Faith in no God

[cladking]

Mebbe it's not Look and See Science but rather Peer and See Science.

And now days Peers demand PC science... ...it's all good.

 

[gnostic]

The fact that you yourself saw something the churches got wrong means just that, the churches got it wrong. The problem is with the church, not the scriptures. They get a lot of things wrong. Paul said that before he even died the churches turned against him. They stopped believing what he told them. Does that mean what he told them was all wrong? No. It simply means the churches changed what he told them.

The classic example is the church saying over and over that Jesus was a god-man. The scriptures themselves never say that. They do however say in several places that he was a man.

Acts 2:22,

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
​

I don't even bother myself with what the churches say. If they can't read "man" without thinking "god-man" it's their problem, not mine.

You are not paying attention to what I am writing.

It is not just the church interpretations that got it wrong, it is the Christians themselves that getting them wrong.

And the “Christians” I am talking about that I have given example in my last reply to you, is the AUTHOR himself of the GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, where it narrated Jesus’ birth in Matthew 1.

This author of Matthew, is a “Christian” I am talking about, not the later church.

You are clearly not focusing on what I am actually saying, rrobs.

I am talking about how the AUTHOR of Matthew quote OT verses, eg Matthew 1:23 & Isaiah 7:14, and have reinterpret their meanings. I gave you an example in my last post before this one (post #413), but you have chosen to ignore my example.

How many ways could one take what you just said? Seems to me like you are asking, "who has the authority to say which meanings are true?" How could I take it to mean anything other than you are asking me who has the authority to say what meaning is true?

Pretty straight forward, simple grammar, no big words, easy concepts to grasp. The meaning is crystal clear to any reasonable person who reads it. It says what it means and means what it says. I don't see any need to go to great pains to "interpret" what you are asking.

Now apply that to the scriptures and you'll see from whence I am coming. Interpretation of the scriptures is way over blown. Just read what's written and believe it or not.

But that exactly what the AUTHOR of Matthew not doing. The author (of Matthew) isn’t “read what’s written”, he has clearly chose to change the meaning of Isaiah passage.

Whoever wrote Matthew (Matthew 1:22-23), had deliberately reinterpret Isaiah 7’s sign, when he quoted the sign. The author himself is claiming Isaiah’s sign had to do with Mary and Jesus:

22 All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet:

23 “Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall name him Emmanuel,”

which means, “God is with us.”

It is clear from Matthew 1, that author is quoting from a Greek translation (eg Septuagint), that was most likely available at the time the author wrote Matthew 1 & 2, when he quote various passages from the Old Testament.

The author have chosen to Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14, and not the Hebrew source which should have been available back then too, as evidently the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran caves.

The Greek translation used the word parthenos, which mean “virgin”, but in some Hebrew sources which would have been available at Qumran and at Jerusalem’s Temple before its destruction in 70 CE, the word it used is almah “young woman” or hā-almah “the young woman”.

Here are two translations of Isaiah 7-14-17, from Hebrew sources, one is the NJPS which is based the Masoretic Text, and the other is from The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible or DSSB (2002, translated by Abegg, Flint and Ulrich), obviously from Isaiah Scroll of Qumran.

14 Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel. 15 (By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeding on curds and honey.) 16 For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned. 17 The LORD will cause to come upon you and your people and your ancestral house such days as never have come since Ephraim turned away from Judah—that selfsame king of Assyria!

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give y[ou a sign. Loo]k, the young woman has conceived and is bearing a son, and his name will be Immanuel. 15 He will eat cur[ds and honey] by the time he knows to refuse evil and choose good. 16 For before the child knows to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. 17 And the Lord will bring on you, your people, and your father’s house days that have not come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

If you compare what author of Matthew quoted and reinterpreted, and what are actually written in 7, the author had deliberately used Greek translation and left out 3 vital verses that were vital to Isaiah’s sign.

Isaiah’s original sign was not about the messiah, not about Mary and Jesus, and everything to do with the war Judah was having with Israel and Aram (Isaiah 7:1). The actual sign is about Assyrian intervention in this war, which will occur when the boy (Immanuel) reached a certain age.

So the sign is about event that will occur contemporary with Isaiah, with Ahaz, Pekah and Rezin and with the king of Assyria, Tiglath-pileser (see 2 kings 15:29 & 2 Kings 16:5-9).

I am reading Isaiah as it is written by reading the whole chapter; the author of Matthew isn’t.

The author of Matthew is the “Christian” I am talking about that have changed meanings to OT passages.

Now are you going to ignore my example?

 

[Maximus]

It is not necessarily very lovable for someone such as @Maximus
to call people irrational, but perhaps no harm is meant.

We note, though, that 41 percent of scientists, or ten times as high
a percent as in the population as a whole, are atheists.

The more education a person receives, the more likely they are to become atheists (1). Non belief also increases with intelligence and income. Residents of more educated countries see religion as less important in their daily lives (2).
-psych today

Pew Analysis: The More Formal Education You Have, the Less Religious You Are

...............................

Independent-
Religious people are, on average, less intelligent than atheists, researchers claim.

With the number of people with a religious belief on the rise – it’s predicted that people with no faith will make up only 13 per cent of the global population by 2050 – numerous studies have explored the relationship between religious convictions and IQ.

And now, in a new paper published in Frontiers in Psychology, researchers say that diminished intelligence among people of faith could be because they largely rely on intuition.

It all comes from a place of love @Audie ! Loving someone means sometimes telling them where they are going wrong ;-)

Like "watching a dolphin try to tap dance", many (most in my experience) of the more well-known, modern preachers of the absurd (atheism) are muddled in their arguments. They usually start with a caricature of what 'God' means. So this not a personal attack, just an observation!

I know it can be annoying to just post a link to a video but here is a short (well audio) summary of some of what I mean.

 

[ratiocinator]

It all comes from a place of love @Audie ! Loving someone means sometimes telling them where they are going wrong ;-)

Like "watching a dolphin try to tap dance", many (most in my experience) of the more well-known, modern preachers of the absurd (atheism) are muddled in their arguments. They usually start with a caricature of what 'God' means. So this not a personal attack, just an observation!

I know it can be annoying to just post a link to a video but here is a short (well audio) summary of some of what I mean.

I've seen so many theists going on about atheists being ignorant and having the "wrong idea of god" but I've never seen or heard one come up with a coherent idea of god together with a good reason to take it seriously.

I listened to the start of the video and he was doing exactly the same - I'm not going through the whole lot just in case he's the very first theist I've encountered who has presented an idea of god and a reason to take it seriously.

Can you do that?

 

[rrobs]

It is not necessarily very lovable for someone such as @Maximus
to call people irrational, but perhaps no harm is meant.

We note, though, that 41 percent of scientists, or ten times as high
a percent as in the population as a whole, are atheists.

The more education a person receives, the more likely they are to become atheists (1). Non belief also increases with intelligence and income. Residents of more educated countries see religion as less important in their daily lives (2).
-psych today

Pew Analysis: The More Formal Education You Have, the Less Religious You Are

...............................

Independent-
Religious people are, on average, less intelligent than atheists, researchers claim.

With the number of people with a religious belief on the rise – it’s predicted that people with no faith will make up only 13 per cent of the global population by 2050 – numerous studies have explored the relationship between religious convictions and IQ.

And now, in a new paper published in Frontiers in Psychology, researchers say that diminished intelligence among people of faith could be because they largely rely on intuition.

Blind Statistics (BS) did a survey and found religious people were more intelligent than atheists.

 

[Audie]

It all comes from a place of love @Audie ! Loving someone means sometimes telling them where they are going wrong ;-)

Like "watching a dolphin try to tap dance", many (most in my experience) of the more well-known, modern preachers of the absurd (atheism) are muddled in their arguments. They usually start with a caricature of what 'God' means. So this not a personal attack, just an observation!

I know it can be annoying to just post a link to a video but here is a short (well audio) summary of some of what I mean.

I am not the one off the rails.

I didnt just post a link.

I challenged your claim that atheism is irrational,
backed with multiple sources showing that religiosity
GOES UP AS EDUCATION GOES DOWN.

So you post a vid.

I thouhht you might like to show how the
smartesr, most educated people are irrational
in your figurin'.

Of course you cannot. So you post a vid.

 

[Milton Platt]

I never thought of the fine difference between on believing and not knowing. It's a good point. I guess atheists are more open minded than I thought. Maybe the, "until we do know" part will come true one day. That was my experience. I wasn't born with a Bible in my hands. For 25 years I did the best I could to live and believe in no God. During that time I never considered that I just didn't have enough evidence to believe in God. I unequivocally knew there was no God, and I knew beyond a shadow of doubt that I'd go through my entire life that way. Why people tend to be so closed minded is something hard to understand, but there I was. Of course, as you can tell, I changed my thinking. I can say unreservedly that I like the side of the fence I'm on now. It is one place where I've found the grass to actually be greener.

Most any atheist will tell you that if there was evidence to demonstrate to a reasonable degree that a god existed, then they would obviously have to believe the god existed. Next would come the question of whether the god (or any god) should be revered or worshiped.
There are also anti-theists, who are mostly atheist, but not necessarily.

What changed your mind? What were the facts which were so incontrovertible ?

 

[Milton Platt]

Blind Statistics (BS) did a survey and found religious people were more intelligent than atheists.

Please provide a link

Have you looked up other studies of this subject and compared methodologies and results?

Atheists are more intelligent than religious people, finds study

Are religious people really less smart, on average, than atheists?

Here is one which looks into the particulars and breaks things down:
Did a Study Find That Atheists Are Smarter Than Religious People? Not Quite.

Personally, I think the whole concept of measuring this is fraught with potential problems. It doesn't matter if there are more people of higher intelligence (or more who simply are better at critical thinking and logic) in one group or the other. What matters is whether one's beliefs are based on facts or mythology.

 

[rrobs]

Please provide a link

Have you looked up other studies of this subject and compared methodologies and results?

Atheists are more intelligent than religious people, finds study

Are religious people really less smart, on average, than atheists?

Here is one which looks into the particulars and breaks things down:
Did a Study Find That Atheists Are Smarter Than Religious People? Not Quite.

Personally, I think the whole concept of measuring this is fraught with potential problems. It doesn't matter if there are more people of higher intelligence (or more who simply are better at critical thinking and logic) in one group or the other. What matters is whether one's beliefs are based on facts or mythology.

It's a joke...Blind Statistics...BS...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You mentioned contradictions. Yes there are many apparent contradictions. We can take them as an error on the author's part, or as a misunderstanding on our own part. I always chose the latter

That's where you go wrong. You've made it impossible for you to see a contradiction if you assume before seeing it that it isn't a contradiction, but a misunderstanding.

That's closed-mindedness. You're closing your mind to the possibility of contradiction or other error. What one needs to do to think critically is come to the matter with an open mind, meaning a willingness and ability to consider the argument dispassionately, without preconception or at the least with a suspension of belief or disbelief, with the ability to understand a sound argument, and the willingness to be convinced by it if sound.

I recently encountered this:

• "The things that Jesus had been speaking of—the rise of the Antichrist, the desolation of the Holy Place, and the darkening of the sun—did not happen during the lifespan of people alive in Jesus’ day. Obviously, Jesus meant something different when He spoke of “this generation.” What did Jesus mean when He said, "this generation will not pass"? | GotQuestions.org

He's doing the same thing you're doing. He's assuming that because Jesus didn't return during the lifetimes of the people present when the words were spoken, that can't be what was meant. This is why it is more useful to hear the opinions of an unbeliever regarding scripture than those of a believer. This is how they think.

It's also the mistake the ID people make when they begin their investigation assuming that a god is present. That's not how science or critical analysis is done. Such beliefs color what you see, and so we have creationist scientists telling us that they have found irreducible complexity in systems that aren't irreducibly complex. This has been judged pseudoscience in court.

It's also why medical studies are double-blinded and placebo controlled, so that clinician and patient biases don't affect their reports.

How many ways could one take what you just said? Seems to me like you are asking, "who has the authority to say which meanings are true?" How could I take it to mean anything other than you are asking me who has the authority to say what meaning is true? Pretty straight forward, simple grammar, no big words, easy concepts to grasp. The meaning is crystal clear to any reasonable person who reads it. It says what it means and means what it says. I don't see any need to go to great pains to "interpret" what you are asking. Now apply that to the scriptures and you'll see from whence I am coming. Interpretation of the scriptures is way over blown. Just read what's written and believe it or not.

That's what I generally say about scripture when told that I lack the spiritual discernment necessary to understand its meaning.

Well, given that [scripture] was written thousands of years ago in a different land and culture, it does require a bit of effort to suss out it's true meaning.

Clear language is easily understood. Vague or ambiguous language has no specific meaning. The source may have had a specific meaning in mind, but if he wrote in poetic language rather than precise prose, nobody can say what that was, as with the "this generation" matter.

Some say that the speaker meant the generation present then. Biblical apologists say it referred to the generation that will be present at some future date. The fact is that if the words can be interpreted either way, and the source isn't here to clarify what was intended, nobody can say authoritatively what that was.

Do you really think it not possible we will find even more evidence in the future, maybe even evidence that our theory of evolution is all wrong?

I don't think the theory will ever be overthrown. But consider for a moment the implications of its falsification. Those mountains of data that previously supported the theory now shown to be wrong wouldn't go away. They would need to be interpreted in the light of the falsifying finding, which could only mean that mankind was pranked by a great deceiver that went to great lengths to make man think that evolution as we understand it had occurred, including planting fossils of creatures that never lived such that older and more primitive appearing forms appear in the deepest strata, carefully setting the ratio of radioisotopes to fool man regarding dates, creating all of those nested hierarchies including inserting ERVs into genomes as part of the great deception, scattering the ring species to appear that they had evolved, and the like.

That doesn't rescue Christian creationism, which is already ruled out by that evidence whether naturalistic evolution or a great deception occurred.

Well, given Last Thursdayism is as nebulous as it gets, I don't suppose there are any arguments against it. But then there are really no arguments for it.

The point of Last Thursdayism is to demonstrate that if such a thing had occurred, there might be no evidence that it had, and that intuitions aren't good enough to dismiss the possibility.

It's a similar argument to Descartes demon, brain-in-a-vat, and matrix type arguments that all point out that we cannot crawl out of our theater of consciousness to know about reality, and since experience is generated by the mind, we can't know what underlies it directly, and there must always be some philosophical doubt not just about the nature of reality, but of its existence at all.

Philosophical doubt is doubt that is understood but not felt, unlike psychological doubt, which is experienced as uncertainty. I doubt anybody feels uncertain about whether they've lived more than a week, but we can understand that we have no means to rule the possibility out.

"Peer Review" has been added as the 7th step. I don't know when they sneaked it in there but somebody with a clear understanding of the scientific pecking order and no understanding of metaphysics at all added it in the last several years. Stinkin' data are no longer needed because the opinion of Peers determines what is real and what is not. Only Peers can invent hypothesis or experiment and only Peers can pass judgement on interpretation or whether "experiment" is really necessary in today's fast paced world of government grants and free money. Only Peers determine who can be right. Only Peers determine what can even be considered by other Peers.

Peer review is necessary and helpful. It keeps the quality of published science high. There are those who would pollute it with pseudoscience. They're not very happy about being excluded, but that doesn't matter. Science isn't a public discussion.

Sure, we can all talk about it, but the scientists aren't listening. They don't care what either of us think about scientific subjects. You seem like a creationist (who else is critical that only scientists referee one another?), but even if you were a staunch supporter of the theory of evolution, the scientists still wouldn't care. Why should they?

 

[cladking]

Peer review is necessary and helpful. It keeps the quality of published science high. There are those who would pollute it with pseudoscience. They're not very happy about being excluded, but that doesn't matter. Science isn't a public discussion.

Sure, we can all talk about it, but the scientists aren't listening. They don't care what either of us think about scientific subjects. You seem like a creationist (who else is critical that only scientists referee one another?), but even if you were a staunch supporter of the theory of evolution, the scientists still wouldn't care. Why should they?

If "Peer review" were only to keep the riffraff from getting articles published in mass circulation sources like Scientific American then I would have no problem whatsoever with it. Why shouldn't editors strive to maintain credibility and a high standard? Why publish patent nonsense?

But "Peer review" is now the 7th step of the scientific method. Somebody mustta died and they added this nonsense to the very definition of "science". But Peers as well have fallen for their own hype and they do not consider anything from outsiders regardless if it's far more logical and far better evidenced than their own beliefs. It doesn't matter if the math better supports a new hypothesis or if interpretation of experiment is more logical in this new light, it will never even be considered! Indeed, in at least one field Peers aren't even allowed to see data if they contradict current belief. In this same field other data are massaged and tortured before publication.

There's no question that in EVERY field "Peers" are the best trained and most knowledgeable individuals on the planet but in NO FIELD AT ALL are they necessarily right about anything at all. In EVERY SINGLE FIELD reality is NEVER determined by the vote of Peers but rather is revealed through EVIDENCE, LOGIC, and EXPERIMENT.

We are now entering a new dark ages where money and influence determine what is real and what is not yet no one is screaming about it. We each believe that since technology works so well it must be science that causes it and Peers that allow it.

NONSENSE!

 

[Brickjectivity]

Since it can not be proven there is no God any more than it can not be proven there is a God, it would take no less faith to believe there is no God than it would take to believe there is a God.

Without faith in one or the other, the only true thing someone could say is they don't know if there is not, or there is a God. At least that would accord with the lack of evidence one way or the other.

If there is a difference in the faith required to believe one way or the other, I'd be curious to hear about that difference.

Your OP implies it takes zero faith to believe in God. Its easy not to believe in God. You just don't.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But "Peer review" is now the 7th step of the scientific method. Somebody mustta died and they added this nonsense to the very definition of "science"

More is added than just peer review. What is commonly called the scientific method is similar to the six steps provided on this thread, but the methods of science are more than just designing an experiment and generating a paper, which may be inaccurate.

You added peer review, by which I think you meant other experts in a field judging the quality of a paper and its fitness for publication. The entire process of vetting science is much bigger than the process of generatong papers, which we can call the micro-scientific method.

Studies are subject to peer review before implementation to decide if they are well designed and worth funding, then again afterward to decide if they are worthy of publication, where the interested scientific community can then read them and comment. The studies are often repeated and confirmed, or in some cases, disconfirmed, and errors identified.

The results may then be used to develop technology that may be used to predict and at times control nature, which, when it happens, confirms the validity of the new science they contain.

Multiple related studies are brought together and used to generate scientific theories, from which previously unexpected predictions are made, which, if confirmed, further validate the conclusions. These include the scientific “prophecies” we will be discussing next.

The theories may suggest new avenues of previously unconsidered exploration, which in turn may also bear fruit such as additional useful technology, or suggest even more areas of investigation further vetting the validity the discoveries.

With time, additional confirming observations using unrelated techniques are added, as with evolutionary theory, where 21st century DNA sequencing techniques arrive at the same conclusions as earlier paleontological and biogeographical studies.

After years of such vetting, over which no falsifying observations have been made, only then is it fully vetted science. Information that gets as far as what is described above simply cannot be overturned, just expanded. Scientific theories that have reached this stage include the germ theory of disease, the heliocentric theory, cell theory, the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, quantum mechanical theory, plate tectonic theory, and the theory of relativity.

At this point, they are what can be called settled science. We can call this greater process the macro-scientific method.

Peers as well have fallen for their own hype and they do not consider anything from outsiders regardless if it's far more logical and far better evidenced than their own beliefs

There's no evidence that that is the case. I think you're misinterpreting how and why submitted papers are rejected for publication.

You've also created this idea of the scientists being a closed club protecting their turf from fresh, better ideas. Anybody is free to submit a paper for consideration and expect it to be reviewed impartially by experts, even creationists. They just can't expect it to be accepted by a quality journal if the work isn't up its rigorous standards.

And if rejected by major respected journals, they are always free to publish the paper themselves in a vanity press or one of the creationist sponsored journals created for that purpose.

It doesn't matter if the math better supports a new hypothesis or if interpretation of experiment is more logical in this new light, it will never even be considered

Can you produce an example of an idea that was later shown to be correct but which was initially not even considered? I don't think you can. There are always people interested in considering a new idea, especially scientists.

And as I noted, these kinds of papers can be published elsewhere. If they have merit, somebody will run with them. Somebody in industry perhaps will be interested in the potential there and, if so, fund further research and development in their self-interest.

We are now entering a new dark ages where money and influence determine what is real and what is not yet no one is screaming about it.

You don't need to follow others into darkness. Think for yourself. Question all received wisdom. Believe nothing that isn't supported by reason and any available evidence, and then only tentatively and no more than the quality and quantity of evidence justifies. You'll avoid a lot of errors if you do that.

We each believe that since technology works so well it must be science that causes it and Peers that allow it.

The resounding success of science is all you need to know about it to know that its methods and results are valid.

 

[cladking]

You added peer review, by which I think you meant other experts in a field judging the quality of a paper and its fitness for publication. The entire process of vetting science is much bigger than the process of generatong papers, which we can call the micro-scientific method.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Peer review is not part of the REAL scientific method even though today this is taufght in schools and believed by peers. The opinion of Peers and everyone else is wholly irrelevant to science and experiment..

Multiple related studies are brought together and used to generate scientific theories,

No.

Only experiment constitutes theory.

You don't need to follow others into darkness. Think for yourself. Question all received wisdom. Believe nothing that isn't supported by reason and any available evidence, and then only tentatively and no more than the quality and quantity of evidence justifies. You'll avoid a lot of errors if you do that.

Well sa id but that so few are doing it is EXACTLY what is causing the dark ages.

Can you produce an example of an idea that was later shown to be correct but which was initially not even considered?

Everything we know today was initially rejected. Well... ...almost everything.

There are always people interested in considering a new idea, especially scientists.

Real scientists will often listen and even consider. Most people and this includes even the best scientists have a hard time considering ideas that are foreign to them.

The resounding success of science is all you need to know about it to know that its methods and results are valid.

Like most people your are confusing technology with science and understanding. You don't need to understand gravity to design a counterweight on a machine.

Technology doesn't prove we understand anything at all except how to translate experiment into reality. This is a pretty cheap trick really and there are millions and millions of engineers who are very adept at it.

 

[tas8831]

Another, "clearly you don't understand science" comment. Very old and well worn.

Scientific method summerized:

1. Question
2. Research
3. Hypothesis
4. Experiment
5. Data Analysis
6. Conclusion

There, I understand it. You on the other hand, as shown by your conclusion that I don't understand it, do not understand it. I wish everybody here would read this reply and put the stupid accusation to rest once and for all.

By the way, in case you don't know the method, I should say that the six steps are repeated. Science never rests after reaching a conclusion about something. The door is always open for further question, research, hypothesis, experiment, data analysis, and conclusion. However most of the folks here seem to think that all future conclusions will remain the same, ergo, no need for the other five. Some science that is!

You're a science expert, no doubt.

Odd then that you never present science relating to Genesis.

Or are you one of those folks that has different standards for that?

 

[tas8831]

Peersing wit.

Mebbe it's not Look and See Science but rather Peer and See Science.

And "Peering" must be more exact than "Looking".

Are you some kind of coin collector?

That might explain why you "science" is that of a child.

 

[cladking]

You're a science expert, no doubt.

Is it physically painful when the omniscience of science and your complete understanding of it can't match wits with creationists and the ignorant?

Odd then that you never present science relating to Genesis.

...Like the part that says the universe was made in seven days by an Entity rather than that it sprang from nothing in mo time at all? The math is 7 > 0 and 1 is as well. I don't know how to crunch these numbers much more.

Or are you one of those folks that has different standards for that?

Some people don't believe every answer can be found in experiment.

Are you some kind of coin collector?

That might explain why you "science" is that of a child.

How could I learn to invent insults like this? Just as peers don't define reality, children use the exact same science that everyone else uses. Some people understand science and metaphysics and some don't.


You can do better than this. I've seen you do better.

 

[tas8831]

Peer review is not part of the REAL scientific method

Tell us all about your extensive experience with the REAL scientific method.
Tell us about the time your amazing research on how the pyramids were REALLY constructed conducted, what experiments you did, etc.
Tell us about your scientific method-based work on the 'bifurcated' speech center in the 'middle of the brain' that you are an expert on.

Please enlighten us all.

even though today this is taufght in schools and believed by peers.

Odd - this is a typical presentation of the scientific method used in most textbooks:

since peer review is taught as part of this, perhaps you with your vast fantasy knowledge can show me where it is?

The opinion of Peers and everyone else is wholly irrelevant to science and experiment..

Ah, another rube that does not understand what peer review means.
It is not about opinions, but surely you know that - what with your vast background and expert knowledge n things like "survival of the fittest" and all that.

Only experiment constitutes theory.

scientific theory

noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:the scientific theory of evolution.​

Looks like you knowledge of the basis of science is on par with your knowledge of evolution, neuroscience, and Egyptology.

Everything we know today was initially rejected.

Yes yes yes and 'they laughed at Galileo' too...

Any more goofy tropes to trot out?

Real scientists will often listen and even consider.

And fake ones will continue to regurgitate their error-filled and already refuted claims regarding things like bottlenecks and 'all change is sudden' and the like.

Most people and this includes even the best scientists have a hard time considering ideas that are foreign to them.

Ah, so that must be why you have such a hard time understanding your errors.

 

[tas8831]

You're a science expert, no doubt.

Is it physically painful when the omniscience of science and your complete understanding of it can't match wits with creationists and the ignorant?

Not as painful as seeing the delusional announce their greatness.

Odd then that you never present science relating to Genesis.

...Like the part that says the universe was made in seven days by an Entity rather than that it sprang from nothing in mo time at all?

Yes exactly - there is never anything scientific presented for the 7 day creation tale. And we can add your post to that list of nothing.

The math is 7 > 0 and 1 is as well. I don't know how to crunch these numbers much more.

Such amazing science from the great neuroscientist/evolution expert cladking.

7>0, therefore, science for Genesis?

Wow. amazing...

Or are you one of those folks that has different standards for that?

Some people don't believe every answer can be found in experiment.

Yes - people that realize that there is no evidence of any kind for whatever myths and tales they do so so want to be true,

Are you some kind of coin collector?

That might explain why you "science" is that of a child.

How could I learn to invent insults like this?

Insult?

No, conclusion.

Just as peers don't define reality, children use the exact same science that everyone else uses.

And those children that think they use science just like grown-ups become creationist egotists.

Some people understand science and metaphysics and some don't.

And those that understand neither present themselves as authorities on both, even as they regurgitate the same refuted nonsense that they've been spewing around the web for years.

You can do better than this. I've seen you do better.

You can't.
And besides, when I take the time and invest the effort to 'do better', the usual suspects just omit 70% of the post and focus on tangential minutiae, repeat a bunch of silly slogans, and pretend to have scored grand rhetorical points.
What is the point?

 

[rrobs]

You're a science expert, no doubt.

Odd then that you never present science relating to Genesis.

Or are you one of those folks that has different standards for that?

Yes and no.