Quote:
Originally Posted by seekermeister  Apparently, you did feel that my request was too complex, because you failed to answer it. Instead, you choose your own subject, and instead of links, you copy/pasted, which is an equivalent to links anyway. I and most people can Google for almost any kind of information, in just about any quantity, so you haven't really accomplished anything, except to demonstrate that your greatest skill is to assert either positively or negatively, depending on your bias. |
I'll make this short and to the point. Hopefully you'll be able to comprehend:
If you think I plagiarised my post, can you please provide a link to the page on the Internet I copied and pasted it from? I'll save you some time right now: you won't be able to find it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charbucks Wow, I don't really have anything to add except  Dave. |
Thank you.
::bows::
Quote:
Originally Posted by seekermeister Did you read anything about where I claimed to be a scientist? |
You're trying (unsuccessfully) to argue scientific principles. By loose definition, that does make you a (bad) scientist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seekermeister It does not require a degree in science for anyone to be able to think independently, and that has been the entire object of my posts in this thread. |
You're able to think neither independently nor objectively. You're taking what you heard from Bible class and bringing it straight into this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seekermeister empiracal |
Look, if you're going to use scientific words, please spell them correctly. It's "empir
ical."
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. In this area of knowledge, that amounts to about 10% facts, and 90% speculation. |
Bollocks.
Theories are just that - theories. They can be tested with experiments. If the results of a particular experiment agree with the theory, that theory is strengthened. If the results and the theory conflict, the theory is modified to fit and explain the new-found results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seekermeister Even the facts are subject to change |
What's the speed of light?
This: 299,792,458 m s^-1
It's a universal constant. It will never change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seekermeister But since you obviously feel comfortable putting your faith in this system, why would I want to discourage you? |
Science does not involve faith. It never involves faith. It is a purely objective system.
However, your blessed religion relies solely on faith. Tell me, have you ever seen God? No, I thought not. You rely solely on faith, and hope that God really is there. You invest all of your faith on one book.
Now, I shall repeat myself. This is what is expect of you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Dave So, in conclusion, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. If you think science is still an abomination and is completely useless, I expect from you:
1) A complete scientific rebuttal to everything I have written. Don't spare any information, as I'm smart enough to understand.
2) A well-reasoned, knowledgeable essay on why religion is greater than science.
Until then, don't continue to snipe at people for not believing something with no evidence to ensure its veracity. If you can't produce what I asked for above, then STFU. I don't want to hear from you again until you can produce what I asked for above. |
When can I expect the response I asked for nearly ten posts ago?