• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Irony of the evolutionary belief

Please show how that is "circular reasoning".
In fact you are demonstrably wrong. One more time. Science has to be testable to be science. I can explain to you various ways that it can be and has been tested. You cannot cheat and test it with questions that you already know the answers to. That is what Kent Hovind does when he creates a hypothesis.

You appear to be projecting again.
Secular Science was exposed centuries ago, by true scientists. The charges still remain unchallenged so the charges are damning. No outside independent questions or scrutiny is allowed by pseudo science. You can only question after you have taken the kool aid
 
Ah you mean consilience. That is what the theory of evolution is supported by. You keep demonstrating that you have no concept of the sciences and you especially have no understanding of the theory of evolution, how it is tested, or the evidence for it.
But the science you're referring to can be summed up easily. It's simply subjective circular reasoning, it's not accountable and it's not supported by any facts. I don't know how much more fake something can be
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Secular Science was exposed centuries ago, by true scientists.
There is no such thing as "secular science", there is only science (which follows the scientific method) and pseudoscience which does not in my view.
The charges still remain unchallenged so the charges are damning. No outside independent questions or scrutiny is allowed by pseudo science. You can only question after you have taken the kool aid
Still flat out ignoring the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial in my view.
 
You used a lying source. It does not matter what the video says. One of Ray Comfort's favorite techniques is to edit out the answers he does not like and put in other sound bites instead.

If you want evidence, once you learn what is and what is not evidence I will gladly give you plenty.
I got ya, so you're advising me to drink the kool aid and then come back and you'll tell me stories. Sorry, but I refuse to drink that stuff
 
Um, bringing a charge against someone *is* accusing them in my view.
No, there is a difference. An accusation assumes a crime has been committed but a charge is a please explain, meaning no obvious crime has been committed but if the charges are not defended it suggest the charged party is hiding a crime
 

McBell

Unbound
No, there is a difference. An accusation assumes a crime has been committed but a charge is a please explain, meaning no obvious crime has been committed but if the charges are not defended it suggest the charged party is hiding a crime
As shown in post # 3345, the dictionary disagrees with you.
 
Oh my, more breaking of the Ninth Commandment.

Why are you afraid to learn what evidence is in the sciences? This is not just used in evolution, all sciences rely on the same basic concept of evidence.
There are too many conflicting sciences to get my head around. They all have different theories and use different methods to float their strawman
 
Scientific peer review is "independent scrutiny" in my view.
In the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial the people scrutinising evolution were proponents of Intelligent Design, that counts as independent scrutiny in a court of law in my view.
I know all about how asking the Mafia to scrutinize the Mafia works. What I'd like to see is an independent review
 
There is no such thing as "secular science", there is only science (which follows the scientific method) and pseudoscience which does not in my view.

Still flat out ignoring the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial in my view.
No, there are many sciences. You wouldn't know about them because they are banned by secular science as they expose it.
 

bring charges​

idiom


: to formally accuse someone of a crime
After completing a full investigation of the vandalism, they did not have enough evidence to bring charges.

“Bring charges.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Definition of BRING CHARGES. Accessed 29 Apr. 2024.
Donald Trump has many charges against him, but he has t not been convicted of many at all. Only the convictions stand, charges are like water off a ducks back, if they don't stick
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I know all about how asking the Mafia to scrutinize the Mafia works.
More breaking of the ninth commandment in my view.
And ironic to ad-hominem the scientific community as being or being like the Mafia after your words about how "when you have no defense you resort to playing the man instead of the ball", That is not just playing one man, it is playing every man and woman who is part of the scientific community in my view.
What I'd like to see is an independent review
Independent of what? Science? The legal system? You get reviews that are independent of the facts from church preachers like Ray Comfort in my view.
 
Top