1. Not tests, i simply made it clear to people what i was referring to.
2. ah trolling how fun
Yes i believe in gravity, but that has nothing to do with life now does it.
I never claimed it had nothing do do with it but thanks for the strawman. I simply claimed that scientists can disagree on things. But apparently you live in a magical world where ever one agrees al the time.
3.yes it is, if you know how to look.
4. No i'm saying one does need to be a eye witness to what ever your trying to observe. There are other methods of observing that provide results that are just as accurate.
5. So at what point does it say only a eyewitness qualifies as this?
yes it is so this isn't a issue.
6. Simple bye adapting my beliefs. I'm not so hung up on "being right" that this is a problem. It also sounds like your saying that basing a belief on any form of science is a bad idea. What else can i do? Believe in something despite some one haven proven my belief is false?
7. Very true, and when people learn more about what happened they change there model. They don't know everything, but they know more then any one else (as long as there model is correct at least.)
1. No you weren't since in post 118 you replied
"Some people here make the distinction thats why i used it. And i was just curious if you realized what you where saying."
When I responded (in post 115) about your deviation from the topic at hand and making conclusions that didn't fit what was being talked about.
Your post #114... "Really? so your more then willing to accept that evolution happened trough natural selection as long as the origin is not abiogenesis? So are you admitting evolution (both micro and macro) are actually correct?"
My post #115... "I said NOTHING about macro / micro, hence I don't see how it pertains to this conversation at all."
Hence you weren't refering to anything as you were asking me a question, on the deviated topic...
2. How is my reply trolling? I answered your question with a legitimate answer and all you can do in reply is use ad hominem to try and disuade the point.
In post 118 you asked me to...
"look for a theory that does conform to reality. But like you said thats a if."
and I did that. Gravity conforms to reality... All I did was answer your question and somehow that is trolling... hmm..
3. Until you give an example then one-liners like that do nothing to improve your credability... In fact you are losing credability as you haven't produced any examples, rather you just continue to say it is so... As if by saying things make them the truth
4. Did you not read the definition of empirical I gave you.
"provable or verifiable by experience or experiment" ... experiments are observable... experiencing something is first-hand evidence, also observation...
Can you back up your claims, by posting some examples? Or do you just say stuff in the wind and expect others to take it as Law?
5. Read point number 4. Plus again you say that evolution is observed but give no examples, to back up your statement.
6. No, do what I do... Don't believe science is an absolute
fact for start, and take things with a grain of salt. If you come across a "theory" that defies natural laws, defies the scientific method, defies reality and is not observable then the better part of logic would tell me to steer clear of that shoddy "theory".
7. You said "but they know more then any one else (as long as there model is correct at least.)"
So you have FAITH that they know everything then... All humans are fallible.
Yet how can their model be "correct" when the data is changing, hence nothing in science can be absolute fact. Thus you cannot create a solid belief system on it.