Just a question...

It's not fair because Creationism is biased, and not science.The next time you are sick, and need a doctor, don't go visit your creationism buddies, they won't be able to help you.Either God is going to heal you, BY FAITH, or you are going to go to a doctor, who uses science, the same science that defines evolution, and it is true, as is the gospel, truth from God. Maybe God will tell you to go to a doctor.

That was the most ridiculous thing you've ever said.

If science is biased on unbiased objective evidence, then that makes science unbiased, not biased. Negative plus positive, equals negative.bias: A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a preference to one particular point of view or ideological perspective. However, one is generally only said to be biased if one's powers of judgment are influenced by the biases one holds, to the extent that one's views could not be taken as being neutral or objective, but instead as subjective.This description does not fit the definition of science. Science is not subjective.There is a difference between the word "based" and "bias".Edited by riVeRraT, : :

I don't understand what the problem here is. Nator said something that really doesn't make sense, and in a way, you just agreed with me.Mator said, back in message 61 "Science is biased in favor of the evidence as observed. "The evidence as obsevered is unbiased. So in other words, she said, Science is biased in favor of unbiased evidence, which as you just put it is "nonsensical"I can only imagine if I had said the same thing that Nator said, how you would have all broke it down for me, and pointed out how ridiculous of a statment that was. No, that is not what she was saying, thats what I was saying.

That was a direct quote from wikipedia, on the meaning of the word bias, write to them. Maybe you are not clear on the definition of the word bias.

Nator, I know you get it, but it was the way you worded it, and the way you accused me of being wrong, or not entirely correct. I can only imagine if I would have worded it the same way you did.I still say, you cannot say, science is biased on unbiased evidence. The evidence is the root, and if that is unbiased, then so is science.Remember, science is only as good as us, and if we were to find a better way of doing science tomorrow, we would do it, so science itself is not biased on anything. Science can adapt much better BASED on unbiased evidence over things like religion, and your taste buds, which change over time.Bias - WikipediaAnd I wouldn't use the word biased the way you used it to describe what flavors you like. I think that is an incorrect way of using the word. Bias is usually used to describe an unfair, or subjective view on things, not what flavors you like. You just like them, you are not biased towards them. Thats just the way I see it, and reading the definition in wikipedia kind of confirms that for me.

Holy shit nator, I think you are losing it. What did you say? Only if it is creationism. When did I ever say it was biased? Haven't I been trying to say all along that it is unbiased, therefor so is science? That is an example of the word bias being used incorrectly.From:
Bias Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Websteran inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgmentThat does not science's approach on empirical evidence, or any other evidence.The word bias, and scientific method, and or logical have nothing to do with each other. Bias describes the exact opposite of what science is. Science is BASED on empirical evidence, not bias towards it. There is no tendency towards empirical evidence, it is completely relied upon. Where are you getting the idea that I said evidence is biased? You'll have to explain in detail. I don't just think that, it is that, according to the definition of the word biased.Your article does not explain what the word bias means, only uses it.Again, this is the definition from wikipedia, and I would love to see how you can possibly apply this definition to the way sciences uses, and is based upon empirical evidence:

quote:

---

A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a preference to one particular point of view or ideological perspective. However, one is generally only said to be biased if one's powers of judgment are influenced by the biases one holds, to the extent that one's views could not be taken as being neutral or objective, but instead as subjective. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or deny the truth of a claim, not on the basis of the strength of the arguments in support of the claim themselves, but because of the extent of the claim's correspondence with one's own preconceived ideas. This is called confirmation bias.

---

Science is never subjective, and never ignores the truth. Science is never preconceived, or prejudice. science is supposed to be the thing beyond our own biased views. Science does not have a mind, therefor cannot be biased.*edit*
People doing "science" can be biased, i.e. creationism, but thats not real science right? Why? Because they are biased. True science is the opposite of biased. You have been drilling that into our heads for years. Now all of a sudden the story has changed?Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

But you've posted two different definitions of the word bias, and I have yet to see a link showing those definitions.

I will stop, but point out that I introduced that very definition in to the discussion already, and still don't see the relevance.I would love to see what would have happened if I had said the same thing.