Well said. Furthermore, one of his pet tactics is to quiz people on science. And, well (as an illustration), if they can't name or describe in great detail a specific process in genetics, yet believe genetic theories, they are displaying "faith". This is specious, because trust based on evidence is not the same as faith. In fact, it is the opposite. People trust scientists because of the abundant evidence of their accuracy and effectiveness. Similarly, you trust that your brand new car will start and get you to work on time. This is not "faith", as found in religion. People make determinations based on evidence, and then they proceed from them. At no point in this process is 100% certainty of a belief necessary.
I don’t quiz anybody on science, less on genetics, you keep on lying as all evolutionist do. My quiz is simple, - besides the usual lies - can you back up any statements you make by some credible facts, some reality? No evolutionist can. I demonstrate that no evolutionist can back up ANY statement he/she by any facts, any reality. It is as simple as that. If I myself didn’t believe in evolution for too long of time, I would certainly come to the undeniable conclusion that evolutionism is a mental disorder
Yes you do, and the genetics example was an illustration, as I clearly said. Of course, that is hilariously stupid, as all of them can. And they have, right here in this thread. You just dismiss them, and, in general, don't understand them anyway. I just checked the scoreboard: Evolution is still a fact enjoying consensus over the entire global scientific community. And the deniers are still relegated to soothing themselves in internet echo chambers and are producing no science.
Very good. - You have faith (believe) that science is based on an honest appraisal of evidence; - You have faith (believe) religion is based on faith. - You have faith (believe) that Faith demands we deny the evidence of our senses (or instruments). - You have faith (believe)that every single thing we know about medicine, technology,evolution,etc. has come by way of scientific reasoning; Your faith, (the system of your beliefs) unless you have a mental disability (which, of course, cannot be ruled out with evolutionists), is based on reasoning logic and evidence. According to the definition #4 it is a religion.
Religion was already defined twice a few pages back: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-73#post-1069623845 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-74#post-1069628382 I am trying to get your answer what is science and what is not and why. You keep on dancing around. Did I ask you to post a synopsis? What did I ask you? Whatever I ask and however simple are my questions, no evolutionist can ever understand less even attempt to answer simple question. You are hopeless, and not entertaining anymore. Question: Did Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein followed the synopses you posted even in some proximity? Dance.
Of course, all tye facts back up what i have said. That is why you sit here pulling your taffy, while actual scientists accept evolution as fact and continue to produce science from it. Is it really worth making yourself look stupid, just to troll? I always wondered that about trolls.
The “faith” we have in science is completely different from the faith believers have in God and the dogmas of their creed. The conflation of faith as “unevidenced belief” with faith as “justified confidence” is simply a word trick used to buttress religion. In fact, you’ll never hear a scientist saying, “I have faith in evolution” or “I have faith in electrons.” Not only is such language alien to us, but we know full well how those words can be misused in the name of religion. Your persistence in conflating two completely separate disciplines is idiotic.
You have no means to tell actual scientists from pseudo-scientists. You have no means to demonstrate that a theory needs an acceptance or a consensus. You have not produced any produce of evolution. You have produced no facts no anything to back any of your claim you have claimed on this tread, which makes me to believe that is true for this forum. You have made no contribution to any discussion. You just keep on spewing venom, not realizing that I am behind a glass.
God has nothing to do to the definition #4: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-73#post-1069621968 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-74#post-1069628382 Your religion is a system of your beliefs. Like in the USSR all scientists were atheists and believed that Lenin, lived, lives and will be living forever: http://www.bridgemanimages.com/fr/a...-by-mayakovsky-russian-1967-propaganda-poster You don’t believe in God but instead you believe in a myriad of other things, such as example: - You believe that science is based on an honest appraisal of evidence; - You believe that religion is based on faith. - You believe that Faith demands we deny the evidence of our senses (or instruments). - You believe that every single thing we know about medicine, technology,evolution,etc. has come by way of scientific reasoning. The system of your beliefs, unless you have a mental disability (which, of course, cannot be ruled out with evolutionists), is based on reasoning logic and evidence. You act as religious fanatic throwing tantrum when your beliefs are questioned or when you are pointed to the facts contradicting the system of the beliefs you have been taught, you have been csharing with your friends and colleagues, have been teaching your children and grandchildren. And for sure physicists and chemists all ask : ‘Do you believe in evolution?” The key word is “Believe” and a lot of them don’t, even when evolution is imposed as a state religion in the US.
Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html
Scientific method has advanced over time. But the elements of hypothesis followed by challenge based on observation, independent duplication, publication following review by experts, and repeated challenge - these have been present in scientific process for a long time. All these steps depend on careful observation of natural phenomena. Einstein's thesis was not widely accepted at the outset. His thesis was itself a correction of earlier work that included the "relativity principle". It was not a shot out of the blue. And, it was not immediately accepted. It took around 5 years of physicists testing in this area for relativity to become accepted by a majority of physicists. A number of famous experiments were conducted around the world of physics to challenge relativity theory. That process of continued challenge based on observation continues even today with the recent work on gravitational waves - work that could have shown failures or weaknesses in the theory of relativity - but Einstein's work survived (again). There is nothing REMOTELY like this in religion.
The point is, atheistic naturalism is a religious belief, not an empirical one. The BELIEF in universal common descent is a tenet of atheistic naturalism, along with some kind of belief in abiogenesis. SCIENCE, here, is misused and abused, and is distorted into a propaganda tool, rather than an impartial method of discovery. The demand that everyone believe in universal common descent is nothing but religious bigotry, masked in pseudoscientific terms. It is moving goal posts, and false equivalency, to equate gravity, aerodynamics, medical advances, and other technological breakthroughs with belief in evolution. Belief in common descent has no effect on the breakthroughs in science, which have mostly been made by theists, anyway. It ridiculous absurdism to revise all scientific discoveries as coming from atheists who used evolutionary theory to discover scientific truth.
There are many scientists who have religious beliefs. But, those religious beliefs are excluded from their science. Obviously, there are Christians who have advanced science. It's just that their theories of science have carefully excluded god. I might also point out that science doesn't create "truth". Every theory of science is susceptible to challenge. Evolution is a foundation of biology because it has never been falsified, because it is a strong predictor of what will be found in biology, etc. Like with Einstein, someone can come along and propose a superior solution that modifies or even falsifies any theory. It's just that for the theory of evolution, nobody has come even close to doing so.
Here we go again. Evolution is not a religion, if it was, it wouldn't be considered a scientific theory. Creationism/Intelligent Design is a religion so it is not considered a scientific theory. Evolution was discovered through over a century of observation and experimentation with thousands of scientific papers backing it up. Creationism/Intelligent Design comes from a several thousand year old book of dubious origin with no scientific backing whatsoever. What I really don't understand is theists' hatred toward evolution since it does not disprove a God anymore that the lack of evolution would prove a God.
You keep with the atheistic this and the atheistic that. There isn't anything atheistic about observing our universe. God didn't say, "Don't look!"
...is 100% empirical. I see that charltans tactic you used there...it's called, "bait and switch". Believing abiogenis is also 100% empirical. Not accepting a belief in god is also 100% empirical.
I never said or implied that Creationism belongs to science. I have always maintained that it is not. I merely defended the dictionary definition #4 of religion, where religion is not always about God but it is a system of beliefs which is very dear to the adept of those beliefs. It does not matter what you believe in with all your heart - in God or in myriad of other things instead of God. You just proclaimed beliefs of your religion based on your logical reasoning and evidence. In order to see if a theory is scientific or not, all one has to do is to check if it follows rules of science. You don’t know these rules and you will never know. It is meaningless to argue beliefs of a religious fanatic. I am not even pointing to the fact that many theists believe in evolution. I already pointed that the Head of the Human Genome Project is a believer in evolution and a new born Christian, but you only prove that religious fanatics are blind on facts.
If you want to talk about the scientific method, post the text of scientific method, so far you only posted synopses of the scientific method. I asked _Inquisitor_ said: ↑ Question: Did Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein followed the synopses you posted even in some proximity? The question remains the same: They did or they did not? Dance.
Obviously, stamp collecting or watering plants is a hobby or a profession. Obviously, your reply has nothing to do to my post you quoted. I merely pointed and illustrated with current facts that the dictionary and common sense say that one does not have to believe in God in order to be a religious fanatic. You may though want to call evolution a cult or a madness, or philosophy, or whatever you want; but the fact is that that evolution does not belong to natural sciences, because evolution makes logical conclusion based on empirical evidence, while all theories of natural science have no use for the logic and empirical evidence. I also pointed to the fact that physicists and chemists ask “ Do you believe in evolution ?” with the key word Believe and that a lot of them don’t. Try to address the words you quote.
I've answered. It's you who is dancing. Face it. You've got absolutely nothing, as proven in your last ... well, ALL your posts on this thread.
What is it with these denier freaks, dancing and prancing and accusing everyone else of "having nothing"? The theory of evolution is the most well supported scientific theory in the history of the mankind. It is accepted fact, just as much as it is accepted that the earth revolves about the sun. These people have no shame...
Sure, there no believer in evolution who does not see that you answered the question: _Inquisitor_ said: ↑ Question: Did Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein followed the synopses you posted even in some proximity? The question remains the same: They did or they did not? Fanaticism of believers in evolution is bordering with insanity.
