The Binding of Satan

[TagliatelliMonster]

Apparently I am not the only sensible person who don't close their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears, and scream in their mind, "science is objective, full-stop."

Perhaps you should join the ones on the side of reasonableness, and sensibility...

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

EVOLUTION: A Grand Monument to Human Stupidity
...we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion.

What do you think ideas and explanations are? What are interpretation? Yes.Opinions are involved. That's why there are usually adjustments made, to what they assume. One can only go so far in deciphering evidence.


No. Not all science at all. There is good science, and then there is the rubbish you believe, imo.
I believe rubbish do belong in the garbage bin.

You are asking me to believe in stupidity... like you do.
I could appreciate why you would do that.
Hypocrisy is evident in a lot of people today, but I don't find it is present in most of those who follow Christian standards. I find it's mostly present in persons who are godless though.

We were discussing subjectivity as opposed to objective, but since, you seem to be finished with that, then that's the end of that.
Thank you.

Go inform all biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, molecular biologists, biochemists, evolutionary biologists, .... that they don't understand their field, are ALL dead wrong and that you, random internet creationists, know better then them.

 

[nPeace]

Go inform all biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, molecular biologists, biochemists, evolutionary biologists, .... that they don't understand their field, are ALL dead wrong and that you, random internet creationists, know better then them.

I quoted biologist on these forums - I quoted one just now. I quoted an article thoroughly researched. It's not a simple Creationist view.
I can even go further to quote more articles to even demonstrate further that you are not able to reason on the knowledge stuffed in your head, but you have run out of the little steam you had apparently.

Tell me. If I reason on something I see as evidence for X, and arrive at a conclusion, is that objective or subjective?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I quoted biologist on these forums - I quoted one just now. I quoted an article thoroughly researched. It's not a simple Creationist view.
I can even go further to quote more articles to even demonstrate further that you are not able to reason on the knowledge stuffed in your head, but you have run out of the little steam you had apparently.

So quoting articles is evidence that you are right? If I quote scripture then that makes me a biblical scholar and expert on the Bible? Surely not.

Your post is very confusing. Anyone can quote something, but it does not follow that the conclusions they are trying to support are then supported.

Tell me. If I reason on something I see as evidence for X, and arrive at a conclusion, is that objective or subjective?

It would depend on whether the evidence is valid, if your reasoning is valid and if independent observers come to the same conclusion. If it is only true for you, then it is subjective.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Go inform all biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, molecular biologists, biochemists, evolutionary biologists, .... that they don't understand their field, are ALL dead wrong and that you, random internet creationists, know better then them.

I wish he would stop using the magical changing fonts and different colors. It does not create the effect I think he intends to go for.

I am amazed that so many of these creationists on here do not have PhD's in the sciences considering how advanced and superior they claim their knowledge of the sciences is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I quoted biologist on these forums - I quoted one just now. I quoted an article thoroughly researched. It's not a simple Creationist view.
I can even go further to quote more articles to even demonstrate further that you are not able to reason on the knowledge stuffed in your head, but you have run out of the little steam you had apparently.

Dude, the fact of the matter is that evolution is so profoundly well evidenced, with no doubt on the core ideas by mainstream science at all, that I can honestly state that you got nothing. I you did, I'ld know about it, because it would be front page news on every newspaper and magazine around the globe. The most widely accepted and best evidenced theory of science has just been dispoved / contradicted / whatever. I don't know who or what you quoted. But I'm pretty confident that it's one of two options: 1. creationist nonsense no matter you claiming otherwise or 2. a genuine paper that you either didn't understand or misrepresent. Or a combo of both: you reading in creationist propaganda an article that completely misrepresents or misunderstands a genuine paper.

And honestly, I get tired from walls of links of people like you trying to show otherwise. You can call that closed minded if you want, but you'ld be wrong.

You don't understand that what you are saying is the equivalence of challenging mainstream embryology with Stork Theory.
This is why I don't pay any attention to "lists of scientists who doubt evolution" or you claiming to be able to find genuine biologists that say whatever in support of your case in your opinion.
Because it's an exercise in futility.

If you had something - I'ld know already.
Because again, it would be news on a scale of which that would be even bigger then when 9/11 happened.

Tell me. If I reason on something I see as evidence for X, and arrive at a conclusion, is that objective or subjective?

Depends on the method and logic thereof being used to reach your conclusion.

 

[nPeace]

Dude, the fact of the matter is that evolution is so profoundly well evidenced, with no doubt on the core ideas by mainstream science at all, that I can honestly state that you got nothing. I you did, I'ld know about it, because it would be front page news on every newspaper and magazine around the globe. The most widely accepted and best evidenced theory of science has just been dispoved / contradicted / whatever. I don't know who or what you quoted. But I'm pretty confident that it's one of two options: 1. creationist nonsense no matter you claiming otherwise or 2. a genuine paper that you either didn't understand or misrepresent. Or a combo of both: you reading in creationist propaganda an article that completely misrepresents or misunderstands a genuine paper.

And honestly, I get tired from walls of links of people like you trying to show otherwise. You can call that closed minded if you want, but you'ld be wrong.

You don't understand that what you are saying is the equivalence of challenging mainstream embryology with Stork Theory.
This is why I don't pay any attention to "lists of scientists who doubt evolution" or you claiming to be able to find genuine biologists that say whatever in support of your case in your opinion.
Because it's an exercise in futility.

If you had something - I'ld know already.
Because again, it would be news on a scale of which that would be even bigger then when 9/11 happened.



Depends on the method and logic thereof being used to reach your conclusion.

It depend?
Please, by all means, give one example.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It depend?
Please, by all means, give one example.

I'll give you a few million summarized in one picture.


Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

iTOL: Interactive Tree Of Life​

 

[nPeace]

I'll give you a few million summarized in one picture.


Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

iTOL: Interactive Tree Of Life​

You explain nothing by posting a link to an entire page of information.
RF does not encourage that,
Could you explain please... If I reason on something I see as evidence for X, and arrive at a conclusion, how it depends on the method and logic thereof being used to reach your conclusion to determine if it is objective or subjective?

Besides that, the title of those links deal with hypotheses, in case you don't know. Hypothesis are not objective, are they?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You explain nothing by posting a link to an entire page of information.
RF does not encourage that,
Could you explain please... If I reason on something I see as evidence for X, and arrive at a conclusion, how it depends on the method and logic thereof being used to reach your conclusion to determine if it is objective or subjective?

Besides that, the title of those links deal with hypotheses, in case you don't know. Hypothesis are not objective, are they?

Sorry, I think I mixed up posts there - or I just misunderstood your question.
You can ignore my response.

But so, you are asking for an example of reaching a conclusion that is subjective instead of objective?
Not sure how you can be confused on that...

If your conclusion is just an opinion, then your conclusion is subjective. It's not that hard to get.......

Next to that, in logic, conclusions are only as good as the logic employed and the premises used.
If your argument isn't sound or if your premises are invalid, then your conclusion will be also.

What is it about that that confuses you?

 

[nPeace]

Sorry, I think I mixed up posts there - or I just misunderstood your question.
You can ignore my response.

I wonder which posts you got mixed up, from answering one simple question by one poster? Anyhow...

But so, you are asking for an example of reaching a conclusion that is subjective instead of objective?
Not sure how you can be confused on that...

Now this response is definitely worth ignoring. So I will.

If your conclusion is just an opinion, then your conclusion is subjective. It's not that hard to get.......

I agree. It's not hard to get.
So why does it seem you are not getting it? Avoiding the conclusion. it seems to me.
Did I say opinion? What's an opinion?
This is what I said... If I reason on something I see as evidence for X...
Opinion
noun

1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Aren't you making this more difficult than it needs to be?

Next to that, in logic, conclusions are only as good as the logic employed and the premises used.
If your argument isn't sound or if your premises are invalid, then your conclusion will be also.

What is it about that that confuses you?

I will ignore this one as well. You probably know why you made the comments.

So, it appears I have to ask again. Unless you see 'reason on something I see as evidence for... as opinion, please replace the word opinion. Or is that opinion, to you?

Sigh. I'm tired.

 

[EtuMalku]

Revelation 20:1-3 describes the defeat of Satan by Jesus.

And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations any more until the thousand years were ended.

A chain is a symbol of restraining power. It stands for the real, sovereign and restraining power of Jesus. Up until the time of the cross, Satan was able to dominate the nations of the earth, but he was defeated by the death of Jesus.

He has no authority in heaven, and can only work by deception. He still works, but he is limited in the area of his activity. He is controlled by God, and cannot dominate the nations as he did previously. In the Old Testament, all the nations except Israel loved in darkness. Satan will never be able to exercise that kind of power again.

This is not a description of some future event. The Bible teaches very clearly that we do not have to wait for Satan to be bound in the future. He was defeated by Jesus' victory on the cross. Jesus disarmed Satan and all his powers, by making a public spectacle of them, when he triumphed on the cross (Col 2:15). He has already done everything that needs to be done to secure Satan's downfall.

The impotence of Satan is clearly demonstrated in Job 1,2. Before Satan could touch anything belonging to Job, he had to get permission from the Lord. He has no power over a righteous man, but the unrighteous are in his power.

Because Job was one of the few righteous men in the Old Testament world, Satan could exercise considerable power. In this age, all Christians have been made righteous by the blood of Jesus. Satan cannot touch them unless he gets permission from the Lord.

He is an instrument that God used to fulfil his purposes. Satan only has power over those who reject the salvation of Jesus. Once the majority of people are converted, Satan's power will be gone. He has been bound by Jesus.

The reason Satan still seems to be so active is that the church has failed to realise the full extent of what Christ has achieved. In binding Satan, Jesus works through the church. He has placed the chain that binds Satan in the hands of his people.

They must restrain Satan's power over the nations. Jesus won a judicial victory on the cross. When a decision is made in a court of law, it does not become a fact until the police enforce it. The church has the police power to enforce Jesus judicial victory. Satan will not be fully bound until the church forces him to recognise the sentence that was passed against him at the cross.

snip

Satan is bound through the proclamation of the gospel. When the seventy disciples returned from their successful preaching mission, Jesus said,

I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions, and to overcome all the power of the enemy (Luke 10:18,19).

continued

The Binding of Satan

The DIABOLICON
I The Statement of Satan Archdaemon

Verse 20: Our intent was not unknown to Masleh, now by title Messiah, and through his art he caused the Infant mind of man to be fettered with bonds of fear and blindness, that he might be inspired to duplicate on Earth the law of Heaven, shunning experiment and the radical dangers of invention and exploration. To man was given guilt, and the call to social conformity, and the proclaimed sanctity of the norm and the mode.

Verse 21: And Michael, Lord of Force, said to me, This man, whom thou host chosen to receive thy Gift, now possesses the first key to the mastery of all things and the control of the very Universe itself. Lest in ill choice he should spark the catastrophe of Armageddon, we also have visited him. And while we cannot undo thy Infernal Gift, we shall ever act to censor its effect. We shall walk among men and guide them. They shall be told of thy interest in them, but the name of Lucifer shall be dark with curses. For they shall love not the challenge thou host placed before them, and we will offer them instead the blissful refuge of divine paradise. Then shall man, thy ultimate experiment, become thy ultimate failure, and the stasis of God shall prevail upon Earth.

Verse 32: I who am Lucifer, and who have taken the name Satan ArchDaimon, do bear this title with pride, for I am in truth the great enemy of all that is God. Together, man,
thou and I shall achieve our eternal glory in the fulfillment of our Will.
____________________________________________________________

So, as you can see, Satan/Lucifer is quite alive and well in this world, whereas we have yet to hear from this 'messiah'.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree. It's not hard to get.
So why does it seem you are not getting it? Avoiding the conclusion. it seems to me.
Did I say opinion? What's an opinion?

You don't know what an opinion is?

This is what I said... If I reason on something I see as evidence for X...
Opinion
noun

1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Aren't you making this more difficult than it needs to be?

Key words: "not necessarily". Meaning that it can be, but doesn't have to.
It seems you're the one making it difficult.

I will ignore this one as well

Well, if you wish to ignore the answers you get to your own questions, there's not much I can do about that.

You probably know why you made the comments.

Yes, I tried to answer your question.

So, it appears I have to ask again

You'll get the same answer, because it is my answer.

Unless you see 'reason on something I see as evidence for... as opinion, please replace the word opinion. Or is that opinion, to you?

I already answered your question.
You can include your opinions in your reasoning you know....

Next to that, the validity of an argument depends on the validity of the premises and the soundness of the logic. Invalid premises or invalid logic, will result in invalid conclusions.

Arguments infused with opinions, will not result in objective conclusions.

It's not rocket science.

 

[sooda]

Revelation 20:1-3 describes the defeat of Satan by Jesus.

And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations any more until the thousand years were ended.

A chain is a symbol of restraining power. It stands for the real, sovereign and restraining power of Jesus. Up until the time of the cross, Satan was able to dominate the nations of the earth, but he was defeated by the death of Jesus.

He has no authority in heaven, and can only work by deception. He still works, but he is limited in the area of his activity. He is controlled by God, and cannot dominate the nations as he did previously. In the Old Testament, all the nations except Israel loved in darkness. Satan will never be able to exercise that kind of power again.

This is not a description of some future event. The Bible teaches very clearly that we do not have to wait for Satan to be bound in the future. He was defeated by Jesus' victory on the cross. Jesus disarmed Satan and all his powers, by making a public spectacle of them, when he triumphed on the cross (Col 2:15). He has already done everything that needs to be done to secure Satan's downfall.

The impotence of Satan is clearly demonstrated in Job 1,2. Before Satan could touch anything belonging to Job, he had to get permission from the Lord. He has no power over a righteous man, but the unrighteous are in his power.

Because Job was one of the few righteous men in the Old Testament world, Satan could exercise considerable power. In this age, all Christians have been made righteous by the blood of Jesus. Satan cannot touch them unless he gets permission from the Lord.

He is an instrument that God used to fulfil his purposes. Satan only has power over those who reject the salvation of Jesus. Once the majority of people are converted, Satan's power will be gone. He has been bound by Jesus.

The reason Satan still seems to be so active is that the church has failed to realise the full extent of what Christ has achieved. In binding Satan, Jesus works through the church. He has placed the chain that binds Satan in the hands of his people.

They must restrain Satan's power over the nations. Jesus won a judicial victory on the cross. When a decision is made in a court of law, it does not become a fact until the police enforce it. The church has the police power to enforce Jesus judicial victory. Satan will not be fully bound until the church forces him to recognise the sentence that was passed against him at the cross.

snip

Satan is bound through the proclamation of the gospel. When the seventy disciples returned from their successful preaching mission, Jesus said,

I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions, and to overcome all the power of the enemy (Luke 10:18,19).

continued

The Binding of Satan

Satan was defeated by Christ on the cross.

 

[nPeace]

You don't know what an opinion is?



Key words: "not necessarily". Meaning that it can be, but doesn't have to.
It seems you're the one making it difficult.



Well, if you wish to ignore the answers you get to your own questions, there's not much I can do about that.




Yes, I tried to answer your question.



You'll get the same answer, because it is my answer.




I already answered your question.
You can include your opinions in your reasoning you know....

Next to that, the validity of an argument depends on the validity of the premises and the soundness of the logic. Invalid premises or invalid logic, will result in invalid conclusions.

Arguments infused with opinions, will not result in objective conclusions.

It's not rocket science.

I took note of the fact that you claimed you mix up posts, and or misunderstand, and you gave me permission to ignore these.
The comments you made, which I ignored, fit the description of either being mixed up with some other post, or misunderstanding, so I took your advice and ignored them.
What did I do wrong? Nothing.

Besides what you claimed though, I have my own theory on what's going on here. I think you are just dancing around the issue, in order to avoid the conclusion.
I have tired of the dancing around 'Sugar Ray Leonard'. Yes, I can float around while you dance, but I am more interested in the sting - 'Float like a butterfly. Sting like a bee.'
So...

Homology among proteins or DNA is inferred from their sequence similarity.
No matter how you try to cut it, it's the same cake.
If I reason on something I see as evidence for X, and arrive at a conclusion, or if I have an opinion about something, based on the facts and knowledge (the evidence) obtained...
Whether the logic is sound or not so sound, or not sound at all...

They are all the same.

One can argue that the other's "evidence" is subjective. It goes both ways.
No one wins that argument, because it's really one opinion against the other.
For example, I can look at a guys bald head, and infer that he was balding. Are there any tell-tale signs that he was? Not if he is completely bald.
I can argue "till the cows come home"...
So I will let you do that.

What objective evidence is there for the theory of evolution?
You...
1. [GALLERY=media, 9021]Evolving Ear Bones by nPeace posted Aug 4, 2019 at 3:27 PM[/GALLERY]

Me...

Um. Excuse me, I need to go to the bathroom.
<Heads to the bathroom. Closes door>

There is none.
When it comes to reason and logic, everyone uses their eyes and mind to interpret the evidence.
So back to your thermometer... If you don't have a one, you are left with your finger... which apparently is the case.

[GALLERY=media, 9022]Evolution-happening-in-lab by nPeace posted Aug 4, 2019 at 3:29 PM[/GALLERY]

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I took note of the fact that you claimed you mix up posts, and or misunderstand, and you gave me permission to ignore these.
The comments you made, which I ignored, fit the description of either being mixed up with some other post, or misunderstanding, so I took your advice and ignored them.
What did I do wrong? Nothing.

My making a mistake in one post, does not give you a free pass to ignore whatever is not to your liking. But feel free to try and make yourself feel good off course....

Besides what you claimed though, I have my own theory on what's going on here. I think you are just dancing around the issue, in order to avoid the conclusion.

What issue and what conclusion?

Homology among proteins or DNA is inferred from their sequence similarity.
No matter how you try to cut it, it's the same cake.
If I reason on something I see as evidence for X, and arrive at a conclusion, or if I have an opinion about something, based on the facts and knowledge (the evidence) obtained...
Whether the logic is sound or not so sound, or not sound at all...

I love how you apparantly think that such inferring is a matter of just mere opinion or arbitrary guesses....

Newsflash: in science, your inferring better be well motivated, with evidence and testability to some extent.

One can argue that the other's "evidence" is subjective. It goes both ways.
No one wins that argument, because it's really one opinion against the other.

It's not. Sounds like the problem is that you don't understand how science reaches such conclusions and how these conclusions are required to be motivated and testable.

For example, I can look at a guys bald head, and infer that he was balding.

If that's the only info you based that inference on (I look at his head), then your inference is extremely weak in terms of justifiability.

Are there any tell-tale signs that he was? Not if he is completely bald.
I can argue "till the cows come home"...

Exactly. You can argue till the cows come home. And you'll continued to do so, because all you do is speculate about the bald head. How about examining it a bit closer? How about testing your hypothesis to either confirm or debunk it? See? This is the difference between an arbitrary opinion and a scientific conclusion....

What objective evidence is there for the theory of evolution?
You...
1. [GALLERY=media, 9021]Evolving Ear Bones by nPeace posted Aug 4, 2019 at 3:27 PM[/GALLERY]

Where does that link go to?

Anyhow, there's an extreme amount of objective evidence for evolution.
+200.000 peer reviewed papers on the topic, each dealing with their own set of evidence. Is there anything in particular that peaks your interest?

As for me, what I consider the "best" evidence for evolution? Definatly phylogenetic trees and what they represent.

Me...

Um. Excuse me, I need to go to the bathroom.
<Heads to the bathroom. Closes door>

Not sure what you are talking about as the link you posted just gives an error.

There is none.

Denial won't make the evidence disappear.

When it comes to reason and logic, everyone uses their eyes and mind to interpret the evidence.

And rational people double check the justifications for it and also test their "interpretations".
A step you seem to forget about, be ignorant of or purposefully ignore. Not sure wich.

So back to your thermometer... If you don't have a one, you are left with your finger... which apparently is the case.

[GALLERY=media, 9022]Evolution-happening-in-lab by nPeace posted Aug 4, 2019 at 3:29 PM[/GALLERY]

Another broken link.

 

[nPeace]

My making a mistake in one post, does not give you a free pass to ignore whatever is not to your liking. But feel free to try and make yourself feel good off course....



What issue and what conclusion?



I love how you apparantly think that such inferring is a matter of just mere opinion or arbitrary guesses....

Newsflash: in science, your inferring better be well motivated, with evidence and testability to some extent.



It's not. Sounds like the problem is that you don't understand how science reaches such conclusions and how these conclusions are required to be motivated and testable.



If that's the only info you based that inference on (I look at his head), then your inference is extremely weak in terms of justifiability.




Exactly. You can argue till the cows come home. And you'll continued to do so, because all you do is speculate about the bald head. How about examining it a bit closer? How about testing your hypothesis to either confirm or debunk it? See? This is the difference between an arbitrary opinion and a scientific conclusion....



Where does that link go to?

Anyhow, there's an extreme amount of objective evidence for evolution.
+200.000 peer reviewed papers on the topic, each dealing with their own set of evidence. Is there anything in particular that peaks your interest?

As for me, what I consider the "best" evidence for evolution? Definatly phylogenetic trees and what they represent.



Not sure what you are talking about as the link you posted just gives an error.



Denial won't make the evidence disappear.



And rational people double check the justifications for it and also test their "interpretations".
A step you seem to forget about, be ignorant of or purposefully ignore. Not sure wich.



Another broken link.

If I did not understand I could not reason with you.
You say things, but you can explain nothing.
How you, or scientists arrive at a conclusion by inference has nothing to do with the fact that there are some cases where those inferences are based on the best opinion - not on any evidence that can be verified anyway.
You said it yourself... It is dependent.
So I am not saying all inferences are wrong (We accept many things in science), because I make inferences. Christians make inferences. Everyone does.
Contrary to your opinion, it is based on evidence that can be tested.

The point is...
What to a person, is objective, not because it is determined to be so by anything other than using your senses, is subject to interpretation.
This is the case for scientist, and any other person.
Back to my example....
The bald head man, can be examined further, for anything that can give us confirmation of our theory.
Are there any hairs in the skull?
Are there any hair cells remaining?
We can look at their distribution.
Sorry. The man has been bald for decades. In fact, the chemicals he used on his head that resulted in his baldness were actually used for that purpose - to make sure no hair could grow.

Now how do we determine that he he was balding? This is where you guys come in. "Let's compare heads. Because the man has been bald so many years, and we cannot find the missing link. By doing so, we see that normally. we grow hair. So based on the fact that we lose hair as we get a certain age, then 'Columbus'! The guy started to lose hair, like all the others."

Hint Hint.

You know what's sad....
The people that don't understand how science works, include - not hundreds, but thousands of scientists.

Go ahead. Keep appealing to consensus, as if that helps you.
Who cares about consensus? Honest people care about the truth, not what a bunch of men sit and agree on.... and what are they agreeing on? The best opinions.

Scientific consensus - Wikipedia
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

EVOLUTION: A Grand Monument to Human Stupidity
...we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion.
This coming from a biologist.

Don't worry. i won't get tired of posting it, no matter how solid the concrete is. One of these days, it may sink in.

One more thing.
When you come on a debate forum, I think you should be prepared to present information to support your claims. i don't think you do that by posting a link to a whole long page of reading, but by reasoning on your supportive information, which can be a few paragraphs from the link.
Hope that helps.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I did not understand I could not reason with you.

You're not "reasoning" with me. Instead, you're arguing strawman, exposing ignorance on the subject and misunderstanding most of what is being said.

How you, or scientists arrive at a conclusion by inference has nothing to do with the fact that there are some cases where those inferences are based on the best opinion - not on any evidence that can be verified anyway.

Citation required.
Please give an example of such an inference from the field of biology, which is just opinion and isn't based on any evidence and / or which can't be tested.

You know what's sad....
The people that don't understand how science works, include - not hundreds, but thousands of scientists.

Go ahead. Keep appealing to consensus, as if that helps you.
Who cares about consensus? Honest people care about the truth, not what a bunch of men sit and agree on.... and what are they agreeing on? The best opinions.

 

[nPeace]

You're not "reasoning" with me. Instead, you're arguing strawman, exposing ignorance on the subject and misunderstanding most of what is being said.



Citation required.
Please give an example of such an inference from the field of biology, which is just opinion and isn't based on any evidence and / or which can't be tested.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You forgot to "give an example of such an inference from the field of biology, which is just opinion and isn't based on any evidence and / or which can't be tested."

 

[nPeace]

You forgot to "give an example of such an inference from the field of biology, which is just opinion and isn't based on any evidence and / or which can't be tested."