What's clear is what I think of your posts. I know pretty much nothing about you as a person.
As if I'm P.C. Come on now. That's not being P.C., it's being realistic. Do you believe that assholes aren't your peers? To someone else, you're an asshole, too. It's not P.C. to recognize that there isn't a straight head on the forum or around you in your life. Everyone's got issues.
Actually, I said it was irrelevant, first, thief.
Because observational evidence strongly supports it. It has been observed in bacterial cultures in the lab where generations of bacteria can pass rather quickly - think of it as an evolutionary high speed camera. The fossil record also supports that likelihood since eons are required to show variation and speciation.
No, it isn't. You seem to be claiming here that I actually believe in the FSM. I would like to think you know better than that...
Yes, I did. You for some unknown reason claiming that I didn't does not mean I didn't- you quoted the answer. If you don't like the answer- tough. If you don't understand the answer- ask for clarification. But I did answer it and I think I answered it well enough.
Given that I used to be in the Ministry, I think you need to make less assumptions. I've given plenty of thought to God. Just because I reached a different conclusion than you have does not mean I gave it no thought. Frankly, I would think I gave it more thoughtful effort than you have because you still believe in the absurd self-contradicting mass of myth.
Talk or don't talk.
as i mentioned, i am glad you use english in the same way as everyone else to say this obvious thing. I am also glad you realize **edit "realize" is the wrong word, sorry, i should have said "already know"** that turning to prayer does not include turning away from doing everything else, and that prayer and surgery are not opposing actions for normal people. That is what i thought you believed, based on your earlier posts, but now i see i was wrong about your belief.
When you can explain the science behind evolution's "demonstrated" lack of intelligent design, you will have a statement that makes sense there. Evolution is a process by which organisms change - you aren't going to get a scientist claiming that dark matter, or some other non-testable, has, or doesn't have, an effect on evolution. They aren't going to consider it information they can include in a theory, any more than what their favorite color is, and just as religious people shouldn't say they are adding explanation of evolution's science by claiming God's hand in it, a scientist can't propose an ethical or spiritual understanding based on the process. I understand it was the religious people who started this mess, proposing that religion had something to say about which theories were scientifically accurate based on religious texts, but there is no reason for anyone to continue this farce that religion and science are two competing explanations of the same phenomena.
I can and I have- in this very thread. Scroll up, I made a rather long reply to Wynn explaining Emergence. In debates against Jan Ardena, I've given more information. It is clearly demonstrated.
And no one has done any such thing.
They are. Science and religion as they stand today are totally incompatible. Check the thread title. Your crusade to spare religion from being held against science or secular practices is getting very annoying.
it is scientifically demonstrated as lacking, without being tested against??? how is that possible? That is technically impossible. You mean to say it is "philosophically" demonstrated as lacking. Un-testables are not scientifically demonstrated.
ethics is not science, and your videos posted about God's evil designs are essentially about ethics. Most of this thread is about ethics actually. You are the one committing the intellectual mistake of using ethical, untestable, points to try to explain science, and then calling the ethics scientific evidence. God designed "bad" designs, and THAT demonstrates scientifically that there are no forces we haven't measured as acting on evolution???? Let me say this again to be clear - there is no major ethical or philosophic point to be proven by science, and ethical points are not scientific. We are never going to show that beating a dog is ethically wrong because science points that out. Some people need to figure that out.
Easy! I never said it was done scientifically!
Wrong. I'm not explaining science.
I never did.
"Peer" does not mean, "kiss butt."
cool.
actually, there aren't. please tell me which principle is incompatible with belief. Do you mean "data"? Was there a scientific principle, or data, that could tell us dark matter didn't exist when people called the "extra stuff" in the universe "aether", or whatever else their misinterpreted, unproven, ideas labeled it as? We certainly didn't have the tools to show science was "incompatible with the belief" in any of that extra stuff, even if it was just a poorly explained, true, idea that there was "more than meets the eye".
ok, if i say you are saying something and you aren't, just let me know.
i wonder if most people in ancient societies didn't just say, "these priests are full of it, there is no reason why it rains, it just rains." Perhaps they were controlled more by force and food than by beliefs. Do we really know that our ancestors were so agreeable, although we moderns all seem to disagree over everything?