I do not think there is a massive conspiracy in science.
Yes, you do. You've claimed several times that people who try and insert God into science are cast out and that scientists only ever look for possible answers which don't involve God, and even those who believe there is are kept quiet or their jobs are threatened. That's a conspiracy.
In fact I hate and reject just about every conspiracy claim I have ever heard. What they do is attributable to simple human fallibility and their theological presuppositions. It has little organization or cohesion and exists in all belief systems. What makes their actions unique is that unlike most others they deny bias and assert evidence as the judge of all.
What you are suggesting is that millions of scientists have a "theological presupposition", and that that presupposition creates results within science based on a particular bias.
That's called a conspiracy theory.
They and the ones that give them an almost omniscient status go on and own about proof and evidence but violate their own requirements in the majority or areas that are used for arguments against theism.
Violations which you have never, not even once, demonstrated. And scientists en masse say nothing whatsoever about theism, this claim is blatantly false.
Multiverses, string theory, abiogenesis, eternal universes, oscillating universes, teh dismissal of the supernatural etc... Have almost no evidence what so ever, in some cases not even a potentiality for any, and in some actually contradict very well evidenced science, or claim that things that have never been observed are concrete facts.
You're not qualified to dismiss these (mostly theoretical) claims, and none of them have anything whatsoever to do with theism.
You may assign whatever motivation to this you wish it exists and is a fact.
No, it isn't, it's a conspiracy theory.
I only demand consistent standards not any certain standard. In fact I can prove that every single fact of science has a large element of faith involved.
You really, really can't. Are you seriously that arrogant?
I do not even think that is wrong, I just insist it be admitted as I do with my claims.
Please, don't bring everyone down to your level.
First of all once again even if true you have absolutely no way to know this about creationists.
You mean, except if I demonstrate that they continue to lie and make arguments which have been utterly refuted?
First you do not have the capacity nor the education to have verified the majority of what creationists have said.
I have the reading comprehension and the basic grasp of science required to read and identify lies when I see them.
Also, I love the fact that I "do not have the capacity or the education" to analyze creationist claims; yet you, apparently, have both the capacity and education to prove that
every single fact in science is based on faith. Irony?
Second creationists are a diverse group and some of their claims are almost identical to secular science.
An incredibly diverse group made up almost entirely of fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. Yeah...
You did not say the claim I made was false. You said I lied and that will not be put up with by me for several reasons.
In spite of the fact that it was an obvious lie?
1. Asserting a lie is offensive and honor demands that the one making it be sure. 2. Lying requires intent. 3. You can't possibly know that I knowingly made a false statement even if it was true. 4. I am the only human on Earth that knows why I said what I said.
You said something that clearly false, that you had a vested interest in saying based on your presuppositions, and something that - given even a basic understanding of genetics - you would have known was utterly and ludicrously false. You're a smart guy, so I assume you have at the very least a basic grasp of genetics, so therefore I accused you making a claim that was a lie rather than just wrong, because you clearly present yourself as someone who at least attempts to know the facts.
Instead of whining about "honor", how about your just apologize for your mistake, or demonstrate that you weren't lying?
Summary: Your claims of lying are dishonorable, wrong, theatric, and probably made for effect, and there is little to be gained in a discussion with a person with those motivations and lack of honor.
We're not jousting, 1robin. This is a debate. In a debate, when one side feels the other is lying, they should call them out on it. I gave my reasons, now you either admit that you made a mistake or admit that you lied. Either is acceptable.
I never evangelize but am interested in apologetics. I have spent years watching every debate, reading every transcript and book, and debating people of every persuasion I can. It is always the non-theist (mostly atheistic) evolutionists that are apparently so miserable and mad at everything and everyone that disagrees who will make unknown assertions and false accusations.
You mean, like your unknown assertions that there is a massive theological prejudice in modern science? Or the false claims you make constantly about probability, abiogenesis and genetics? Why is it that you're allowed to call millions of scientists liars, without any evidence whatsoever, but it's always "us damn atheists" who resort to "unknown assertions and false accusations?" Remove the log from your eye. I'm sick of your horrendous double-standards.
You did the same thing again and even got the motivation so wrong it's abhorrent. You 1. Can't know my intent.
Then you can't know the intent of millions of scientists, either.
2. Can't know why I lied even if I did.
I have my reasons and explained the evidence I had for them. It's quite elementary, really.
Yet claim knowledge of both. Pathetic, not to mention stupid. I stand to lose everything I have, if I follow a belief I have to justify by lying.
Then you shouldn't be a creationist. I've already demonstrated lots of lies you believe, either knowingly or otherwise.
There is zero motivation and actually quite a bit of inconvenience. I am not a Pope holding onto power, nor a Jihadist brain washed from child hood. I was an atheist for 27 years and saw things that convinced me I was as you are, wrong.
And now have a vested interest in preserving your newfound allusion, even at the cost of spreading misinformation, as you are now doing.
Here is a very important point. I then followed the Gospels spiritual roadmap and found exactly what I it promised. I literally experienced God and it was unmistakable and perfectly consistent with what salvation is described in the Bible as (which I did not even know or expect at the time). I have personal confirmation that God exists and you have no confirmation he does not, even possible.
What does this have to do with your lying? I'm not interested in your personal delusions, I'm interested in the facts and how accurately we represent them.
That means I can personally justify my faith even if 95% of the Bible was a fairy tale, I need no lies to protect no claims because my faith is not derived by intellectual consent to a historical proposition but an actual spiritual proof, and evolution is no threat to either.
And? Your faith is not in question; your claims are.
That is different. I know that many of the claims they make are guesses, faith based, or nothing based. I never or usually never use lie nor even dishonesty. 9 out of 10 times I say they are using double standards and drawing a metric ton of theory from a gram of data if that much. It is the quality of information not the motive I mention most times, there is no equality with what you said.
And there is no logic, reason, evidence or factual basis of any kind for anything that you have said regarding this subject.
Nope, but I do prioritize and am very suspicious of theoretical people.
And I'm suspicious of people who experience personal delusions and use them as a basis for looking at reality.
I have 190 sem hours in technical fields and a math degree. I would wager given the odds that my job is vastly more technical and scientific than yours unless you have a masters or higher and I am obsessed with the debates about these issues and have probably watched more than 200 hours of them and have transcripts of many. I know very well what the current status of argumentation is in general.
And yet you claimed that 99.9999...% of mutations are fatal. You're clearly not as educated, or at least as honest, as you're trying to portray.
That is why I resent the incessant claims by your side that if anyone disagrees it is because they are stupid or ignorant.
Even if the claims are true? Which, in my experience, they are.
The rest of your post is just rambling, and I'm not remotely interested in it. If you want to demonstrate that you are honest, there is one way to do it that beats going on extended autobiographical rants about how honest you are. And it's really very simple:
make honest claims. So far, you have made very few.
