Is blind faith in science any better than blind faith in religion?

Given that this sentence alone is almost completely false, and ridiculous on its face, why should anyone take the rest of your post seriously?

 

What do you mean, degeneration? What degeneration, where?

While some people may have argued with an 'arrow' metaphor from time to time, metaphors are never themselves scientific. In any case, unless and until someone shows some evidence for an arrow, that is, a 'directing force,' in any direction, that much is mere speculation.

I'll point out that there is nothing in the theory of evolution that says 'unfavorable' changes can't happen. The theory just predicts that over the long run, such changes will tend not to be preserved, will tend to diminish in frequency of appearance in interbreeding populations, in which they compete with more 'favorable' genetic variants. Favorable, in this context, should be understood as meaning 'tending to increase the probability of an individual's successful reproduction, under given circumstances,' and nothing else.

Just for sport, i'll ask you where that 99% number came from, in "evolutionists then changed 99% of the theory." I know you just made it up, but I wonder how you might back it up. Can you, for example, provide a cite for an elaboration on evolutionary theory that 1) is or was generally accepted in scientific circles, and 2) is massively different than Darwin's, to the point that 99% is not a ridiculous exaggeration?

 

of course he made it up, unless copied from a creosite where they made it up for him.

dishonesty of that sort is all that a creo has, dont try to deprive the poor soul!

 

Did you or did you not claim that Genesis was a metaphor for human evolution?

 

Surely nobody does, but, one can indulge in a bit of cultural anthropology.

The creo-mind is a peculiar and betimes rather dangerous thing.

It's as well to know something of what they are about. Drawing them out a bit reveals some rather remarkable realms

None tho will probably ever beat the one who came up with the idea that the excess water from "noahs flood" was wafted to Neptune where it shines to this day as a warning beacon against incoming rogue angels.

The mess was all cleaned up by god, who left no trace of the flood; thats why we find none. The few score "kinds" hyperevolved into todays forms;
the geological record is all "embedded age". ( same as adam was about 20 yrs old when he was first created!)

"Incoming Rogue Angels". I wonder what sort of look they get, floating in
with their robes swirling in the solar wind, only to find that darned beacon.

 

Yeah, the magical thinking that some folks come up with is astounding. I've never heard the Neptune idea before. That's some serious creativity. Too bad it's wasted defending the person's imaginary friend.

 

How does an "imaginary friend", exclude the possibility of communing with a god like Person?

 

Nothing other than the absence of said god or "god like person" (?), and any inclination it might have to
communicate with a mere person.

 

How does that account for science fiction on our part which may be science fact for some other "Person"?

 

There is a saying, you is entitled to your own opinions but
not, you know, to your own facts.

 

It is a hypothetical.

 

Wait, are you saying, hypothetically, that there may be some fact about the universe which is actually objectively true, but to a particular person it is actually objectively false? How could that even work?

 

Sure, science won't require blind faith but the theories of science do, and they have millions of blind faith followers all around the world.

 

One out of two. There are certainly an awful lot of people who take scientific theories as fact without even a passing interest in them. But the theory itself does not require blind faith. You can take the theory on faith, but it absolutely does not require that you do.

 

Why do you think that the first evolutionists, who existed before Darwin, called "evolution" to their percepotion of changes from former species to the current ones?

In those years, the word evolution had the meaning -as it is today- of developing, unfolding, from worst, inferior and simpler status into a better, superior and more complex status.

You must understand that the word "evolution" has indeed one arrow to be followed, the word evolution itself doesn't mean change alone, but change foillowing a certain arrow.

The "technical word evolution" means something different: change with modification, and can be used as it is, not so as a verb, example: The current birds are the latest step of evolution from former dinosaurs. You can't say: birds evolved from dinosaurs (implying the technical word as a verb), because doing so you commit JARGON.

Provide you explanation instead of making here your silly complaints. Why do you think they called "evolution" to their theory before Darwin?

 

Why talk of 'blind belief' in science? That is wholly dishonest, surely? Science is about checking things.

 

Degeneration is when you lose more characteristics against gaining new ones.

In the species in general, all of them have lost more physical and functional characteristics against gaining more and new physical and functional chatacteristics.

A bird which used to have upper extremities, not it shows to be without them, but has stronger legs. Still, degeneration rules, because the assumed balance for survival impedes this bird to fly or to use upper extremities. The T-Rex is the best example of degenerate steps passing from one generation into another.

The same applies for longevity, diet, etc.

The whole species of the world are passing through degenerate steps leading to extinction. No other path is given by nature so far.

 

Debate doesn't work that way. You are making the claim that evolution used to have another meaning. You need to provide evidence for that. So link to an etymology website that provides evidence for claim or something. It's not my job to disprove something that has yet to be supported.

 

Oh yeah?

Former species used to have hundreds of teeth, today no species of the same class can meet that.

The former horse used to have more teeth and five digits in the extremities, today the current horse can't meet that... and so forth...

DEGENERATION is a LAW that rules in the species.

 

Go to any library, look for older dictionaries.

 

It's not my job to disprove or support your claims that have yet to be supported. Is this going to be like when you claimed there were alternate meanings to some specific bible verses but then refused to support your assertions? If it is, just admit it now so I can stop wasting my time.

 

Why do you believe that given the imperative of "survival of the fittest" in Nature?

 

Go back further than those species with more teeth, and eventually you will find species with NO teeth. So what was that about a 'law'? Don't make me laugh.