"March for Science protests ramp up around the globe"

[Guy Threepwood]

Many aren't macro evolutionists. I hate the term " you people ", but you people are so smug and arrogant, comfortably housed in your self validating bubble, you refuse to see and acknowledge that other well qualified and very intelligent people, aren't part of you people. After all, regardless of qualifications, they just can't be taken seriously, right ? You are the final arbiter of truth

Yes, it's a like those '97% of climastrologers agree!' headlines- what they agree on is the loosest possible definition, and then the number is presented beside the most radical beliefs to lend them credence.

Similarly with 'evolution' - defined as merely change, Genesis describes evolution also, but that consensus is then used to suggest that somehow all scientists still believe in Darwinism- that hasn't been true for a long time

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Yes, it's a like those '97% of climastrologers agree!' headlines- what they agree on is the loosest possible definition, and then the number is presented beside the most radical beliefs to lend them credence.

Similarly with 'evolution' - defined as merely change, Genesis describes evolution also, but that consensus is then used to suggest that somehow all scientists still believe in Darwinism- that hasn't been true for a long time

"Genesis describes evolution also"

No, it doesn't.

 

[Willamena]

March for Science protests ramp up around the globe

It is very timely to march for science. Right? Please
The world is in dangerous political hands.
Regards

Yes. Marches for Science have happened before, some quite recently, but the Earth Day one was particularly timely, because of the U.S. administration's policies and the sheer number of people the world over who voiced their support for science.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'll trust the science over the 'scientists' any day

Okay. What is "science" to you? How do you define it? Explain the process. Because if every scientist ever has been wrong about science all along, then your answer should be quite interesting.

 

[Father Heathen]

Good for the Vice President

Nah, willfull ignorance and intellectual dishonesty are terrible leadership traits.

 

[Father Heathen]

Reason and faith go hand in hand.

Explain.

 

[Father Heathen]

Isn't that what I said, science is not an ideology, but some treat it so. Bill Nye is not even a scientist, and he only portrays what he reads about it as though the science is settled once and for all, that's what close minded means. The science of climate change is not settled despite close minded claims, it's on going scientific due process.

What's happening does seem pretty settled when you take the data into account. Data isn't a matter of opinion, and you don't have the option of choosing what data or accept or ignore based on your desired narrative.

 

[shmogie]

Nah, willfull ignorance and intellectual dishonesty are terrible leadership traits.

Sir, your response displays nothing but a total lack of reason, logic, and judgemental bias and arrogance. Another amusing example of an atheist drawn like a moth to to a candle to "religious forums". Is atheism your religion ? Do you and your co religionists think your static is any of import to people of Faith ?

 

[shmogie]

Explain.

Figure it out, it isn't difficult

 

[Father Heathen]

Figure it out, it isn't difficult

It's a complete oxymoron.

 

[Father Heathen]

Sir, your response displays nothing but a total lack of reason, logic, and judgemental bias and arrogance. Another amusing example of an atheist drawn like a moth to to a candle to "religious forums". Is atheism your religion ? Do you and your co religionists think your static is any of import to people of Faith ?

I don't identify as an atheist, but even if I did, what would that have to do with science? If there is a god, he wouldn't be at odds with science. They would be in harmony. It's rather silly that you believe that some random group of ancient primitives hold a monopoly over the concept of god, and that god is somehow bound by what some silly mortals wrote in some silly book.

 

[shmogie]

I don't identify as an atheist, but even if I did, what would that have to do with science? If there is a god, he wouldn't be at odds with science. They would be in harmony. It's rather silly that you believe that some random group of ancient primitives hold a monopoly over the concept of god, and that god is somehow bound by what some silly mortals wrote in some silly book.

Science and Christianity are perfectly compatible. The greatest scientists throughout history were Christians in the west, and Moslems in the east, and Buddhist's in China. Christian scientists are still making scientific discoveries and progress. As to the rest of your blather, you are confused so I will continue to ignore it.

 

[shmogie]

It's a complete oxymoron.

Only in your somewhat limited mind. Let me give you an example, Atheist science proposes that abiogenesis was the start of life on earth. There is absolutely no evidence for this, it is a fairy tale. Nevertheless, because of their world view, they reason that it must be true, and accept the fairy tale purely by faith.

 

[Jose Fly]

Let me give you an example, Atheist science proposes that abiogenesis was the start of life on earth.

Why do you think abiogenesis is an exclusively atheist idea?

There is absolutely no evidence for this, it is a fairy tale.

Really? None at all? Not even one single scrap? Just what do you think the scientists who work in this field do all day?

 

[shmogie]

Why do you think abiogenesis is an exclusively atheist idea?


Really? None at all? Not even one single scrap? Just what do you think the scientists who work in this field do all day?

[/QUOTE]
Well, they don't produce evidence for it. Not by observation, not by recreation in a lab, not by an explanation of how it works. In fact, as the science of genetics advances, abiogenesis recedes. Not one single scrap. All could be's, maybe's, it might be possibles. In fact, many of those those who accepted the blind chance scenario of accidental abiogenesis now see it as a complete dead end and are abandoning that model and are trying to identify some natural law or system that can account for the rise of life, they haven't yet.

 

[shmogie]

Well, they don't produce evidence for it. Not by observation, not by recreation in a lab, not by an explanation of how it works. In fact, as the science of genetics advances, abiogenesis recedes. Not one single scrap. All could be's, maybe's, it might be possibles. In fact, many of those those who accepted the blind chance scenario of accidental abiogenesis now see it as a complete dead end and are abandoning that model and are trying to identify some natural law or system that can account for the rise of life, they haven't yet.[/QUOTE]
You are correct, of course. No doubt some deists somewhere accept it, by faith.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, they don't produce evidence for it.

They don't? None at all? Again, what do you think they do all day?

Not one single scrap.

I gotta ask......just where have you looked to see whether or not they're producing any evidence? Do you read the relevant scientific journals? Do you attend conferences?

All could be's, maybe's, it might be possibles. In fact, many of those those who accepted the blind chance scenario of accidental abiogenesis now see it as a complete dead end and are abandoning that model and are trying to identify some natural law or system that can account for the rise of life, they haven't yet.

Citation?

And where did you get the impression that abiogenesis scenarios centered around "blind chance"? Are you operating under the impression that chemistry is a random process?

You are correct, of course. No doubt some deists somewhere accept it, by faith.

So it's not an atheistic endeavor as you previously made it out to be. Thanks for the correction.

 

[leibowde84]

Of course, but I won't. If you are interested, you can find them. I've played this game before with evolutionists, and the game goes like this, I name ten, they want twenty five, I name twenty five, they want fifty and on it goes till we switch to another game, education, then to institutions, then to peer reviewed articles, .............................., I don't have the time to play the game, If you don't want to research it yourself, then take my word on it, or not, it makes not one whit of difference to me. But they exist in most science faculties of most universities

OK, but I can't find any prominent scientists that don't believe that evolution by natural selection isn't real. I did look. But, if you can't back up your claim, that's fine. Try to be respectful too. No reason to get snippity.

 

[leibowde84]

They never said what ? If you disagree with me you show bad judgement, you think not ? They murdered thousands and thousands who disagreed with them, you don't think they considered the temerity of those whom they killed for disagreeing the exercise of poor judgement ? Reason and logical thinking leads to faith. For some it is religion, for others it is the fairty tale of abiogenesis, it's all based on faith

Yeah, but there is objective evidence backing up abiogenesis, and no evidence that contradicts it. There is no objective, verifiable evidence backing up religious beliefs/faith. That's the point. You have to take the fairy tail of religion "on faith".

 

[shmogie]

They don't? None at all? Again, what do you think they do all day?
I haven't a clue

I gotta ask......just where have you looked to see whether or not they're producing any evidence? Do you read the relevant scientific journals? Do you attend conferences?
Yes, I do read the journals, as well as books written by scientists both pro and con. The most recent being "The Signature in the Cell" written by a Harvard/ Cambridge graduate with three different PhD.s in scientific disciplines. It is a 1,000 page exploration of the origin of life, the theories, the history, the genetics, the problems. I highly recommend it

Citation?

And where did you get the impression that abiogenesis scenarios centered around "blind chance"? Are you operating under the impression that chemistry is a random process?
You're kidding, right ? The scenario is this, the earth formed, was battered by rain, possibly comets and meteors, an atmosphere of some kind formed. Perhaps there was the introduction of lightning and radiation. This runoff from the rocks formed a primordial sea, and some how, the present chemicals mixed, in huge variations, till just the right ones happened to combine, and a life form popped into existence. In this case, chemistry is a total, random, by chance process. This has been the primary model for many decades. Of course, no one knows what the atmosphere was, this has changed numerous times, what the chemicals were, how they combined in what kind of formula, and how the became living.

So it's not an atheistic endeavor as you previously made it out to be. Thanks for the correction.