28 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarI just don't know where you are coming from here. I said science is not a work of an individual usually, unless that individual is Einstein or Newton, they singlehandedly changed science forever.
Your arrogance is astounding.
You think I do not accept science because I reject your beliefs rooted in some aspects of science.
You will see tour error soon enough. You will also see that you support the government teaching the children to believe the same. It is very sad.
Am I to assume you think their work hypocritical or some such? We already said we go by evidence and if that evidence changes we change our POV. Explain where the belief comes in under that regime.
It appears you only reject any science that hints at evolution but you refuse to accept the fact that evolution and life origin are two separate and distinct science disciplines and therefore scientists who try to figure out life origin are evil because they do not fall over and play dead and just accept YOUR reality which says god did it end of story.
There are life origin scientists who are devoted Christians and yet want to see if there is something to the various life origin theories out there and you can't seem to get it through your head they are not trying to prove a belief in abiogenesis, they are trying to get to the bottom of the issue no matter where it takes them and if it turns out science supports the idea god did it, so be it and that will be the end of it.
I think the bottom line of your POV says science should NEVER look into life origin since it is OBVIOUS god did it and therefore any scientist daring to look into the subject is spewing blasphemy and should be subject to the inquisition maybe being hung on a rack till he recants.
Is that something like your POV?
28 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseI think your definition of science is hypocritical.
I just don't know where you are coming from here. I said science is not a work of an individual usually, unless that individual is Einstein or Newton, they singlehandedly changed science forever.
Am I to assume you think their work hypocritical or some such? We already said we go by evidence and if that evidence changes we change our POV. Explain where ...[text shortened]... the inquisition maybe being hung on a rack till he recants.
Is that something like your POV?
29 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarYes. I believe it is stored about midway down the shaft.
Tell me about the magical stuff from which life sprang.
Where is it? In Thor's hammer?
And that belief - according to you - is just as valid as your own.
29 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wolfgang59Of course it is. As such, no school should teach any of our beliefs, only the facts.
Yes. I believe it is stored about midway down the shaft.
And that belief - according to you - is just as valid as your own.
30 Oct 17
Originally posted by @humyNo, I am talking about belief. All you are arguing about is what should determine true belief. Of course the idea of true belief lies in the minds of true believers, not rational people.
are you talking about irrational superstitious belief here or rational evidence-based belief?
30 Oct 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @eladarso you clearly want to dismiss rational evidence-based belief by making no distinction between our such rational evidence-based beliefs and your irrational purely religious beliefs. You fool nobody here.
No, I am talking about belief.
30 Oct 17
Originally posted by @humyBeliefs are beliefs, everyone should be allowed to believe as they wish. Schools should not be used to convince kids certain beliefs right and others are wrong.
so you clearly want to dismiss rational evidence-based belief by making no distinction between our such rational evidence-based beliefs and your irrational purely religious beliefs. You fool nobody here.