Chevalier said:
My friend, you are the one lying.
Where. Everything I stated was absolutely factual.
First I have in no way demeaned science.
You made multiple false claims about science, you misrepresent science, you outright lie about scientific knowledge and evidence. ... yes, you very much have demeaned science.
Secondly, read Einstein's book Out of My Later Years and you find his advancing intuition as an epistemological category.
And so? That makes it automatically part of the Scientific Method? Your ignorance of how scientific exploration progresses is astonishing.
If you actually bothered learning what science is, you will find that intuition is not the end product of science, nor is it the contributor to the actual scientifically proven data. Only facts are.
As my first degree was in Physics and cosmology, I have applauded science as a tool, not an end in itself.
That's nice. If you have degrees in these fields, why then do you misrepresent the Scientific Method?
But hey, at least this shows your claim to know exactly what Science is, and you can't claim ignorance. Hence, the only conclusion must be that when you provide misrepresentation, it is deliberate rather than by ignorance. Thus the evidence of your outright dishonesty is further evidenced.
To help you understand, if science has directly observed evolution, which it has absolutely not,
Every scientific paper showing a change in populations or their genetics from generation to generation is an example of DIRECTLY OBSERVED EVOLUTION. Hence, your claim again is an outright LIE. Please stop your lies, they are highly offensive.
let me ask you to explain the exact process of evolution according to science and not simply the consequence.
Huh? The Scientific Theory of Evolution specifically is about the change we see in populations from generation to generation. Thus, the observed change
IS the process of evolution.
The consequence of the genetic changes in the populations alleles are exactly what we OBSERVE as evolution, as how the subsequent generation is different than the parent generation.
So your claim again evidences incredible ignorance/deceit.
Tell me exactly the causitive factor in evolution,
The changes in allele composition from one generation to the next. That is the exact and specific causation for the evolution that is observed as changes in the subsequent generation of a population.
I can not make it more specific or accurate than this, as this is the very definition. If you didn't know this, I don't know what else can be said to give you a clue. I can not sit here and provide you with the answers for an entire biology education that you should have obtained on your own.
not the consequential factor evidenced in meiosis and mitosis. I am not denying meiosis is how God brings about mutation,
Well, that also is not evidenced. There is no evidence that meiosis is driven by or generated by God.
I am denying that science explains how the evolutionary process works
And therefore you are lying. Science does exactly that.
and I am saying even if it did it would merely be proof of how God works.
And that also would be an outright lie, as this is not "proof" of anything relating to God. It might make YOU feel this is how God does things, but there is no "proof involved, your lie none withstanding. Your claim doesn't meet even a minimal standard of what constitutes "proof." Your belief, your wishful thinking is not proof.
Your arguing from consequencial evidence, science needs to answer the causation of evolution.
The cause is the change in genetic make-up of a population. This has been known for many decades. Your claim that science doesn't know is another outright lie of yours.
The question in ID is not whether evolutionary consequences occur, it's what is behind the consequence.
And this is known and has been evidenced. ID, of course, doesn't prove anything. It merely says "I can't believe this happened through evolution, so it MUST be designed by somebody." It is wishful thinking falsely presented as fact. It is another anti-science LIE.
Causation is what science must prove and demonstrate to turn evolution from theory to law.
Ah, more astonishing ignorance. Your claim of a science background simply must be a lie. Otherwise, you would know that Scientific Theories and Scientific Laws are very different things, and neither ever turn into the other.
Demonstrate causation Steen.
It has been done. That is per the change in allele composition between populations. Go learn something about what you are arguing about instead of spewing such ignorance. This is why creationists disgust me, all the lies, all the misrepresentations, all the incredible ignorance.
You should be ashamed of yourself for so bearing false witness. Do you really believe that there are brownie points in Heaven for LYING FOR JESUS?
This is just religio-phobia, Steen.
Nope, it is disgust with those who pervert Christianity by feeling that it is promoted through lies.
Knee-jerk liberal religio-phobia. I in no way misrepresent science as a tool in the least.
You have endlessly spewed lies about science. SO your very claim here is an outright lie.
In no way have I asserted science should not be taught, unlike the witch-hunt against religion in the academic world these days. You must not have any understanding of faith to say these things.
More stupid nonsense. I have plenty of Faith. But my faith doesn't hinge on scientific proof like yours. You need the tangible "evidence" of God, just like the Israelites needed the Golden Calf. Creationism and ID are the Golden Calf of the doubters and weak in faith of today.
I am for, and my post was advocating for, the fact that science and religion are compatable.
Oh, and I agree completely. But you do NOT show it through the incessant lies that you have spewed, which are an insult to science AND to Christianity, thus being doubly insulting to Christians like me, who also accept Science.