Three things Evolutionists need: perceptiveness, calm & idealism.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are saying you can contend that God did not create Creation, that makes you vulnerable to the predator of Creation - that I believe was created.

"I'm not yet further along the train tracks" does not absolve you from answering what you will do about the train that is coming.

If you want to be scientific, answer how you will deal with a break in entanglement (the Devil) at the quantum level, from becoming antithetical to all your adaptations?

What will you do, when a mutation cannot help you distinguish between adaptation and non-adaptation?

No, I find your nonsensical comments contentious. Simple as.

 

[Gottservant]

We invented God.
Just like we invented Elf, Unicorn, and Hobgoblin.

We invented God, and were surprised when it turned out we weren't the inspiration.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Exactly what you would say if it was a phase.

No, it's not a phase. You do just speak nonsense.

You can't understand "reinterpret"? How do any of you Evolutionists agree on what is the best course of action?

We don't have to reinterpret anything because we have the facts. If a fact is shown to be wrong, we accept it and move on.
If you have to reinterpret anything, then you have a serious problem with your way of viewing the world.

 

[Gottservant]

No, I find your nonsensical comments contentious. Simple as.

So you believe, even if I believe in the Devil more and more, there will be no change? Evolution will still be fact, even to the Devil?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you believe, even if I believe in the Devil more and more, there will be no change? Evolution will still be fact, even to the Devil?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you're talking a load of nonsense, and I'm going to put you onto my ignore list since I'm honestly getting sick and tired of talking to you.

 

[Gottservant]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you're talking a load of nonsense, and I'm going to put you onto my ignore list since I'm honestly getting sick and tired of talking to you.

What are you saying? The Devil is a real danger, and you are saying nothing?

I can't force you to reason, but I think I've made it pretty clear I'm not limiting your survivability by asking you to consider what what you do means to God?

If you don't get to pretend you rule the roost, then so be it, ignore me.

 

[Silverback]

No, I'm not. I'm saying that you are wrong about what evolution is, and you seem to revel in the fact that you refuse to learn.
Again: Evolution is not a philosophy, belief system or religion. It's a scientific fact. Do you understand this?

I'm not a flat earther, science, is great, until it conflicts with Gods word. I will stand on the scriptures and my faith.

I would disagree, on one point you make...science is a religion, and has been one for a long time.

 

[Mr Laurier]

We invented God, and were surprised when it turned out we weren't the inspiration.

Who was surprised?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not a flat earther, science, is great, until it conflicts with Gods word. I will stand on the scriptures and my faith.

I would disagree, on one point you make...science is a religion, and has been one for a long time.

Except that science is not a religion, and also as a note, it is against forum rules to call it so.

 

[Frank Robert]

I would disagree, on one point you make...science is a religion, and has been one for a long time.

The difference between science and religious belief is that science is guided by evidence and religion is guided by faith. When the scientific evidence is superseded by superior evidence then science corrects itself. When a religious belief is contradicted by evidence the evidence is dismissed.

 

[Silverback]

The difference between science and religious belief is that science is guided by evidence and religion is guided by faith. When the scientific evidence is superseded by superior evidence then science corrects itself. When a religious belief is contradicted by evidence the evidence is dismissed.

However, people within the science community venerate and hold as in violate the views of Darwin, Einsten, and Hawking (amongst others) to a level that what they say is truth, and any other view is dismissed.

Their writings are kept on the top shelf, and are referred to inorder to explain the "meaning of life", and to help reconcile the past, and predict the future.

Your institutions of research are referred to as "Hallowed Halls" and science tolerates no discent, unless it comes from another scientist with notoriety...in the club if you will. If I were to put forth a theory that didn't support mainstream views, my theory would be dismissed out of hand.

Sure seems like religion to me, but of course that opinion will be dismissed.

Lastly, if scientific "FACT" can be superseded by new evidence, then it's just theory.

 

[Frank Robert]

However, people within the science community venerate and hold as in violate the views of Darwin, Einsten, and Hawking (amongst others) to a level that what they say is truth, and any other view is dismissed.

You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion does not mesh with reality. Certainly, Darwin, Einstein and Hawkins are held with the high esteem and respect and they are giants whose shoulder's we stand on today but all have made their share of errors and the theories have been modified accordingly. Science unlike religion is self correcting.

Their writings are kept on the top shelf, and are referred to inorder to explain the "meaning of life", and to help reconcile the past, and predict the future.

I know of no scientists who would agree with you but again you are entitled to your opinion even if it is incorrect.

Your institutions of research are referred to as "Hallowed Halls" and science tolerates no discent, unless it comes from another scientist with notoriety...in the club if you will. If I were to put forth a theory that didn't support mainstream views, my theory would be dismissed out of hand.

If you believe that science tolerates no descent then you fail miserably in understanding the nature of science.

Sure seems like religion to me, but of course that opinion will be dismissed.

I didn't dismiss your opinion but I did point out where you are incorrect.

Lastly, if scientific "FACT" can be superseded by new evidence, then it's just theory.

That sounds almost right. Science is self-correcting. However, In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

However, people within the science community venerate and hold as in violate the views of Darwin, Einsten, and Hawking (amongst others) to a level that what they say is truth, and any other view is dismissed.

Well, not really. Science can never claim unconditional truth or proof - all theories are provisional. All three scientists you mention are respected for their work, but they all got some things wrong. The data (observations) determine what is accepted and what is rejected - if the data contradicts them, their views are rejected - as has been the case with some ideas of all three of them. They were well aware how science works - perhaps you should take the time to find out.

Lastly, if scientific "FACT" can be superseded by new evidence, then it's just theory.

That's so confused... scientific facts are the evidence (observational data). Scientific theories are well-tested, well-accepted explanations for the data. If new data contradict the theory, the theory must be revised or replaced.

 

[Mr Laurier]

However, people within the science community venerate and hold as in violate the views of Darwin, Einsten, and Hawking (amongst others) to a level that what they say is truth, and any other view is dismissed.

Their writings are kept on the top shelf, and are referred to inorder to explain the "meaning of life", and to help reconcile the past, and predict the future.

Your institutions of research are referred to as "Hallowed Halls" and science tolerates no discent, unless it comes from another scientist with notoriety...in the club if you will. If I were to put forth a theory that didn't support mainstream views, my theory would be dismissed out of hand.

Sure seems like religion to me, but of course that opinion will be dismissed.

Lastly, if scientific "FACT" can be superseded by new evidence, then it's just theory.

None of the men you mentioned have ever been used as a source for an explanation of the meaning of life.
Darwin is a historical figure who's work is a matter of interest as an historical curiosity. Having been long since superseded.

 

[Tanj]

However, people within the science community venerate and hold as in violate the views of Darwin, Einsten, and Hawking (amongst others) to a level that what they say is truth, and any other view is dismissed.

No, we don't.

Their writings are kept on the top shelf, and are referred to inorder to explain the "meaning of life", and to help reconcile the past, and predict the future.

No, they are not. I've worked in biomedical research for 30 years and never read anything by any of them, I also own 0 of their books.

Sure seems like religion to me, but of course that opinion will be dismissed.

And the forum rule broken.

Lastly, if scientific "FACT" can be superseded by new evidence, then it's just theory.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Silverback]

None of the men you mentioned have ever been used as a source for an explanation of the meaning of life.
Darwin is a historical figure who's work is a matter of interest as an historical curiosity. Having been long since superseded.

Your incorrect...read a brief history of time

 

[Shemjaza]

Your incorrect...read a brief history of time

A Brief History of Time is a piece of popular science writing to entertain and explain scientific concepts in a way for people without advanced scientific knowledge could understand.

It is not a piece of scientific publication.

I wasn't aware it contained any ideas about the meaning of life... I wasn't even aware that Stephen Hawking even believed in such a concept.


Just to check, do you understand that an explanation of events that disagree with the events required by a particular religious faith are not necessarily religious themselves?

 

[Silverback]

A Brief History of Time is a piece of popular science writing to entertain and explain scientific concepts in a way for people without advanced scientific knowledge could understand.

It is not a piece of scientific publication.

I wasn't aware it contained any ideas about the meaning of life... I wasn't even aware that Stephen Hawking even believed in such a concept.


Just to check, do you understand that an explanation of events that disagree with the events required by a particular religious faith are not necessarily religious themselves?

Not to be a religion is to be a religion unto it self. My mind is made up on this issue, you will not change it. I have seen how people doing science act, how theg relate to others, how they attempt to silence those with dissenting opinions, black listing them and the list goes on. It's just like organized religion, almost exactly. sorry, it is what it is.

 

[Shemjaza]

Not to be a religion is to be a religion unto it self. My mind is made up on this issue, you will not change it. I have seen how people doing science act, how theg relate to others, how they attempt to silence those with dissenting opinions, black listing them and the list goes on. It's just like organized religion, almost exactly. sorry, it is what it is.

I'd like to see any evidence for this... because so fay you have made sever blatantly false statements in this thread alone.

Science is built on the concept of evidence. This isn't due to a religious preference, it's due to its proven effectiveness.

If I'm wrong, I'm happy to have it demonstrated to me and I'll change my opinion. When you use phrases like "My mind is made up on this issue, you will not change it." it makes it pretty clear that you are not open to discussion or re-assessing your assumptions.

 

[Gene2memE]

Not to be a religion is to be a religion unto it self.

I'm not sure what "religion unto self" means.

When I left Catholicism, very little changed in terms of my outlooks, behaviours or interactions with other people.

My mind is made up on this issue, you will not change it.

Ah, yes. You're obviously here on a 'Discussion and Debate' forum as a genuine interlocutor then. I'm reminded of the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate, when Ken said he wouldn't change his mind about anything, and Bill said the evidence is what would change his mind

I have seen how people doing science act, how theg relate to others, how they attempt to silence those with dissenting opinions, black listing them and the list goes on. It's just like organized religion, almost exactly. sorry, it is what it is.

Given what you've written, I don't believe that you've "seen how people doing science act"?

Have you ever participated in a scientific study? Attended an academic conference? Prepared a paper for publication? Defended a dissertation? Reviewed a scientific paper?

You'll find dissenting opinions all through those things. Scientists generally don't blacklist other scientists for scientific reasons - they typically do it for reasons that are unconnected to the sciences, but related to the behaviours of particular scientists.

As someone who's been involved in preparing papers for publication, there are parts of the scientific process that are thoroughly adversarial. Dissenting opinion is encouraged, even mandatory, in order for those to have formed a hypothesis to defend/advance it.

As a scientist, you can have any number of wacky, fringe, out there beliefs - provided you're not trying to push them as science. If you do push nonsense like creationism, anti-vaccination sentiment, holocaust denial revisionism ect as legitimate then you'll find yourself pushed out of the scientific fraternity. Because what you're doing is not science, and in some cases is close to an exact opposite - as in, developing the answers first, and then torturing the evidence to fit the presupposed conclusion.