Here are some rules for you: 1) Bloggers misrepresenting science and being plagiarized by dupes on message boards? Not science. 2) Deniers pointing and cackling instead of producing peer reviewed science? Not science.
OK, look. I'm not going to hold you to that. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think it was important to make some progress on understanding what science is and what it isn't. Please take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method It gives an overview of history and philosophy of science and then gives a reasonable description of the steps and requirements of scientific method.
That is absolutely crazy. Did I ask you to provide the cite? Post the rules which are right in front of you to read and I will go away forever. Post the text. I don't know... Like the text of the Constitution of the US as a legal document.
Nice. There was no science, no rules which allowed determining what is a scientific theory and what is not until Internet blogs came to existence. As crazy as it can be. Do you know that there was life on the earth before internet? I just cannot believe it is so crazy....
From the site I posted: There are requirements at each of those steps, of course. You don't get to just define a question that includes the supernatural or some untestable feature (like what came "before" the big bang. "Publish results" will mean that a reputable journal will have experts carefully review the proposed paper. Often having some independent group duplicate results will be required. Etc.
You missed that: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-75#post-1069633415 That is absolutely crazy. Did I ask you to provide the cite? Post the rules which are right in front of you to read and I will go away forever. Post the text. I don't know... Like the text of the Constitution of the US as a legal document.
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] OK. It seems like we are on the same page now. These are not the rules. But don't take my statement "these are not the rules" as true until I come back and ask you a few questions. It is not like you post any garbage and I go away.
Irrelevant pap. Don't ask me questions. Go forth and product some science, big guy. Join scientific societies and use this science to debate scientists. Until you do (which will never, ever happen), you are not presenting any actually challenge to any accepted scientific theory.
You are supposed to give a quote and a link . It is your duty, not mine. Quick search: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jeffrey-C-Hall https://www.pressherald.com/2017/10...in-nobel-medicine-prize-for-body-rhythm-work/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29673553 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1203660/pdf/ge1214773.pdf Search for creationist’s "adapt" brings results, search for "evolution" or "evolve" brings 0 results. I have been betting everything on one, justone result. Do you know why? Because I know the rules allowing to determine which theory belongs to natural sciences and which does not, when evolutionists will die, but never know the rules working like a charm since Archimedes’ times. I took the first one of each of your “examples”, I am not certainly not going to go through all of them. Do you understand one, uno, ein? Try again. Do just one Nobel prize, just one example, just one article and you will prove me wrong. I am especially interested in Nobel Prize, because it looks to me it turned into a total garbage.[/QUOTE] All right, you got me. I couldn't find what you were looking for (I have neither the knowledge nor the time). I will concede that you won. So, what does this prove? How does this affect evolution?
One does not have to be scientist and joint a scientific society in order to see that believers in evolution can tell no difference between science and religion, and like all religious fanatics cannot answer a simple question about their cult, and when challenged demonstrate their arrogance, viciousness and inability to maintain an intelligent conversation.
The questions: 1. Do you think the rules of natural sciences were formulated by Wikipidea, and thus Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Einstein followed no rules because there was no Wikipedia to formulate the rules? 2. Do you think that is not absolutely crazy? 3. Do you want another chance?
[QUOTE="DarkDaimon, post: 1069628979, member: 47775] All right, you got me. I couldn't find what you were looking for (I have neither the knowledge nor the time). I will concede that you won. So, what does this prove? How does this affect evolution?[/QUOTE] Had no intention to get you. If you could tell what did I win? As I said, your belief is good as mine, - especially if to consider that we have different knowledge, different experiences and different backgrounds. - and especially if to consider that I myself believed that evolution was a science for very long time. You debated fairly and honestly. It was a pleasure.
More irrelevant pap. I said one has to do those things to challenge an accepted scientific theory. So you are not speaking to a word i posted.
As I said I am not challenging theory I am just demonstrating that believers in evolution can tell no difference between science and religion, and like all religious fanatics cannot answer a simple question about their cult, and when challenged demonstrate their arrogance, viciousness and inability to maintain an intelligent conversation. Thank you for helping me.
To what end? And you are failing badly at that, by the way. Saying dumb, inaccurate things about a topic you clearly know less than nothing about doesn't reflect on anyone but yourself.
Exactly to this end: Thank you for helping me to demonstrate that believers in evolution can tell no difference between science and religion, and like all religious fanatics when challenged demonstrate their arrogance, viciousness and inability to maintain an intelligent conversation. There have been no other content of your posts.
Well, your behavior is absurd, and, no doubt, anything anyone said would be manipulated by you to affirm yourself. I won't lose any sleep over the whiny characterizations of an ignorant denier. Good night.
Science is based on an honest appraisal of evidence; religion is based on faith. Faith demands we deny the evidence of our senses (or instruments). Every single thing we know about medicine, technology,evolution,etc. has come by way of scientific reasoning;none of it has come via faith.
You haven't said anything of any value in comparing religion and science. You haven't even gotten the basics - like what assumptions are at the root of religion vs. science, what questions religion attempts to answer vs what questions is science designed to answer, what constitutes evidence, etc., etc. Until that gets fixed, it's unlikely you'll be able to tell what is science and what is religion, because you won't know where to look.
