IBDaMann
Well-known member
Everything in religion confirms/proves that God created the universe, assuming you accept the assumption that God created the universe.
Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth
- Thread starter Alter2Ego
- Start date
Assuming you accept the conclusion as your premise then your conclusion is proven by the premise.
That's quite some logic there.
You really suck at this. I have zero burden of proof. You do. Show me ONE peer reviewed paper in a science journal that says ‘God did it’. I’ll wait.
You are quite mistaken about what the word "theory" means in science. You are thinking of "common language usage", not the scientific meaning.
Theories, in the sciences, are extremely well supported hypotheses. It is one of the gold standards of how well a scientific concept explains the data. The only thing more "secure" is a scientific Law.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
In math and logic, concluding your assumption or something not far removed from what is assumed is called a "trivial" proof. It is not a fallacy; it is merely trivial with respect to logic, as you noticed. Of course, to any given religion, it might be foundational.
The classic example is Intelligent Design which considers the design of all of Creation. "Creation" assumes a creator. "Design" implies intelligence. An intelligent designer is therefore proved in the subsequent line. QED. This is a totally valid argument.
... and since it is unfalsifiable, nobody can show it to be false.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You really suck at this. "Peer review" has nothing to do with science. You pepper your terms with the "science" or "scientific" precursor to add unwarranted authority, and you don't know what science even is.
Indeed. This is where you say dictionaries don't define words.
You (and Into the Night) are wrong on this fact.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
At least you're starting to wake up. Enjoy!
You seem like you were home schooled. You have no idea that most people know more on the topics you discuss.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You should learn what a "fact" is. You can't claim that something you are arguing is a "fact."
Also, if you are claiming that I am mistaken, you must be mistaken. If you elaborate a little more, I should be able to tell you what your error is specifically.
... and don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
Yeah, it's a FACT that peer review is big in science. I know because I've actually been both a peer reviewer as well as having my work peer reviewed before publication.
You should stick with what YOU know.
It is how science publishes results. If it ain’t peer reviewed it ain’t science.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
There is no "peer review" in science. Who did you gullibly believe to the contrary?
By the way, you picked the absolute very best way to broadcast that you are scientifically illiterate, and don't try to blame me for what you fully chose to do.
Yes, for publication. It's a publication function. It has nothing to do with science.
Say it with me: ... P - U - B - L - I - S - H - I - N - G
What was the peer review for? That's right, publishing.
I've got one for you. I know many scientists. They don't have any need for any peer reviewers whatsoever. They don't need any peer reviewer's permission to create science and they don't need any peer reviewer's approval to publish the science they create.
This leads to the question: When you were peer-reviewing, did you have the power to stop science from being created or merely the power to prevent articles from being published in a particular publication?
Which one?
You should refrain from chiming in on topics you don't understand.
I'd say from my 30+ years as an R&D scientist.
Funny coming from someone who has ZERO publications to his name.
I'm sure you do. Unlike you, I AM a scientist.
Then you don't know any ACTUAL scientists.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
What a quaint little moron. Science is not a person. Science doesn't publish anything. Why am I the first person to teach you this?
The act of publishing is not peer review. I wonder if Obtenebrator is going to correct you on this.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You can assume that I'm not buying anything having to do with you somehow being a scientist. Perhaps you are publishing staff at a publication, and because you are scientifically illiterate you are claiming that you are a thientitht, but you don't know the first thing about any science. You also believe in physics violations. A scientist you are not.
You don't know how many publications I have. Also, you don't know any science. Also, you think publishing is science. You couldn't be any more absurd.
You're definitely a leftist who conflates religion with science, mainly because he doesn't know what either is.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
A testament to your poor judgement. I was not home schooled, although there is nothing wrong with it.
There are only about three posters on JPP who can hang with me on academics, and none of them are leftists.
Why do you think you are going to be able to pass off your shit posts as something meaningful to someone who knows how ill informed you actually are?
Does it get you off to look like a fool in front of someone?