just because scientist or ( posers ) do not agree with religion , it surely does not make religion wrong.
show me where physics can calculate religious beliefs.
what about the brainwashing by sciences poser bigotry , I say
poser because true science does not even recognize religious beliefs.
show me one example where evolution was proven , surely you can easily accomplish that simple task because you place so much trust in it.
if science can't prove it , then scientist or ( posers ) really need to shut up about it because until you have a grain of proof, then claiming evolution is true is just sinking science deeper into the mire its been sinking into.
BTW
evolution is just a theory.
Gentle readers, Here he goes again. The same old arguments. In general I agree that just because (some) scientists don't agree with religion doesn't make religion wrong. But when science has determined that they cannot make scientific facts match what religious documents say then I feel that the scientific method has to be used to determine how the world works.
Paul says "show me where physics can calculate religious beliefs". But religious beliefs are not physical, so physics doesn't address them.
Then he goes on about not being able to prove evolution. I suggest he try one of the books that does explain about evolution with copious examples. Richard Dawkins has written several. There are also plenty of resources on the web.
He says "evolution is just a theory". True, but it is a scientific theory which has been tested and shown to explain many things about the relationship of living things. So far nobody has come up with any other theory that can do as much.
And of course he may come up with the "theory" of Intelligent Design, which has been shown in court (Kitzmiller v Dover) to be just a rehash of the creation story in the book of Genesis, which is not a scientific book, and which doesn't match what many observations have shown to be the way the world works.
And as such this discussion should be moved to the NQS forum, where discussions of creationism belong.
I wasn't sure when I started this topic whether I should put it in the General Science forum or the NQS forum, but decided on General Science because the paper that I linked to was more of a science oriented paper than a religious paper.
Bill Gill
