Yes I did, demand proof. That would seem to be a reasoned way to find out what truth is. I guess that's a foreign concept to you.
What I said all along, was that one couldn't buy into the theory of evolution without adopting that belief on faith.
You have stated that nothing in science is provable, so obviously you agree.
Lots of evidence. LMAO Either it's provable or it isn't. If it isn't as you and or others have claimed here, then it's just a theory. Believeing that theory is a faith based belief.
Look bud, we're 200 posts into this thread and you folks are still claiming nothing in science can be proven, but you believe the theory of evolution anyway. If that's not batting zero, what is?
Look, belief in something that can't be proven has to be based on something. In the absense of proof, it has to be based on faith.
No, it's taught as fact an you know it. It was in my day and it still is.
Your evidence either proves what you believe, or you have chosen to believe something you cannot prove. I have no problem with that. I still say that it is wrong to teach something that cannot be proven, as fact.
I guess that makes you dishonest as well.
Wilfully.
As though you couldn't bare to deal with it.
These gravitationalists MUST admit their FAITH!
What makes you think you can demand something that science doesn't purport to supply and then reject one and only one branch of science because, like all the rest, it doesn't pretend to supply proof? Science uses facts and evidence, not proof. I'm done posting this to you. It would appear that it is, indeed a "foreign concept."
What I said all along, was that one couldn't buy into the theory of evolution without adopting that belief on faith.
And what you said all along is wrong. One need no faith whatever to accept the theory of evolution. One need only to examine the evidence.
You have stated that nothing in science is provable, so obviously you agree.
No I don't agree. That should be clear to anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension. That you haven't (or won't) figured it out yet speaks volumes.
Lots of evidence. LMAO Either it's provable or it isn't. If it isn't as you and or others have claimed here, then it's just a theory. Believeing that theory is a faith based belief.
I know this will come as a horrible shock to you, but the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, which means, in simpler terms, it's a theory. Since Darwin first proposed the theory, it has been confirmed by all the evidence, even evidence that was not even suspected in Darwin's time. There is no faith involved. But you appear to be unable or unwilling to grasp this.
Look bud, we're 200 posts into this thread and you folks are still claiming nothing in science can be proven, but you believe the theory of evolution anyway. If that's not batting zero, what is?
It's "MISTER Bud," to you.
Your utter inability to understand what we're saying is "batting zero." Science has facts and theories. Science doesn't have proof and it's not a matter of "belief." That's it in a nutshell. You don't like it. I get that. There's not much anyone can do about it. There's not anything anyone should do about it.
Look, belief in something that can't be proven has to be based on something. In the absense of proof, it has to be based on faith.
False dichotomy. I'm utterly unimpressed. In the case of scientific theories, they're accepted or not (belief having nothing whatever to do with the matter), on how well they explain the known facts. If they explain the facts, they're accepted. No belief needed. If facts then emerge that contradict the theory, it's either changed or abandoned. Again, no belief needed, no proof possible.
No, it's taught as fact an you know it. It was in my day and it still is.
If your comprehension on this thread is an example of your work in school, I have no difficulty at all believing you thought it was taught as a fact. Have I mentioned you don't seem to be paying attention?
My son happens to have had a unit last year in his 8th grade science class on evolution. They called it, "the theory of evolution." In scientific terms, it means it's a "theory," which is not the same as a "fact." They offered what scientists call "evidence" and "facts" to support the "theory." There was no proof. There was no proof in the unit on gravity, there was no proof in the unit on electromagnetism, and if they'd covered color theory, there wouldn't have been any proof there, either.
Your evidence either proves what you believe, or you have chosen to believe something you cannot prove. I have no problem with that. I still say that it is wrong to teach something that cannot be proven, as fact.
No belief. It's where all the evidence points. But you're not paying attention.
If you want to banish everything from the classroom that isn't proven, you'll end up banishing not just science, but almost everything. Could I have bumped into the real motive here?
Where's the proof that George Washington wasn't a woman?
Yes I did, demand proof. That would seem to be a reasoned way to find out what truth is. I guess that's a foreign concept to you.
It depends on what you mean by "proof," and what you're doing. If it's science, there isn't any proof. But it's clear that you don't care what science is.
I guess that makes you dishonest as well.
No doubt you do. I'll leave it for the other posters to decide.
Wilfully.
Close parody! Neat. I love using that technique. I use the spell-checker, though.
As though you couldn't bare to deal with it.
Well, there's a mistake the spell-checker would have missed. Maybe you weren't paying attention in English class, either.
I don't have a problem with an honest difference of opinion. Alamo-Girl and I, for instance, have an honest difference of opinion on ID. I have never called her dishonest, because she isn't. She has never felt the need to call me dishonest. When I make a mistake, I admit it. I'm not mistaken on the matter of proof/belief/evidence/facts regarding science. The problem isn't me, and it isn't science. It's your unwillingness to realize that lack of proof in science doesn't make science into some sort of belief-based system. At this point, it's futile to continue, so I won't.