dating we know the earth is about 4.3 billion years old. so there must have been a period 450 mya, called owomuloyean, correct?

correct.

huxley:

just as we don't know the true value of pi or square root of 2, this language is the geological equivalent of approximation in geological description. they can hardly said "it was approximate typical of . . .".

again correct.

however my question still stands - if you are comfortable accepting approximations, educated guesses and theories about science why is it hard to believe that such may exist in the christian world? Its not like any of us is telling you that we have seen God's face before . . . but from the sumtotal of our experiences we BELIVE that HE IS and is a rewarder of those who dilligently seek Him.

huxley:

Suppose, you were taken ill and rushed into hospital for X-ray, NMR, ultra-sound , etc. Would you be laughing at the fate of science. In fact, these very scientific products have saved many of my close friends and family from severe medical emergences. For which I am very thankful to science.

That you are using a computer to communicate with me right now is a great triumph of science. That you do not appreciate this is testament only to your ignorance.

now this is the height! i said the fate!
since thats too "big" a word for u to understand let me help u out
future
A final result or consequence; an outcome
an event (or a course of events) that will inevitably happen in the future
destiny
lot
are these synonyms enough?

bluespice:

now this is the height! i said the fate!
since thats too "big" a word for u to understand let me help u out
future
A final result or consequence; an outcome
an event (or a course of events) that will inevitably happen in the future
destiny
lot
are these synonyms enough?

This is the statement you made

the fate of science i laughable at best

Can you explain why you say the fate (future, outcome, destiny etc, etc) of science is laughable at best? Supposing there had not been the scientific enterprise in the last 300 years.  Where do you think humanity would be today?

Let me give you an idea;

We would have no treatment for cholera, malaria, dyphteria, etc
We would have no electronic, xray, ultrasound, chloroform, anesthesia
We would have no harnessing of solar energy, . . .

More ideas - Compare countries of high scientific literacy with those of little literacy.  In which of such countries would you rather live?

The halmark of a slowpoke is one who make an argument with not a single efforts to substantiate them. Even if the evidence you provide to support your argument is wrong, it provide some level of reasonableness.  You have just shouted and disappear, rather like a baboon, without even so much as a defence for your claim. What a mess religion does to the mind.