We know perfectly well that you take an anti-scientific attitude whenever science contradicts your beliefs. Denying it is foolish.
quote: If you absolutely know something is the truth revealed by God, it can't be anti-science to treat it as the known truth.
Your personal delusions are not science - not even a genuine divine Revelatiin would be science.
quote: It's just as scientific as any source of knowledge, or truth about the physical world, and far more reliable than any conclusions the fallen human mind can come up with.
One of the greatest strengths of science - the reason WHY it is reliable - is that it does its best to avoid the weaknesses of the human mind. Which is more than can be said for your beliefs. Not surprisingly science is the far more reliable of the two.
quote: "Science" simply means "knowledge," you know.
In an archaic usage. So even this represents an equivocation.
Dishonestly trying to cover up the obvious truth does you no favours, Faith.
quote: Of course you suggest two things are mutually exclusive, science, and the weakness of the human mind. But human minds came up with science, so who is to say that science is reliable, based on your reasoning? For under your own logic that would mean science could somehow be imperfect because of those weaknesses.
Wrong. I suggest that science takes measures to avoid the weaknesses of the human mind. And that makes it better than just really strongly believing something, which is what Faith offers as "science"
quote: Confirmation evidence isn't enough to change the belief God created the world, especially if that evidence is circumstantial and tenuous, like with argued transitionals which are later abandoned. For example they used to argue the mesonychids were whale ancestors (probably spelt that wrong) but now they tend to argue it's the artiodactyls.
You can put your personal beliefs above science but that doesn't make them science. Nor does science's willingness to revise conclusions when better evidence arrives mean that science is worse than faith. Being open-minded and admitting your errors is better than making excuses to pretend you were right all along.
quote: Now I am not arguing all these things here obviously, my only point is this; imagine ditching the belief God created the world because they found rhodocetus (evidence) only to later be told that this is now NOT evidence of whale evolution.
Only an idiot would change their mind that God created the world based on the find of a single transitional fossil - but I don't see why being told a falsehood makes it any worse. Rhodocetus is still evidence for the evolution of whales - speculative elements like the assumed tail fluke aren't even reasons for thinking that it is a transitional in the first place.
quote: Try to deal with the claims people make instead of constantly referring to the person in some way
The claim being made is that Faith is not anti-science. How can that be answered without referring to Faith ?
quote: Since you are unable to recognize an obvious misreading and obviously misread it yourself, end of subject.
Since I can prove my case and you can't you lose. And I'll defend that any time. A Great Debate thread if you wish.
quote: You have to desire salvation from the heart, ask for it with some persevering sincerity and be willing to accept some things that right now you don't accept (I had to accept lots of things that as a former liberal I thought I could never accept), all sorts of tests of that necessary sincerity, though God does help us with lingering unbelief if we ask for that too with the same sincerity.
In other words you lied and I called your bluff. It's funny how "Christians" try to make it sound so easy while hiding a whole lot of other conditions.
Remember what you said:
But you are welcome to join us any time by simply asking God to save you
In fact I can't seriously want something that makes no sense to me, nor can I say that I will automatically accept any beliefs you choose to tell me are essential. So I guess that your hidden conditions make it far from "simple".
Yes, well, one would think a person would know you can't ask God for something in such a cavalier way, but OK I wasn't specific enough and you can use the occasion to be right about something it would be better not to be right about.
In fact I did realise that you were lying. And what is it that it "would be better not to be right about" ? And why ?
quote: No I wouldn't debate you on the meaning of the Bible.
In other words I am willing to back my claim up - and you are not.
Maybe you realise that misrepresenting a pathetically bad commentary is not exactly a good argument. Or maybe I am expecting too much of you.
quote: I'm sure it's a good thing that I don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Certainly you don't like it when your ridiculous errors get brought to light.
But enough of that. Your attempt to deny that you are anti-science based on definition games and false pride in your own beliefs has failed. As anyone with any sense would expect. And that really is an end to that.
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge. 7. skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
When we describe you as anti-science we usually refer to the second meaning, although the third could equally well apply. And yet your argument refuses to even accept that those definitions exist.
So yes, you are playing a definition game by ignoring definitions that are much more common and more applicable before we even get into the question of whether your belief counts as knowledge.
...however, de novo evolution out of non-coding genomic regions is emerging as an important additional mechanism. This process appears to provide raw material continuously for the evolution of new gene functions, which can become relevant for lineage-specific adaptations.