Darwin, Another flatulent atheist god bites the dust!

The Commonwealth states
There are four US states whose legal names include the term Commonwealth: Kentucky, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.Jan 14, 2019

 

after a never ending battle in the courts the last 50 years being ignored the da gubmint forces people to take to the the streets to get justice from the Just-US club. (floyd) Brought to you none other than by the 'Land of the FREE'

 

fake news

 

if one elects people like Trump, that is what you will get, all depends on whom the people elect

 

Yes the gubmint has fallen for the neoatheist fraud, but now that scrotum ruled neoatheism is a religion that will finally begin to change.

 

SOP!

 

I hate em all equally, but I have to admit his state of the union address was the best (most productive) I have ever heard in this country.

 

Unfortunately agnostic is far too complicated for most people to wrap their minds around. There is no such thing as agnostic in combination with anything else. Doesnt exist. Agnostic if/when understood, stands alone.

 

I.m not religious', you just can't think on your own without being told what to think and respond with, and now that you and your fellow trolls have had to run and hide behind a mod that means you know you're whiney losers, so adios, trolls. lol it was never interesting.

 

Easily documented facts, by anybody who cares to look it up. Too bad for the 'Evul South' mythology peddled by northern commie 'educators'.

 

I think Im jealous, wait, nope, I know Im Jealous that you hit the bullseye instead of me! Precisely their MO to a 'T'.

 

I perused your history on this site regarding religion; own it.
Stick with the supernatural if that's what you're comfortable with; science is a mystery to you.

 

everyone knows it was southern conservatives, the same type now defending the Confederate flag and the Confederate statues and of course endorsing Trump

 

Deleted

 

What ‘many’ may or may not do cannot be generalized to describe all engaged in scientific inquiry

Depends on the Theist, I don’t generalize and lump them together under one umbrella.

People are free to believe what they want.

Tesla was brilliant in many ways and responsible for many inventions, but not an authority on all matters any more than was Einstein.
While it is true there has been no definitive, explanation for the nature of space or how many dimensions exist, from the work done by Einstein and that of many others verifying his work, the evidence from many experiments, has shown his theoretical framework suggesting mass warps space has been remarkable in predicting observation to a very high level of precision and consistency to his ‘analogy’ that explains what gives rise to gravity’s effect and how it appears to have an effect on what we observe in a huge range of phenomena in the universe. Does gravity pull or do we fall? It is one of the handful of yet answered mysteries in physics we are chipping away at understanding.

It depends on what is accepted as relevant evidence. And, in some cases, evidence that appears contradictory doesn’t mean a theoretical model is wrong, but that it may not be complete. For instance, thus far, the Standard Model of Physics has been one of the most highly successful theories of all time; it’s predictions have been spot on in what we have observed at CERN, even with the predictions of the the Higgs. What hasn’t been observed is any observation not consistent with the Standard Model, but if one occurred, it wouldn’t mean the Standard Model wasn’t correct, but that it might not be complete…something that would be incredible exciting. While a force carrier for gravity has yet to be discovered, as many hope, in the form of what is described as a graviton particle, it’s composition has been speculated by an extension of the Standard Model and described within it’s framework. But, unlike the Higgs, the existence of the Graviton hasn’t been observed.
Just as an aside, this far, at CERN, the Standard Model has been extremely accurate in predicting and measuring observation to an astonishing level of prediction. So accurate in fact, that in the analysis of collision results, certain variations in the predictions, have the potential for revealing the possibility of other dimensions predicted by String Theory and if found will be seen as a indication String Theorists are on fruitful path of inquiry.

Could have fooled me given your posts.

Lots of scientists or wannabes think they have found contrarian evidence for various theories. In some cases, it has occurred leading to further inquiry, but more often than not, the ‘New’ evidence hasn’t been subjected to critical review.

You would have to be more precise what you mean by evolutionary disconnects. Are there gaps in the fossil record? Yes, it would be expected considering how relatively rare of a thing it is for biological remains to survive decomposition and other natural forces to become preserved, fossilized and then in the right location to be discovered in a context that makes it possible to provide continuity in describing change. In the case of the attempt of describing the evolution of hominid fossils remains, greater confidence is applied to statements of continuity when it can be corroborated with associated dateable material, accompanying identifying cultural material, geographic and other material found in context. Without other data, holding up two skulls and making statements of which came first can only be made with from comparative examples accompanied by a range of associated evidence found with the fossils.

Again, it depends on the nature of the evidence and, as I indicated above, any theory or explanation my or may not rendered incorrect.

”

BTW...if you want to open a debate on Evolutionary Theory, open a discussion on the Science forum, I’d be happy to debate it outside the context of religion given I think they are mutually exclusive topics.

 

LOL ... farny stomped his feet like a toddler and took his 'intelligent' design BS down the road, eh

Great to see

 

it is a religion, another garden variety atheist religion, its impossible to debate it outside religion since its remains a belief not a fact.

 

What you are touching on are the underlying epistemological frameworks of the logic and reason of mystical religion and that of naturalism equivalent or inherently different If there is a logical rational be defined to make an equivalence other than simply being that of an epistemological frame itself forming a basis for knowledge and belief? Further, can the underlying logic and reasoning of one epistemological framework of one be used to evaluate the other?
I would argue the logic to evaluate any ‘fact’ is different for the different epistemological frameworks and that the framework underlying religion has little overlap with that underlying the naturalistic one underlying scientific query. Therefore, there is little to be gained by arguing a scientific theory the epistemological framework underlying religion.

 

any scienific claims that are not proven facts, are based in belief hence fails scientific method but passes perfectly as a religious element.

 

Such claims would obviously not be scientific. So what? Darwinian evolution is not based on such claims.

 

I agree they fall under religion

 

The epistemological framework used for scientific inquiry has the methodology for evaluating evidence and part of that framework is not the acceptance any evidence being an immutable fact in itself, but is evaluated as to it’s consistency and level of confidence within a larger body of knowledge.
In reference to evolution, as in such domains as physics, knowledge is being continually subjected to tests that measure the consistency and confidence of what we think we know. Thus far, the theory has been continually validated by knowledge obtained in other domains of inquiry such as that emerging from genetic research. As for how the underlying mechanism, natural selection works, the principles are continually seen working across many domains, many that aren’t biological, like business, culture, computing, and the foundations of knowledge itself.
I have written and published several scientific papers and with each, I present all my formative assumptions, the works of others that provide context, my methodologies, my evidence in detail, and my suggested conclusions, often with both what I think needed for additional inquiry as well as how to assess my work for validity or even to counter it... to me it is all part of pushing the envelope of knowledge and I have no qualms of being criticized if it leads to better understanding; someone has to test the depth of the water and I am ok doing that. I am more interested in understanding than being the first to understand. Though retired, I am still pushing my ares of inquiry, simply because I don’t yet have the answers to satisfy my questions, questions that seem to multiply the more I push my inquiry.

 

The frames of reference for methodology, logic, evidence and reasoning are mutually exclusive, you cannot use one to a sail the other. If you think you can, or deem them equivalent, then make your case and provide the rational and justification for the claim.

 

Even in religion. Organized religion evolves, and so far Christianity has become something of a tyrannosaurus rex in that domain, it is so powerful.

 

your claim, how so?

you need to prove continuity, as I said it only takes one instance break in the chain and the whole house of cards falls over. That is what you need to defend.