Why is science knowledge not considered more important than religious belief?

[stvdv]

Well then that does it...I'm not moving to countries with sharia courts.

Hahaha. We wrote the same, in the same split second.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hahaha. We wrote the same, in the same split second.

It's like we share one brain!
(I see that you're hogging it today.)

 

[stvdv]

It's like we share one brain!
(I see that you're hogging it today.)

Engineers think alike I guess

 

[Revoltingest]

Engineers think alike I guess

Engineers are indeed a type....even
if they've never been trained as one.

 

[Deeje]

Sure. Scientists talking about religion should show their knowledge as well as believers should show their knowledge of science.
Which favours scientists just a bit because it is easyer to learn about religion than about science.

I believe that this is a rather flawed argument......religion is definitely easier to learn than science, but I don't believe that "religion" is a good guide to what the Bible teaches. Like science, "interpretation" is the key.

YEC's for example show a great ignorance for what the Bible teaches regarding creation because the timeframe for the whole event (as indicated in scripture) is not as limited as they imagine. It flies in the face of what science "knows" and therefore is not representative of what truth is contained in the scriptures.

If we understand that a decent understanding of science means that one can recognize what true science "knows" (compared to what theoretical science "assumes" about the many things that it cannot prove) then we will understand that you can't make an assumption into scientific truth by wishful thinking. Suggestions about what "might have" happened, fill the literature but are cleverly hidden in plain sight. That IMO is dishonest.

There is nothing wrong with hypothesising....it is after all, the springboard for all scientific research......but it should be presented as what it is....ideas as to what "might have" happened, and how it "could have" happened. It should clearly indicate it's suggestive nature.....but all the literature is coloured by a theory that pervades most branches of science as a "given"....but the truth is, macro-evolution (that which falls outside of what can be demonstrated by experimentation) is not a real scientific truth at all. It could all change tomorrow with a new discovery. Science fiction cannot become science fact by suggestion.

We are all free to believe whatever we wish, but it should be acknowledged that both sides of this issue require "beliefs" because neither side can "prove" their case. We choose what to believe, based on what we want to believe, for our own reasons.

IMO, our personal beliefs are influenced by our own level of knowledge, and our individual level of spirituality. Scientists who are Christians must work in a very hostile environment with constant challenges to their unpopular position, but their credentials are just as authentic as any others. Their knowledge of science does not dismiss a Creator....in fact, it puts them in a better position to see the flaws in the suggestions made for macro-evolution. They can evaluate the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.

It should be a choice without ridicule. True science does not fight with scripture, though it may fight with "religion".

 

[Deeje]

Yes.
Which is what is so aggravating about beliefs being presented as though it is fact.

Or people who try to argue against something they obviously know nothing about.

Or people who blindly parrot what they like and ignore that which they dislike.

And it does not matter their religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.
Nor does any group have a monopoly on it.

Yep...those things apply equally to both sides.....

We choose which side to take, based on what we want to be true....what appeals to our inner leanings.....but the easiest person on this planet to fool is ourselves. That's a bit sobering, isn't it? Our whole future may depend on our choice in this issue......

 

[Deeje]

The plains apes with modern technology are ruling -- and ruining -- both our worlds.

Your world is based on science which is instrumental in ruining everything you value. Does your religion take you beyond this present world?

My hope for the future does not rely on humans at all. I see this world as belonging to its Maker and our tenancy here has rules that when broken to the extent of ruining the Landlord's property, will rightfully result in eviction. Notice has been served but the bad tenants seem to have no need or desire to stop their ruinous ways......this leaves the owner with only one choice. I believe he has more than enough justification for that eviction.

He will have his property repaired, and invite good tenants to live here forever.....no ruinous course will ever be tolerated again.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That's a bit sobering, isn't it? Our whole future may depend on our choice in this issue......

Our future does depend upon the choices we make, but most importantly, also the actions we take with those choices.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Your world is based on science which is instrumental in ruining everything you value. Does your religion take you beyond this present world?

My hope for the future does not rely on humans at all. I see this world as belonging to its Maker and our tenancy here has rules that when broken to the extent of ruining the Landlord's property, will rightfully result in eviction. Notice has been served but the bad tenants seem to have no need or desire to stop their ruinous ways......this leaves the owner with only one choice. I believe he has more than enough justification for that eviction.

He will have his property repaired, and invite good tenants to live here forever.....no ruinous course will ever be tolerated again.

Another way to consider it is that the Christains and the Muslims have both been evicted.

That the vineyard has been let out to others who are currently tending that vineyard.

God does as God Wills and that path is not always easy to see.

Jesus, as the Christ, did say He will be called by a New Name and that the vineyard will will be a New Jerusalem (Abode of Peace)

Regards Tony

 

[Deeje]

Our future does depend upon the choices we make, but most importantly, also the actions we take with those choices.

I agree......as the old saying goes..."the road to hell is paved with good intentions" (not that I believe in hell, but I understand the moral of the story.)

Actions speak louder than words which is why Jesus can say at the judgment....
"Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’"

It is the ones "DOING" the will of his Father who will enter the Kingdom. That means that even our actions have to be the right ones. The "many" who try to excuse their failed attempts, are utterly rejected. Who would want to be on the receiving end of that?

Another way to consider it is that the Christains and the Muslims have both been evicted.

I see the eviction notice being served on all false worship, no matter the label.
God's command at Revelation 18:4-5 makes our situation very precarious. It requires decisive action.....

"And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues. 5 For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind."

This religious entity is pictured as a harlot called "Babylon the great", who is collectively representing all modes of worship that incorporate any doctrines that originated in ancient Babylon.
There is a core of beliefs that run through all of them....

1) Belief in a multiplicity of gods....trinities of gods, nature gods etc.

2) Belief in an immortal soul as a conscious part of man that survives death or that is reborn into a child at birth.

3) The existence of a place of eternal punishment for the wicked that involves pain and suffering.

4) The good rewarded with life in a blissful place, like heaven.

That the vineyard has been let out to others who are currently tending that vineyard.

Interestingly that parable was applied to the Christians after the Jewish cultivators murdered the owner's son. (Matthew 21:33-41)
It has nothing whatever to do with Baha'i's...sorry. This is why it is dangerous to only know "some" of what scripture teaches.....unless what you believe is based on a thorough knowledge of scripture, you can selectively apply any verses to whatever you want to believe.

God does as God Wills and that path is not always easy to see.

It is called a cramped and narrow road for a reason. (Matthew 7:13-14) "Few" find it because it requires faith and perseverance to stay on a path that has been 'booby trapped' by God's enemy. It isn't God who makes the path difficult to travel. But if you don't believe in the existence of the devil, you will never see the landmines in order to avoid them.

Jesus, as the Christ, did say He will be called by a New Name and that the vineyard will will be a New Jerusalem (Abode of Peace)

Are you referring to Revelation 3:12?
"‘The one who conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem that descends out of heaven from my God, and my own new name."

John also wrote at Revelation 19:12...
"Worship God! For the witness concerning Jesus is what inspires prophecy.”

11 I saw heaven opened, and look! a white horse. And the one seated on it is called Faithful and True, and he judges and carries on war in righteousness. 12 His eyes are a fiery flame, and on his head are many diadems. He has a name written that no one knows but he himself, 13 and he is clothed with an outer garment stained with blood, and he is called by the name The Word of God"

It is interesting that Jesus is the one who has many names depending upon the role that he is playing....the "new name" that he is given in Revelation is a name that "no one knows but he himself".....So this is a role that Jesus has not played before. It is a whole new set of circumstances where Christ becomes a King and is granted rulership over mankind. But Jesus has always been God's "Logos" ..."the Word".....God's spokesman.

The results of which we see in Revelation 21:2-4....

"I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

This coincides with the time that satan is thrown into an abyss for 1000 years and Christ is granted rulership over mankind in "the New Jerusalem".

Revelation 12:7-12 makes no sense if satan and his angels do not exist....
"And war broke out in heaven: Miʹcha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. 10 I heard a loud voice in heaven say:

“Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! 11 And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death. 12 On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing that he has a short period of time.”

We believe that we have been witnessing these events since 1914 when the "last days" of this system of things began. "Woe for the earth" is reaching its horrible end, but there is a bright light at the end of this dark tunnel.....the established Kingdom of God bringing the faithful ones on earth, through to God's promised conclusion.

I don't know what Baha'i would make of those scriptures.....?

Getting back to the topic....does science influence much of your religious beliefs Tony?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Getting back to the topic....does science influence much of your religious beliefs Tony?

I see Science is an intrinsic necessity to understand sound and reasoned Faith. Without it, we build strong, veiled and fallible doctrines.

I see that Baha'u'llah has come in the Station of the Father Deeje. The New Name means the "Glory of God" or "Glory of the Lord".

I apologise for my frank answers, as I see the world needs to know this is so and it is the hesitation of people to consider if it is possible, as to why the world is as it is.

The prophecy unanimously points to the Message given by Baha'u'llah and how that all that unfolded. So many prophecies all validated.

What can I say, I can convince no person that is so. I have had many conversations with my JW friend and that proves to me that it is only God that changes what our heart sees.

I do know as this all becomes apparent, as the future unfolds, we will all have to face increasingly difficult times that will challenge our innermost existence and personal grasp on truth.

Our One God has a plan and that plan is continually unfolding.

Regards Tony

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Unfortunately it is all of science, the scientific method itself. (Because all of science rests on that and you can't just reject only one field.)

In the interest of the OP and similar current threads, it is worth noting that few things have done more harm to public misunderstanding and misconceptions of scientific inquiry than that pernicious, fundamentally misleading myth of The Scientific Method. There is no set of step-wise procedures that common to all sciences that can serve to characterize them or that form the foundations of either scientific knowledge or scientific activity. We do have methods, At a highly schematic level, many of these can be grouped together in ways that are common to many fields. But however one does this, it will remain the case that such a characterization incorrectly includes non-scientific fields and excludes scientific ones. Additionally, it will remain possible for any such classification to either admit as scientific that which isn't (and indeed may be pseudoscience), exclude genuine scientific theories and knowledge, or both.

 

[Heyo]

There is nothing wrong with hypothesising....it is after all, the springboard for all scientific research......but it should be presented as what it is....ideas as to what "might have" happened, and how it "could have" happened. It should clearly indicate it's suggestive nature.....but all the literature is coloured by a theory that pervades most branches of science as a "given"....but the truth is, macro-evolution (that which falls outside of what can be demonstrated by experimentation) is not a real scientific truth at all. It could all change tomorrow with a new discovery. Science fiction cannot become science fact by suggestion.

Thank you for being an example for my case.
The above shows that you don't know (or, better, don't want to know, as it has been explained to you) how hypothesis become theories. Your misinterpretation of science is rooted in the (wilful) ignorance of the scientific process.
I think it would only be fair that you'd state that you failed to understand (or aren't allow to understand) how scientists come to their conclusions. (It's not necessary here on RF, everybody already knows.)

 

[Heyo]

In the interest of the OP and similar current threads, it is worth noting that few things have done more harm to public misunderstanding and misconceptions of scientific inquiry than that pernicious, fundamentally misleading myth of The Scientific Method. There is no set of step-wise procedures that common to all sciences that can serve to characterize them or that form the foundations of either scientific knowledge or scientific activity. We do have methods, At a highly schematic level, many of these can be grouped together in ways that are common to many fields. But however one does this, it will remain the case that such a characterization incorrectly includes non-scientific fields and excludes scientific ones. Additionally, it will remain possible for any such classification to either admit as scientific that which isn't (and indeed may be pseudoscience), exclude genuine scientific theories and knowledge, or both.

I know that the "soft" sciences are a bit weak on methodology but I can't think of any example in the natural sciences over at least the last 50 years where any pseudoscience has entered a scientific journal or any science has been omitted. Can you point to an example?

 

[Milton Platt]

Here is something to consider: in the last 100 years, humans have become the masters of absolutely incredible technologies -- technologies that will eventually, in all likelihood, give us the power to create and/or destroy whole worlds, or to increase the human life-span, or to repair catastrophic injuries, or to leave our own earth and seek some otherwhere to carry our species (or whatever we become).

But far, far too few of us know much of anything at all about science, and far too many of us reject science altogether when it conflicts with our religious beliefs and prejudices, or just conflicts with out understanding of our own human nature.

But that means, and I think this is an incredibly important consideration, that although there must be somebody controlling the direction that science is taking us and will take us -- it will not be the vast majority of us. Because we refuse to know enough about it.

Who do you want mapping your future, and the future of your world? For myself, I would really like to be part of the decision-making process, even though my own science knowledge is limited. For that reason, as limited as it is, I at least make an effort to keep up, and to understand some of the basics.

I think science is considered more important, even by most of those who say otherwise. When a religious person becomes seriously ill, they usually run to the doctor, not the church. They say their god is the center of their life, but only an hour or two of time a week (if that) is spent worshiping. the rest of the time, they are depending on the various fields of science to get through life.

 

[Deeje]

I see Science is an intrinsic necessity to understand sound and reasoned Faith. Without it, we build strong, veiled and fallible doctrines.

Science certainly has a role to play, but the kind of science that removes God from his own creation is not part of his plan for the human race. Humans who think too highly of their own intelligence will ultimately find out that they were not as smart as they assumed they were. Even now their creations are showing up the fact that they are planning their own extinction....but they seem oblivious....

I see that Baha'u'llah has come in the Station of the Father Deeje. The New Name means the "Glory of God" or "Glory of the Lord".

The name Jesus has in Revelation 19:12 is known only to himself Tony...how does that fit in with Baha'i beliefs about Baha'u'llah? ( I seriously don't even know how to pronounce his name)

I apologise for my frank answers, as I see the world needs to know this is so and it is the hesitation of people to consider if it is possible, as to why the world is as it is.

Only people who care about how earth's future might impact on themselves and their loved ones will think to ask about the state of the world as to what it might mean for the future. Considering God's hand in earth's affairs isn't even on their radar. But all this was prophesied thousands of years ago...and here we are witnessing it. We know how it ends.

The prophecy unanimously points to the Message given by Baha'u'llah and how that all that unfolded. So many prophecies all validated.

Or it points to the prophesies of Jesus himself about the "end of the age" that is connected to his second coming....also validated. (Matthew 24:3-14) None of what Jesus promised is fulfilled in Baha'u'llah's words or his mission. He came from the wrong direction. Islam has no claim on Jesus Christ. They do not recognize him as "the son of God" which negates the whole reason for his coming in the first place. He came as "redeemer" to buy back the human race with his life.....but his second coming was to bring the world to an accounting...to judge them, and to carry out the sentence that God's justice demands.

The coming of the kingdom is not something we have to wait for....when Jesus was to come as judge, the separation of humans on earth was to determine their destiny.....Jesus along with his angelic forces was to pass sentence and carry it out without delay. Christ has not come as judge yet.....he is present however, guiding his disciples in the work that he commissioned them to do during these last days. (Matthew 28:19-20)

What can I say, I can convince no person that is so. I have had many conversations with my JW friend and that proves to me that it is only God that changes what our heart sees.

This is true....only God can reveal his truth to those whose heart is searching for him.
Its amazing to me that we can all have such diverse views as to what is truth....and yet be so far apart in our beliefs and expectations. I guess we have to have what God is looking for....

I do know as this all becomes apparent, as the future unfolds, we will all have to face increasingly difficult times that will challenge our innermost existence and personal grasp on truth.

Our One God has a plan and that plan is continually unfolding.

What God started in Eden, he will finish to his satisfaction, as the seventh day concludes with his declaration that everything is again...."very good". (Isaiah 55:11) He always finishes what he starts. He will not fail to fulfill his purpose.
I believe that we still have a thousand years to go before we hear that final declaration, but the planet that he envisioned with one race of obedient mankind taking care of his earth and each other as they were first instructed to do, will be a reality. (Revelation 21:2-4) Nothing of this old world will remain.

Its a wonderful thing to look forward to.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I know that the "soft" sciences are a bit weak on methodology but I can't think of any example in the natural sciences over at least the last 50 years where any pseudoscience has entered a scientific journal or any science has been omitted. Can you point to an example?

The issue is the assumption that one can adequately classify or characterize the natural sciences or the sciences more generally by The Scientific Method (TSM) myth such that these sciences exist as such, and secondarily that such a generalization of actual methods used serves to demarcate the sciences (natural or otherwise) from other fields or from pseudoscience.
It is in the physical/natural sciences that I am thinking of foremost here, mostly because of my own background and familiarity. But also because it is in physics especially that The Scientific Method myth described in textbooks and popular science falls flat before it starts. Before finishing their dissertations, graduate students in the physical sciences tend to specialize either as theorists or experimentalists, and thus a large number (perhaps a majority) of physicists derive theories and otherwise further their own fields without any experimental basis or even experience. Decades can go by before experimentalists have sufficiently worked out ways to test even fairly basic tenets of foundation physical theories such as general contextuality and nonseparability in QM or gravitational waves in GR. Experimentalists tend to work separately and independently from theorists, so that the whole start of TSM in terms of formulating some hypothesis in order to test it falls flat. The first tests and the most important ones are fleshed out theoretically via something like inequality derivations, symmetries of some relavant Lagrangian, etc. The entire measurement scheme in QM is now so sufficiently advanced beyond any actual experimental realization that to the outsider it is indistinguishable from mathematical physics.
And that'ss for physical theories that HAVE corresponding empirical evidence. Meanwhile, string theory in its various incarnations persists after some 50+ years without a single shred of a hint as to how it could possibly be empirically tested as it isn't formulated sufficiently coherently enough for theorists to formulate the kind of derivations that we find in e.g., EPR(B) or Bell or CHSH. The standard model includes gravitons as the bosonic representation of the gravitational force despite the fact that we have 0 shreds of evidence for such a QFT-theoretic entity/amplitude and it is in contradiction with our actual, tested gravitational theory.
Then there is the fact that rather than the hoped for replacement of divergences and the renormalization scheme in QED, the infinities carried over into QCD and the entire conceptual framework for QFT in HEP was replaced with that of effective field theories in which we are satisfied empirically if our theories predict infinitely wrong results so long as we can consistently regularize or renormalize the infinities and set the resulting "net" infinity equal to the measured value.
That is before one even gets started on the ways in which the presentation of TSM myth in terms of steps going from some hypothesis to confirmation/falsification to theory even gets started. Once we start in on this mess, we are immediately faced with the fact that there exists no such step-wise procedure in practice, hypotheses are generated from and tested within theories, and falsification is at best a vast oversimplifcation of a far more nuanced process of modifcation, generalization, combination, and extension of theories and scientific frameworks. The descriptions one finds of TSM in textbooks and popular science resemble more closely the kinds of pseudoscientific descriptions I've been shown by those who wish to support claims about the paranormal, parapsychology, quack medicine, etc. Heck, creationists tend to use this mischaracterization of the actual process of scientific inquiry by noting that one cannot reproduce tests about what happened in the past or similar such nonsense.
Observations, on the other hand, are heavily theory-laden and one cannot generally either confirm or falsify observations in actual practice in the manner described by TSM myth. It is hard to imagine, for example, how one would show empirically independently of theory anything about elementary particles when they are group-theoretic entities most of which are in some sense virtual or potentially virtual and none of which are actual particles (although it is an open question whether or not they can be described as in some sense quantum mechanical particles).
Observational processes in most sciences, particularly the so-called "hard" sciences, rely increasingly on sophisticated technology and mathematical machinery that correspond to the actual data used by scientists in research papers only by being built upon a massive web of interconnecting theories before one even gets to the ways in which the observations are interpreted according to the framework out of which the research stems.
Different sciences can have more in common with other non-sciences than with other sciences. None follow the TSM myth and it makes no sense in any event outside pseudo-historical oversimplifications. The idea that the sciences are united by adherence to a single scientific method that distinguishes them from non-sciences is a pedagogical relic that should have been abandoned decades ago if it was ever appropriate at all (and groups like the NAS and AAAS have devoted a fair amount of time collecting the relevant literature on just exactly how misleading this notion is into publications intended for educational policy makers).

 

[Deeje]

Thank you for being an example for my case.
The above shows that you don't know (or, better, don't want to know, as it has been explained to you) how hypothesis become theories. Your misinterpretation of science is rooted in the (wilful) ignorance of the scientific process.

I know what the "scientific process" involves...I have interacted with the science buffs here on RF and other sites for many decades and you know what? They never change their tune......"You don't understand science" is like me telling you that "you don't understand the Bible"......

When science makes claims that are not true, why is it so offensive to you to be confronted with the facts that are obvious to everyone who reads those supposed evidences for macro-evolution?
The fact is a very inconvenient one....you have no solid evidence that macro-evolution, on the scale suggested by science, ever happened. You assume that it did....based on what..adaptation? We both know that adaptation is a proven process seen in laboratory experiments...but there is no real evidence that adaptation can take any species outside of its taxonomy. This is why they have to call those four-legged furry little pakicetus' "whales", when we can see that they are nothing of the sort.

Don't you find that a bit embarrassing ? Is "thought to be" a scientific term?

Here is an artist's impression of the size comparison.....

I have never seen convincing evidence that what science suggests has any genuine scientific evidence to back it up. All I see is conjecture.....assertions.....and lots of suggestions.....but nothing concrete.

I think it would only be fair that you'd state that you failed to understand (or aren't allow to understand) how scientists come to their conclusions. (It's not necessary here on RF, everybody already knows.)

It really rattles you mob, when your precious theory is questioned....doesn't it? Instead of the empty arguments, lets see the evidence that you have for your first premise.....after all, nothing else matters in this argument. If your first premise fails, then all you have built on it crumbles too.

If it is as substantiated as you assume it is, and that there is literally "mountains of evidence" that convinces you that a single celled organism, that just 'popped' into existence one day for no apparent reason, fully equipped to transform itself undirected over millions of years into all the lifeforms that have ever existed on this planet.....lets see some real evidence for that.....no assumptions...no assertions...and no guesswork. Please show us how you know that it actually happened......you'll be the first.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

You've heard of something called the human species? That's us.

Think of it this way -- in a pandemic, if only 25% of US refuse to obey the rules for containing it, ALL of US will just have to get used to getting sick and dying at much higher than usual rates. There are, in fact, some things that we really are "all in it together." Management of this planet, and our technologies, seem to me to be a couple of those things.

Greetings. I meant the us from this statement:

"But far, far too few of us know much of anything at all about science, and far too many of us reject science altogether when it conflicts with our religious beliefs and prejudices, or just conflicts with out understanding of our own human nature."
​

Given that a person's knowledge of anything is individual I am trying to understand who you are defining as the "us" that fits into your above statement. So called "religious" people or both religious and non-religious people. Or possible the "us" of members on RF or just the ones on the forum who hold by certain views?

Also, you saying that the "us" you are refering to take issue with a particular discipline of science, all disciplines from competant sources, or just "bro science" i.e. people on the net claiming to represent science who themselves have never learned it or done it from valid sources?

 

[Heyo]

I know what the "scientific process" involves...I have interacted with the science buffs here on RF and other sites for many decades and you know what? They never change their tune......"You don't understand science" is like me telling you that "you don't understand the Bible"......

When science makes claims that are not true, why is it so offensive to you to be confronted with the facts that are obvious to everyone who reads those supposed evidences for macro-evolution?
The fact is a very inconvenient one....you have no solid evidence that macro-evolution, on the scale suggested by science, ever happened. You assume that it did....based on what..adaptation? We both know that adaptation is a proven process seen in laboratory experiments...but there is no real evidence that adaptation can take any species outside of its taxonomy. This is why they have to call those four-legged furry little pakicetus' "whales", when we can see that they are nothing of the sort.

Don't you find that a bit embarrassing ? Is "thought to be" a scientific term?

Here is an artist's impression of the size comparison.....

I have never seen convincing evidence that what science suggests has any genuine scientific evidence to back it up. All I see is conjecture.....assertions.....and lots of suggestions.....but nothing concrete.



It really rattles you mob, when your precious theory is questioned....doesn't it? Instead of the empty arguments, lets see the evidence that you have for your first premise.....after all, nothing else matters in this argument. If your first premise fails, then all you have built on it crumbles too.

If it is as substantiated as you assume it is, and that there is literally "mountains of evidence" that convinces you that a single celled organism, that just 'popped' into existence one day for no apparent reason, fully equipped to transform itself undirected over millions of years into all the lifeforms that have ever existed on this planet.....lets see some real evidence for that.....no assumptions...no assertions...and no guesswork. Please show us how you know that it actually happened......you'll be the first.

Please show us how you know that it actually happened......you'll be the first.

It has been shown to you multiple times.
But I guess it wasn't in a form that is equivalent to a good science education. I offer to give you one. (Did that to others here, maybe even to you before?) If you accept and don't drop out you'll understand and accept the ToE like everyone who got an education.
I don't currently know how deep your ignorance goes, so it may be a long process. As I said, science is hard and often a failure to understand isn't in the subject itself but deep down in the chain, like someone apparently not understanding calculus who in reality doesn't understand fractions.
Do we have a deal?