first case....... chessplaying ghosts
Yes. Correspondence with the dead
proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.
Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations? You need to learn what "proven" means before you use it in a sentence, hypocrite.
Yes. Prove all the science for yourself, or else take it on faith that some other scientist or group has proven it, you know, like believing in a religion.
Science isn't something that's proven. This is your fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. Science is a 'method' of applying a logical process to understanding the world. Science simply utilizes certain logical tools while disposing of others that are irrelevant to empirical study. Religious people such as yourself must also use logic -- the same logical language from which yields the scientific method --
to analyze the Bible and form your own interpretations thereof.
In other words, the only difference between scientists and your self in this debate is that scientists abide by a logical system of reasoning *which has clearly defined boundaries* so that they know which conclusions are permissible and which aren't. You, on the other hand, talk about science as if it draws from a set of entirely different logical rules. This is simply wrong. Logic is what it is and everyone uses it, but scientists simply use a more contained system of logic, i.e. logic that is applied *to observations and evidence* in order to make sense of it all. While scientists know where the boundaries are, you have no freaking clue where the boundaries of logic are, and you constantly overstep those boundaries and wander into the realm of literal nonsense ("nonsense" = does not make sense).
By the way, what do you think about the Pope's recent declaration in support of evolution, which is essentially a declaration in support of the scientific method?
Now you're playing with semantics. Let me get my cup of coffee ...
... Okay, I'm back.
You know? This is exactly the thing that I am saying. but, let me say it a little differently.
Back in the mid 1900s, each scientific field of endeavor attempted to carve out its own little niche, and remain separate from - and better than - all the others. Chemistry had its spot, biology its place, electronics and electrical were separated, and there was physics, aloof from them all. But nowadays we understand that everything works together.
When you look at the whole of what is scientific knowledge, the sciences of probability, combined with the geologic and archaeologic investigations of past species, combined with all the biological investigations of today, and considering the complexity and the entropy, something like Evolution is so exceedingly impossible, that it is
utterly impossible.
In fact, there is only one major scientific realm where Evolution can be proven to exist. This is the realm of political science, where talk, talk, propagandize, talk, and more talk are the only ingredients needed to make something true. And it is the simple, humble, believing masses that this so-called evolution propaganda has been focused on, to turn the masses from the age-old religions, to the religion of science.
Go at the semantics of the word science. I explained the differences in meaning above by example.
