A personal relationship with God.

Your attempts at pretending to be stupid are very convincing.

Oh, and your cut and pasting is excellent. Lovely pictures by the way.

Perhaps you should go on to finger painting ?

I think we have discovered the limits of your language ability. I am indifferent to your ignorant posts.

That is exactly my point...you see?

Have you given up trying to be stupid and now you are trying to be funny ?

Damn if you arent the dumbest little bunny I have ever met.

People are biased, science can have strong bias, but science is not biased ?

Please tell me you are doing hard drugs, otherwise your stupidity seems endless.

Philosophy by definition can not use the scientific method.

Apply it and see how far you get.

You write this garbage and you think you have been clever ?

Admit to trolling and get some formal training.

The Laws of Thermodynamics that you have read a comic book about are not true ?

Stupid again ? What happened to humuor ? Did you give up ?

Dont blame science. You are arguing because you have no real knowledge of the use of the English language.

Read back and see how many words you have learnt so far.

For a belligerant fool you have learnt a lot.

I usually use my middle finger when I'm at it.

Exactly! I explained it earlier....

This is the steps of the "scientific method."
1. Ask and define the question.
2. Gather information and resources through observation.
3. Form a hypothesis.
4. Perform one or more experiments and collect and sort data.
5. Analyze the data.
6. Interpret the data and make conclusions that point to a hypothesis.
7. Formulate a "final" or "finished" hypothesis.

Did he guess it, or did he follow the scientific method?

Since we're at it...you have to know how to spell first before correcting anything coming from me... it is not "belligerant" ...it's "belligerent"....

No doubt you have to use it a lot (the middle finger).

It is the only philosophy you understand.

You do not understand evolution depsite having read a whole couple of pages on it :

Name me one change in evolution that was not an accident.

Science has dogma,

by definition dogma is :
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

As you deny this statement applies to science, we can conclude that science has no authoritative principles, beliefs, or statements of opinion, especially ones considered to be absolutely true. To which you responded :

and you also provided your version of the scientific methodology :
Quote:

But you cant see authoritative principles, beliefs, or statements of opinion, in the scientific method ?

no, science finds facts.

You say stupid things like science finds truths.

..no, science finds facts.

There is always a differing opinion, as in a dogma.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation. Note it is NOT a truth.

I understand you are unemployed and wish to work at a meaningless job like spell checker.

However, I have gone back through your spelling and find you unsuitable.

Maybe you can get a job digging ditches if you dont philosophize too much.

I'm not restricted from using any part of my body the way I want...

that's exactly what it takes to understand evolution...a couple of pages...

other than the opinion of some creationists who deliberately have changed the concept to conform to their own agendas.

even if I provided you with the evidence, explained it to you in great details...you would not get it

because your ideas are centered on logical fallacies derived from creationism

Isn't "fact" something we know to be true, in terms of data, information?

Science has dogma

It is not

it is not my own version

Antony van Leeuwenhoek (an introduction to this unlikely scientist, who discovered bacteria, while struggling against the scientific dogma of the contemporary scientific establishment);

Kary Mullis, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field (Pantheon: January 2000); [This is a review of a book by Kary Mullis, a Nobel Laureate scientist, who has been seriously at odd with the dogmas of the scientific establishment and community.]

Robert D. Reynolds, "Heresy or Nobel Prize Winning Work?", Trends, May 1994; [The author narrates how a young, eccentric professor of science at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, faced opposition of his dogmatic colleagues against his application for tenure, who subsequently received a Nobel Prize.]

Rosalyn S. Yalow, "Review and Scientific Progress", R&D Innovator Volume 2, Number 1 January 1993; [Nobel-Prize winning physiologist explains that there are scientific dogmas and how those dogmas have sway over the scientific establishment and the scientific community.]

(dogma) That only applies to religion

scientists find whether a proposition is true (factual, based on data) by submitting it to rigorous tests.

science is in pursuit of the absolute truth

PQ's enquiry about "personal God experiences" has little to do with "science" unless it can be demonstrated that such experiences can be experimentally induced.

Except your brain..it remains unusable.

that's exactly what it takes to understand evolution...a couple of pages...

Darwin writes an introductory book but you know it all from a couple of pages ? Because you watched a video on Evolution 101 ???

There is no end of guessing with you.

I have never read a creationist argument in detail.

But dont let facts stop you. They havent yet...

Antony van Leeuwenhoek (an introduction to this unlikely scientist, who discovered bacteria, while struggling against the scientific dogma of the contemporary scientific establishment)

Kary Mullis, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field (Pantheon: January 2000); [This is a review of a book by Kary Mullis, a Nobel Laureate scientist, who has been seriously at odd with the dogmas of the scientific establishment and community.]

Robert D. Reynolds, "Heresy or Nobel Prize Winning Work?", Trends, May 1994; [The author narrates how a young, eccentric professor of science at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, faced opposition of his dogmatic colleagues against his application for tenure, who subsequently received a Nobel Prize.]

Creationists and other science-haters often claim that scientists are dogmatic. Frequently they’ll say something about “dogmatic Darwinists” keeping “Intelligent Design” or “Creation Science” down, but just as often the accusation will be directed toward science and scientists in general.

Carlin claims that Absolute Truth "is essential" to science. It is not. In fact, the best science recognizes the basic uncertainty of human knowledge, and by this recognition frees itself from the dogmatic belief that once a problem appears to be solved, it is solved for good.

http://tech.mit.edu/V113/N6/king.06o.html

Unlike Kuhn, we believe that dogmatic teaching of science is not advisable in any sense or stage of the educational process, for scientific practice depends on rational inquiry, and rational inquiry in turn depends on critical thinking.

even if I provided you with the evidence, explained it to you in great details...you would not get it

What an excuse...

I suppose the sun was in your eyes too!

My Poor Baby.

I repeat, name me one change in evolution that was not an accident.

Your lack of knowledge and assumptions are boundless.

I subscribe to evolution, not creationism, dickhead.

But dont let facts stop you..

they only confuse you, dont they ?

Science has dogma

It is not

Can you see how stupid you are ?

it is not my own version

Yes, it is because you have memorised it without understanding any of it.

You cant see that it has authoritative principles, beliefs, or statements of opinion.

Perhaps a reference ?

Are you certain(whether dogma applies to religion) ?

And you think philosophy is a science ?

science is in pursuit of the absolute truth

But it is never successful ?

Evolution is half thought out ?

The Laws of Thermodynamics are vague ?

The Speed of Light is a maybe ?

Damn if you arent the dumbest dipshit I have ever met.

I look forward to you checking my spelling and not your own.

It is a mindless task that is suited to your ability

Not only have I read a couple of pages on evolution, but also books on cellular biology, taxonomy, and cosmology....oh, oh, and videos on evolution.

You haven't read anything in detail...

There is no end of guessing with you.

No guessing, please...just think rationally.

Sure...I won't let them(facts) stop me.

You cant read can you. I write unusuable and you read unstable.

Obviously you didnt understand any of it so no one is going to believe that.

You know what I read but you cant read correctly what is in front of you ?

No guessing, please...just think rationally.

This is the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I "?

How old are you ?

I give you books written by 4 different Noble prize winners and you give me a counter reference of some dickhead on the net ?

There is always a differing opinion, as in a dogma.

There are different opinions, indeed...but THEY’RE NOT ALL VALID (like in religion)...but only the one that has been rigorously tested and submitted to the most scrutiny and supported with evidence will be considered true...not absolute truth...because nobody knows what the nature of reality is. In the end, the only thing that counts is the data...don't you agree with that...or will I have to explain this again?

It was probably only you on a different site

Some of us dont live in awe of your cut and paste ability, and use libraries.

and use libraries. Say it with me ...libraries...good boy.

If your main argument is to tell me I am a Creationist when I am not, then others can see how pathetic that is even if you cant.

From what I know, nobody has returned from the dead.

Not in the experience of two others and I.

Evolution is half thought out ?

The Laws of Thermodynamics are vague ?

The Speed of Light is a maybe ?

I repeat, name me one change in evolution that was not an accident.

You need to be proudless and clevermore. Dumbest dipshit yet.

Just checking to see if any maturity and relevant content has returned to this thread. Guess not.

I know you wrote "unusable"

you're a vegetable

We can virtually spend all week discussing my credentials

The reason why theses are called "sciences" is simply because they ALL follow the scientific method

I can read, but can you comprehend? You need a lot of explanation with ideas that are self-explanatory.

Old enough to teach you one or two things about life.

I accept that I was wrong about you taking all those quotes from creationist website

I have done all the necessary work to expose you as an dishonest creationist

which you provided dead links to (I wonder why).

and an open mind free of the scientific dogma of his day,

it just implies that there were biased people who were very selective...that doesn't mean that the process that led van Leeuwenhoek discover the existence of micro organisms ,"sperm cells, blood cells, microscopic nematodes and rotifers, and much more" were biased or dogmatic... in order for van Leeuwenhoek to make these scientific breakthroughs, he had to followed an unbiased system of sets of rules.

Which means if you're able to do that within science, science is not a dogma...

(Ionus)Some of us dont live in awe of your cut and paste ability, and use libraries.

(dumbmore) I've already received positive feedback.

Evolution is half thought out ? The Laws of Thermodynamics are vague ? The Speed of Light is a maybe ?

Only an uneducated creationist would say something like this...someone with no knowledge of natural science...just the insane ideas of some creationists.