Quote:
Originally Posted by seekermeister  I never told anyone what to think or believe, but only to at least think about the matter beyond simply citing scientific quotes. |
Let's see... you said "Therefore, I shall repeat...evolution and the origin of life is simply two sides of the same coin." This is what I referred to as a "glib statement". You then said "But, unless each of you determine for yourselves the validity of this kind of scientific output, instead of allowing science to tell you what to believe, neither you or science will ever begin to fathom any portion of the truth. Don't expect me to tell you what the truth is, because I only know part of it, and that part is what makes it obvious that theories such as these are what I said in the first place...daydreams, or perhaps more aptly daymares."
All that was asked of you is that you back up your statement with some kind of explanation, but instead you rambled on about how we need to investigate for ourselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seekermeister Big Dave said that scientific means of research is empiracal and irrefutable, but at best, that could only be said of the results of their actual experiments, not the conclusions that they extrapolate from them. |
No, what Big Dave said was that "Science has real empirical (look it up, don't ask) and irrefutable evidence to back it up." In this sentence, the adjective "irrefutable" is modifying the noun "evidence". He never said that the conclusions extrapolated from experiments are irrefutable.
Now that we've all agreed on what science is, would you care to explain why you believe evolution and the origin of life to be two sides of the same coin?