Evolution is a Religion - VIII

No. You types just deem your particular religion to be "science" in an attempt to put it above other religions.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Religion is an initial circular argument (ie, an "argument of faith") with other arguments stemming from it.

 

I hope you're happy with your nonsense, I really do. Trying to devalue science while typing on the internet is rich indeed; all your life depends on science, from computers to smart phones to air transport and medical science, which may keep you alive, yet you dismiss it. Try living without science and see where that gets you. At least we wouldn't have to put up with your drivel.

 

I like science. You are the one who is devaluing it by claiming that religion is also science.

 

Boy, somebody whizzed in his cereal to make him this mad.

 

No, I stand by what I said.

A law is simply an observation of a phenomonon. For example, the law of gravity doesn't explain how gravity works. It is some formulas concerrning acceleration. It includes nothing concerning how or why it works that way.

A theory DOES explain how or why something works. A theory of gravity has to explain why that observed acceleration is observed. Maybe it would say something about warping space/time, etc.

https://medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b

 

But christianity DOES have all of that. So its a religion.

 

No, a law can exist with NO related theory.

Newton's law of gravity existed LONG before anybody could venture a theory on the subject - a law with NO theory.

A law is observation. The law dies if there are conflicting observations, of course. But, nobody has to know WHY or HOW the natural world includes the relationship stated in a law.

Why and how come from theories - groups of one or more hypotheses that describe how something works and have survved rigorous testing and review.

If someone quotes a theory you can ask "why" or "how". The theory will answer that.

 

Everything annoying about talking to people on an internet forum all in one post. Complete with "waaaah logical fallacy!" And "I'm so smart!" Even though the way you are defining a religion is so stupid that nobody would even undetstand whay you mean if you used religion that way in any context.

 

Evolution is an incredibly strong statement about what will be found in the fossil record.

One could falsify evolution by findings such as the existence of species in an unsupportable date order, etc.

Also, modern era procreation could do something not supportable by evolution.

Also, a superior theory could be created, causing evolution to give way to that superior theory.

 

No, it's a religion regardless of all that.

 

No, there is no way for science to move anything toward being an article of faith as religion defines faith.

And, your claim of circular reasoning is nonsensical. Forming a likely answer to a question is not "circular reasoning". And NO. Scientists don't have "faith" in hypotheses even before they are tested. In religion, faith is absolute and requires no evidence. That just does not exist in science. ANYWHERE.

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I'm just correcting the numerous errors about science that are being made.

 

Fine by me... but it's wrong.

Nope. A law is a formalized theory. The formalization is typically done by way of mathematics. That's why you see the letters, numbers, plus signs, minus signs, etc in laws but you don't see them in theories...

It's not trying to.

Exactly. Formulas... because it has been FORMALIZED.

That's not within the purview of a law.

Yup. That's because a theory is an EXPLANATORY argument.

'Holy link' ignored on sight. Links are not science. Links are not authoritative.

 

A law is not observation. Observations are not science. Supporting evidence is not science. Observations are subject to the problems of Phenomenology. Laws are formalized theories.

 

Whining and insult fallacies ignored on sight.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy regarding the bolded section.

Very few people are willing to learn, unfortunately.

 

The "fossil record" is nothing more than a circular argument... The age of fossils is dependent upon the age of rocks, and the age of rocks is dependent upon the age of fossils... In other words, this evidence for Evolution is based on the assumption that Evolution is true. This type of reasoning is the very basis of any religion, as I have been saying all along. This is simply an argument stemming from the initial circular argument of Evolution.

Not possible. See above.

Not possible. See above.

Not possible. See above.

You are speaking of religion, not science. Your religious fundamentalism blinds you from realizing that Evolution is simply a religious belief. We don't know what actually happened all those years ago. We weren't there.

 

Not article, but argument. Science moves BEYOND the simple argument of faith, while religion is stuck at that point.

It makes perfect sense.

Circular reasoning is reasoning that concludes with its initial predicate.

You can't test a hypothesis unless you already have a theory. Science takes a theory, tests it against its null hypothesis, and if it passes, then the theory becomes a theory of science and remains one so long as the theory continues to survive such null hypothesis testing. That initial theory (before it becomes a theory of science) is what is believed on a faith basis.

Wrong. Faith means the same thing whether speaking of religion, science, or anything else. Faith is simply "circular reasoning". To believe in the truth of a circular argument is to have faith.

Never said it did.

 

By "correcting" you mean trying to place your opinions above those of others. Pure egotism.

 

Nothing in your post is correct. I’ve proven to you how green house gasses work. “Nuh uh” doesn’t refute science. Sorry.

 

You have presented exactly nothing to rebut the mountain of data I’ve given you regarding green house gasses. “Nuh uh” isn’t an argument.

It’s still amusing watching you throw out terms you don’t know the meaning of.

no it isnt.

 

Not according to actual science.

 

And by doing so you seem to think that you have all of the answers and they all boil down to "god did it".

 

No, I've told you how they don't exist. I've shown you the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law...

 

You don't like what I am saying, so you ignore what I say and then act as if I didn't say it.

 

I don't. Just for the particular things which we have been discussing.

God is irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is about Evolution being a religion.