Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
bullshit alert :!!!!!!
Empirical science is finding the solution through observation or experimentation.
Historical science is generally BS. Its the common idea behind theist science and to me it gives me a headache even trying to read through the butchery of words they throw into sentences which amount to nothing. They are trying to bring god into science, if you can't repeat a situation then god did it. Thats the sum of it.
Empirical Science is what we call Science
Historical Science is what we call Speculation
Speculation is what we call Evolutionary Thought. Here come the "might haves" and "could haves"!!!!
Actually, among the relevant science community, evolution is an accepted fact. It is almost exclusively the Christian fundamentalists who are the laughable tools, pounding their bibles as science texts. There is a certain element of religious extremism that is exploited by the science-loathing crowd as represented by the Disco'tute, Falwell, Robertson, etc.
not unlike the creationist /id fairytale...bullshit alert :!!!!!!This post right here. You have just revealed your ignorance of having no clue about the difference in Empirical Science and Historical Science.
Empirical science is finding the solution through observation or experimentation.
Historical science is generally BS. Its the common idea behind theist science and to me it gives me a headache even trying to read through the butchery of words they throw into sentences which amount to nothing. They are trying to bring god into science, if you can't repeat a situation then god did it. Thats the sum of it.
Empirical Science is what we call Science
Historical Science is what we call Speculation
Speculation is what we call Evolutionary Thought. Here come the "might haves" and "could haves"!!!!
whiner....Speculation is what we call Evolutionary Thought. Here come the "might haves" and "could haves"!!!!
Actually, among the relevant science community, evolution is an accepted fact. It is almost exclusively the Christian fundamentalists who are the laughable tools, pounding their bibles as science texts. There is a certain element of religious extremism that is exploited by the science-loathing crowd as represented by the Disco'tute, Falwell, Robertson, etc.
The really sad thing about you Hawly is you are totally unaware how incredibly irrelevant you are to the discussion. You are reduced to repeating the same ad hawlyman attacks over and over ad nauseum.
bullshit alert :!!!!!!
Empirical science is finding the solution through observation or experimentation.
Historical science is generally BS. Its the common idea behind theist science and to me it gives me a headache even trying to read through the butchery of words they throw into sentences which amount to nothing. They are trying to bring god into science, if you can't repeat a situation then god did it. Thats the sum of it.
Empirical Science is what we call Science
Historical Science is what we call Speculation
Speculation is what we call Evolutionary Thought. Here come the "might haves" and "could haves"!!!!
Actually, among the relevant science community, evolution is an accepted fact. It is almost exclusively the Christian fundamentalists who are the laughable tools, pounding their bibles as science texts. There is a certain element of religious extremism that is exploited by the science-loathing crowd as represented by the Disco'tute, Falwell, Robertson, etc.
bullshit alert :!!!!!!
Empirical science is finding the solution through observation or experimentation.
Historical science is generally BS. Its the common idea behind theist science and to me it gives me a headache even trying to read through the butchery of words they throw into sentences which amount to nothing. They are trying to bring god into science, if you can't repeat a situation then god did it. Thats the sum of it.
Empirical Science is what we call Science
Historical Science is what we call Speculation
Speculation is what we call Evolutionary Thought. Here come the "might haves" and "could haves"!!!!
Actually, among the relevant science community, evolution is an accepted fact. It is almost exclusively the Christian fundamentalists who are the laughable tools, pounding their bibles as science texts. There is a certain element of religious extremism that is exploited by the science-loathing crowd as represented by the Disco'tute, Falwell, Robertson, etc.
nobody's arguing that there are no alternate "theories" there are.. evolution empirical quantifiable evidence to back it up.Speculation is what we call Evolutionary Thought. Here come the "might haves" and "could haves"!!!!
Actually, among the relevant science community, evolution is an accepted fact. It is almost exclusively the Christian fundamentalists who are the laughable tools, pounding their bibles as science texts. There is a certain element of religious extremism that is exploited by the science-loathing crowd as represented by the Disco'tute, Falwell, Robertson, etc.
So you are not debating if there could be alternative theories to Darwinism you are actually debating Christian fundamentalism.
it's not a belief (that requires faith) the fact is most credible scientist do not believe in god.Speculation is what we call Evolutionary Thought. Here come the "might haves" and "could haves"!!!!
Actually, among the relevant science community, evolution is an accepted fact. It is almost exclusively the Christian fundamentalists who are the laughable tools, pounding their bibles as science texts. There is a certain element of religious extremism that is exploited by the science-loathing crowd as represented by the Disco'tute, Falwell, Robertson, etc.
so it is your belief that the majority of the worlds scientist have no spiritual beliefs ?....link ?
52 percent of scientists surveyed said they had no religious affiliation, compared with only 14 percent of the general population.What do scientists think about religion?
Opinion
Members of the scientific community are often seen as doubting Thomases, but the reality is more complex. Even Charles Darwin may have made room for God.
November 24, 2009|By David Masci
Share
Today, a century and a half after Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," the overwhelming majority of scientists in the United States accept Darwinian evolution as the basis for understanding how life on Earth developed. But although evolutionary theory is often portrayed as antithetical to religion, it has not destroyed the religious faith of the scientific community.
According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times
it's not a belief (that requires faith) the fact is most credible scientist do not believe in god.Actually, among the relevant science community, evolution is an accepted fact. It is almost exclusively the Christian fundamentalists who are the laughable tools, pounding their bibles as science texts. There is a certain element of religious extremism that is exploited by the science-loathing crowd as represented by the Disco'tute, Falwell, Robertson, etc.
so it is your belief that the majority of the worlds scientist have no spiritual beliefs ?....link ?
you could argue that spirituality and belief in god are separate issue.
but that's been done to death on another thread.
wow false assumption man .........not according to me but to them...52 percent of scientists surveyed said they had no religious affiliation, compared with only 14 percent of the general population.it's not a belief (that requires faith) the fact is most credible scientist do not believe in god.so it is your belief that the majority of the worlds scientist have no spiritual beliefs ?....link ?
you could argue that spirituality and belief in god are separate issue.
but that's been done to death on another thread.
so according to you 51% of all scientist are not credible and this is evident in their belief a "god "/intelligent universe?
the science fiction ploy....you were almost rational for a second.There is also the big white elephant in the room no one wants to address but if...Apollo astronauts and British and Canadian defense ministers are speaking truthfully there could very well be another explanation for the origin of species on this planet
the science fiction ploy....you were almost rational for a second.there is also the big white elephant in the room no one wants to address but if...apollo astronauts and british and canadian defense ministers are speaking truthfully there could very well be another explanation for the origin of species on this planet
no it's not hard to wrap your mind around..the science fiction ploy....you were almost rational for a second.there is also the big white elephant in the room no one wants to address but if...apollo astronauts and british and canadian defense ministers are speaking truthfully there could very well be another explanation for the origin of species on this planet
it is hard to wrap your mind around I agree..but it is hardly science fiction.. When you have several of the few men to ever walk on the moon and ministers of defense from major western countries saying the same thing...it seems irrational to dismiss it as just science-fiction
