So much for preferring knowledge to belief. Last I checked, termites also qualify as such. Maybe they have conscience too, huh? Then surely we would expect increasingly conscientious behavior manifested in the collective actions of humans over time. You'd have us believe recorded human history so testifies?
Has anyone told you where to find the Conspiracy forums yet? If you go to the end of the hallway until you reach the rear entrance you will find a set of stairs leading down to the basement level. From there just follow the raving and ranting noises.
What a board! An introduction brings out all the extremists who want to debate 100 topics and even attack me before I've weighed in on what I think. For those of you too insecure to allow others to have an opinion not expressed, pretend you're the super hero, here to take on anyone that stepped on your turf. Fantasy-land for those who want to be keyboard commandos seems to be what discussion boards devolved into. Those who wanted to say Hi have done so. IF I choose to discuss other issues, you'll see me on the appropriate topics. With that, I think we're all done here.
Evolution is knowledge. Termites evolved to work in groups. Many species have done the same. Safety and survival in numbers. My point on that last bit is that believing in a god, fearing a god's wrath and the concepts of heaven and hell are not required in order to have a strong moral compass, as many Christians believe.
If you mean it's known that Homo Sapiens is known to be a product of evolution, I don't know who the hell you think you're kidding. And they all have conscience. Right? which doesn't have a damn thing to do with anything I said.
Kidding? Evolution is a well established, properly tested scientific theory. Tested by millions of scientists in dozens of disciplines. In science a theory is: "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge." How is that kidding? I never said anything about other naturally social creatures having anywhere close to the degree of intelligence reuired to have a conscience. A conscience, and things like empathy that come with it, requires higher brain function, as I see here daily.
That is the most charitable assessment possible, I'm afraid. I'm nowhere near gullible enough to find that impressive. I'm also pretty sure you have nothing to support that claim beyond the bland assurances of your favorite pseudoscientific authority figures, and that you've never stopped to question, for instance, why no biologist has ever observed a transition from prokaryote to eukaryote - which, as no one with a lick of sense will deny, would be incalculable orders of magnitude beneath the transition from mere sentience to sapience. Prove it.
Sure, it's almost as "solid" as the "science" which compelled Galileo to recant. All evolutionists lack to achieve the Geocentric standard of solidity is the power to put dissenting scientists under house arrest.
WTF? It was the Catholic Church that FORCED Galileo to "recant" FACTUAL SCIENCE in favor of theist SUPERSTITIONS! You got that one ASSBACKWARDS!
Those who don't study history should avoid making claims about it. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convicted-of-heresy "Along with the order came the following penalty: “We order that by a public edict the book of Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited, and We condemn thee to the prison of this Holy Office during Our will and pleasure; and as a salutary penance We enjoin on thee that for the space of three years thou shalt recite once a week the Seven Penitential Psalms.” Galileo agreed not to teach the heresy anymore and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It took more than 300 years for the Church to admit that Galileo was right and to clear his name of heresy." That isn't a recantation, it's a man wishing to remain amongst the living. His science was, in fact, quite solid.
Those who presume to correct others on matters historical would do well not to rely on a single source. To be sure, the page bears no record of it; but if Smithsonian Magazine can be believed, he did indeed recant. And who would ever imagine recantation was a prerequisite for that in his circumstances, right? Coincidentally or otherwise, so is mine - which of course is why your rebuttals are utterly devoid of any reference to objective scientific realities and consist almost entirely of intellectually impotent appeals to authority.
And yet, Galileo's "science" was quite accurate, and he wasn't the only one. The Church forced him to cave in to their wishes, that's ALL you've proven, and I already said that. I've been civil with you. It's too bad you can't return the favor. I think that last statement from you is projecting. To make your point, which only amounts to semantics after all, you've lashed out with an insult. How petty.