JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>>So I suggest that you discard your unnamed encyclopedia and get one
>>that actually has information in it.
>>This proves 2 things. 1) that you do not have all the available
>information on the subject at hand and
I could hardly contest a claim that I am less than omniscient. But
how is that relevant.
>2) you kick out all data points which do not fit your pre-established curve.
I trust references that are consistent with other references, and that
are not known for off the wall nonsense.
>Both 1 and 2 are a result of the mindset which operates by trend analysis.
Why yes! A scientific mind does look at trends. They are patterns of
>As far as discarding my encyclopedia, I don't rely on it much to
>begin with so it's as good as discarded (well almost) anyway.
Nothing like ignorance to further your growth.
>But the portion I quoted was just the first line.
When the first line is egregiously wrong, I'm not inclined to read
further. But I gave you entire first paragraphs of 3 different
encyclopedias, and they all agreed.
>It has plenty of info
>in it and I agree with some here that all info in encyclopedias is
>not 100% truth.
You seem to have this hangup about "truth". Only religion and
philosophy pretend to be about "truth". For other subjects, what
matters is evidence and inference.
>That's why we need Bibles. You will find in the
>Bible that science began with Adam.
Not according to any modern concept of science.
>God gave Adam the duty of starting the Scientific Classification
>>And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field,
>and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he
>would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature,
>that was the name thereof. (Genesis 2:19)
Naming things is "language", not "scientific classification".