nPeace
Veteran Member
We can agree on that.It is only arrogance and self-deception, to think that myths and superstitions would personally threaten any critical thinker.
Is there a reason you did not address the post above that one? If it's that you agree, that's okay.
@Wild Fox I will get back to your post on Wednesday, hopefully.
Thanks, but that wasn't necessary.One does not "believe" in a scientific theory any more than one believes in Earth having a moon. So, here's the actual definition with some explanation:
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.
The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope... -- Scientific theory - Wikipedia
Look. You are using the word appear. What does that say?Absolutely false as it is considered one of the prime bases for the field of biology. Even common sense should tell one this as all material objects appear to change (evolve) over time and genes are material objects.
If I used it and get a different result, what would you say?
I said before that there is good science, and bad. Do you disagree?No, because some use religion as a set of blinders rather that of enlightenment.
I experienced that for myself as I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught us to not accept the science on this and some other things, and I left that church after concluding my undergrad and grad degrees in anthropology when it became painfully aware to me that I and others in that church were being misled. Fortunately, many churches do not teach this use of blinders, including the one I converted to.
Any church that teaches its congregants to turn a blind eye to basic science must be considered bogus because the Truth cannot be relative. The belief in the Creation accounts as somehow being literal history is so nonsensical that one really has to be quite ignorant about theology in order to conclude that this is the only option. The Creation accounts, taken literally, simply are not even remotely logical based on what we now know, especially since we're quite certain at this time that they were designed to teach basic Jewish theology through the use of allegory-- basically what appears to be a reworked Babylonian narrative so as to reflect basic Jewish teachings.
So I don't disagree with anyone who - not turns a blind eye, because for one to turn a blind eye, means that they cannot see - but thinking people can see the difference, so I agree with their ability to use reason, and reject what they can see is not truth.
just as you have your opinions about the Bible, Christians have their opinions about the theory of evolution.
@tas8831 I really was hoping that you would have tried to act mature, and behave civil, but your behavior is becoming more and more obnoxious by the minute. I don't see a need for it. It's the worst I have seen on any debate forum, even worst than ecco's, so you have officially joined him on my ignore list. Goodbye.