Originally posted by Proper Knob"You believe many branches of science are wrong, not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong. That means we're talking about millions upon millions of scientists over the last 200 years who are, according to you, wrong. "
What have I repeated which you said was not true?
As I pointed out to you branches of science are just branches of science,
my issue isn't with science, but with the people who are making judgments.
You again are equating disagreeing with people blowing off science and
that isn't the case, there are others within these branches of science that
hold different views than the ones you agree with.
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe evidence I have is the same as that which you look at and draw a
Science is a process that produces knowledge based on evidence. Your position alleges that the process has produced spectacularly wrong knowledge for a long time. Can you provide some evidence to back that up?
You claiming that I have a high opinion of my beliefs is a little rich coming from you Kelly. You do after all hold the position the many branc ...[text shortened]... ence are wrong and have produced not a shred of evidence, thus far, to substantiate that belief.
different opinion of. I don't believe you or anyone else has shown me
how a mutation with time will build upon another mutation to the point
of creating something as vast as a Circulatory System. You declare it is
a very valid truth, but all you got are small changes that produce an
advantage maybe! Nothing at anytime do we see changes that would take
one life form and turn it into another. For that you just make claims about
the fossil record suggesting one fossil produced another due to the time it
looks like it came from and where it was found along with its looks. None of
those prove one came from the other even if the time and looks are what
you believe them to be.
Originally posted by C HessHe was referring to you atheist evolutionists seeing what you want to when it is obvious to any reasonable person with at least common intelligence that biological life could not come about by natural processes, but needed a super natural designer. 😏
😵
Right after he says he remember looking through the microscope wondering how anyone can believe something so amazing came about through natural processes, and how to him it's obvious it didn't, he starts talking about cognitive bias and how we all see what we want to see. Way to shoot himself in the foot there.
Good one. Thanks for the laugh.
Originally posted by KellyJayThese 'others' who hold 'different views than the one I agree with', have they submitted their views, findings and work for peer review?
"You believe many branches of science are wrong, not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong. That means we're talking about millions upon millions of scientists over the last 200 years who are, according to you, wrong. "
As I pointed out to you branches of science are just branches of science,
my issue isn't with science, but with the people who are making ...[text shortened]... others within these branches of science that
hold different views than the ones you agree with.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou disagree with me, I know that and I've known that for a while now.
The evidence I have is the same as that which you look at and draw a
different opinion of. I don't believe you or anyone else has shown me
how a mutation with time will build upon another mutation to the point
of creating something as vast as a Circulatory System. You declare it is
a very valid truth, but all you got are small changes that produce an
a ...[text shortened]... those prove one came from the other even if the time and looks are what
you believe them to be.
You claim that scientists who have a bias for evolution do so because they 'believe'. What about those scientists in other fields who's work contradicts your position? Astrophysicists, Geologists and Archaelogists to name three. Do you they have a bias for their findings simply because they want to 'believe' as well?
Originally posted by Proper KnobAsk them!
You disagree with me, I know that and I've known that for a while now.
You claim that scientists who have a bias for evolution do so because they 'believe'. What about those scientists in other fields who's work contradicts your position? Astrophysicists, Geologists and Archaelogists to name three. Do you they have a bias for their findings simply because they want to 'believe' as well?
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm asking you, it was your claim you made on the previous page.
Ask them!
If scientists with a bias for evolution do so because they 'believe' as you put it. Does this view of yours extend to other scientists in other fields who's scientific findings contradict your view point?
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou asking me what, what others believe, speak to them I just speak for
I'm asking you, it was your claim you made on the previous page.
If scientists with a bias for evolution do so because they 'believe' as you put it. Does this view of yours extend to other scientists in other fields who's scientific findings contradict your view point?
me.