General Science Questions? - Page 6

Well if I wanted proof, Shtal, that you cannot tell fiction from reality, your use of those trailers has given it to me.

Hundmutter wrote: never yet heard of anyone who isn't  a creationist try to equate atheism with a 'religion';  the idea doesn't seem to occur or appeal to normal people.

(definition of religion) Let me extrapolate my dear Hundmutter: I will make it as simple as possible for you....You see its as set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe…materialism, naturalism is the presupposition without possibility proof by the scientific method, but the whole of reality is naturalism, there is no supernatural dimension and there certainly no supernatural creator, it is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe that says it’s all materialistic, it’s all naturalistic; that is a religion. Evolutionist already have a religion my dear Hundmutter, you have faith you don’t need Christian faith and me myself and I, need to point out to you is what you have is really faith, you know Hundmutter, if you want to be honest and say I have this faith I would like to share with you...I would say fine, I can understand that but just don’t call your faith science if it doesn’t qualifies as it; don’t mislabeled and expect me to accept that definition because it’s just not correct, not true.

btw, VK4 is very religious man......ROFTL

Shtal, here's your next field of "study": http://abcnews.go.com/US/quarter-americans-convinced-sun-revolves-earth-survey-finds/story?id=22542847

see what did i tell you, creationists main aim is to put religion and science as the same thing, they also are desperate to call atheism just another religion as well.

see how he made up his own stupid, incoherent definitions to try and achieve it. at least you know his last post was his own writing, it's the original shtal, incoherent sentence structure that makes no sense at all.

shtal you pointed out what words i equivocated on yet, you posted a peer reviewed dating technique creationists have made yet?
 

Shtal, please believe that I definately have NO 'faith', and if I did, I would not wish

to share it with you. 

Hundmutter wrote: I definately have NO 'faith',

Could you give me the observable evidence which is the scientific method? Darwinian evolution of change of kinds? "MacroEvolution"

Why ?

It is not 'faith' to trust the logic of others more skilled, when their findings are fully

presented and explained.  Yes I accept their teaching as much as my own eyes

and experience;  but  that is because they are prepared to build a case and answer

questions on it, in a rational manner.   Three years of your posts to PDB have

shown me YOU ARE NOT.

what gibbersish word salad is this;

"Could you give me the observable evidence which is the scientific method? Darwinian evolution of change of kinds? "MacroEvolution"

this is the real shtal, his ramblings went thru a phase of being well written gibbersish now we are all the way back to word salad.

Hundmutter wrote: It is not 'faith' to trust the logic of others more skilled, when their findings are fully presented and explained.  Yes I accept their teaching as much as my own eyes and experience;  but  that is because they are prepared to build a case and answer questions on it, in a rational manner.

I disagree, it literary doesn’t matter if all the evidence supports the intelligent design and contradicts naturalistic evolution. Hundmutter, even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such (an) hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic, "that is how you trust the logic of others more skilled in your remark above"

Now, what would you do if creationist scientists got up and said; even if all the data point to Darwinian evolution as being true, such a hypothesis as you know not science because it’s not super naturalistic? Why you would scream and cry - all my goodness you think the world would end. But creationists suppose to put up with that, you wouldn’t tolerate for one second, but we supposed too, so make an model to get them away with this illogic, and we have to put our foot down and say look creationists are willing to discuss, we willing to talk and willing to debate, but let's level the plainfield; lets not start with the definition guarantees you win no matter what, because you define yourself as a victor by how you define the word science.