Why? The tooth fairy pays better and is at least as real
Either way.......tooth fairy or God.......You are the one that has suggested science should be removed.
Why? The tooth fairy pays better and is at least as real
Mike, Once again you distort what I said. As I said to Dan-cat that is a very dishonest tactic and is unworthy even of you. I have never been anti-science as you well know. The point I was making and which I now feel I must spell out for you to remove any ambiguities is that you don't need to know how something works in order to use it. You don't need to to know why it works. I don't know the technical details of how my PC works but I do know how to program it.Either way.......tooth fairy or God.......You are the one that has suggested science should be removed.
And your point is??? Perhaps you think a 5 year old can learn advanced theory? I did not say he shouldn't learn ballistics - I just suggested it might be better to wait until he was ready to do so.PS
And so we don't lose track here:
but I think i'll wait a few years before teaching him ballistics![]()
Yes but you still don't need the science. Of course the science is useful - if it wasn't why would we bother.
I can teach my 5 year old grandson to throw and catch but I think i'll wait a few years before teaching him ballistics![]()
This what I saidI can only work on what you say.![]()
perhaps you should not draw unwarranted conclusions in your (failed) attempts to appear clever. If you Insurance selling is as honest as your posts here then I pity your clientsAnd your point is??? Perhaps you think a 5 year old can learn advanced theory? I did not say he shouldn't learn ballistics - I just suggested it might be better to wait until he was ready to do so.
Learn to walk before you learn to run. learn to read before you learn science. Seems sensible to me but if you can't grasp that I give up hope for you.
Since when has any insurance salesman been honest, they of course would just claim to be economical with the truth?If you Insurance selling is as honest as your posts here then I pity your clients![]()
Since when has any insurance salesman been honest, they of course would just claim to be economical with the truth?![]()
Since when has any insurance salesman been honest, they of course would just claim to be economical with the truth?![]()
Of course I said it. You couldn't have quoted it if I hadn't. You still seem reluctant to answer my question. How does a reluctance to teach Science at an advanced level to a five year old equate to a rejection of science? I am quite frankly baffled by your thought processes in reaching this conclusion. Perhaps you can explain.Why do atheists break down and get personal. It is the same on the Atheist Foundation of Australia site.
Rabbie, if you can't deal with what you said, then stick to the Access forums of the site.
So I assume from you last post you never said:
And your point is??? Perhaps you think a 5 year old can learn advanced theory? I did not say he shouldn't learn ballistics - I just suggested it might be better to wait until he was ready to do so.
Learn to walk before you learn to run. learn to read before you learn science. Seems sensible to me but if you can't grasp that I give up hope for you.
Why do atheists break down and get personal. It is the same on the Atheist Foundation of Australia site.
Of course I said it. You couldn't have quoted it if I hadn't.
I remember being told by an electronics lecturer many years ago whilst he was explaining reactance’s etc and ohms law, not to get too bogged down with theories and to leave that part to "the clever people", just accept that it does what it does, much easier
I did not deny anything I had said. I objected to your dishonest interpretation of it. If you behave in a dishonest manner to me (as you have done) then don't get upset if I suggest you might treat your clients in a similar manner.I thought you were above following someone......Rabbie wants to deny what he wrote. Simple.
Mike, saying that a 5 year old may not be ready to learn ballistics isn't removing science.
I was arguing against the idea that we all somehow have to look for a reason behind events, just because we're human. We don't.