Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

a reply to: whereislogic

Here is one of my favorite quotes

“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”
― Richard P. Feynman

Do you understand why? Religion is a belief you can choose to believe or not that is your truth. Science on the other hand you are taught to question everything. If evolution was found to be wrong it would be tossed in a heartbeat by science. It only remains because we can't find anything to dispute it yet anyway. You cant bring faith into science it doesn't work that way science needs proof to be accepted. Not sure why your attacking atheists if you paid attention i believe in god so your whole wall of jibberish was pointless.

One can believe in God and still accept science, Scientific investigations, pushed on and on, will reveal new ways in which God works, and bring us deeper revelations of the wholly unknown.

However, I do take offence when people want to claim god did this without wanting to know-how. Or worse ignoring how things came to be just because they read the Bibel. We can't deny the universe and what it does just because the answers do not fit our beliefs. If what we have learned in any way contradicts your beliefs then you may need to rethink them. We can't change reality only how we percieve it.

originally posted by: whereislogic
You did something similar concerning nucleotides and saccharides (sugars) earlier in this thread (last time I was commenting). It's repetitive and boring to me, but I'm sure as explained before in my last comment, it's not meant to convince me that I shouldn't listen attentively to whatever James Tour has to say about the subject without looking for excuses to dismiss any inconvenient facts he might bring up that are actually relevant to an evaluation of the OOL storyline rooted in philosophical naturalism and evolutionary philosophy; where everything is claimed to occur by chance and the forces of nature, not human intervention as in a lab where scientists are doing everything they can think of* to coax molecules to behave in a manner that they can (often mis)represent as being biologically relevant (i.e., to their favorite naturalistic evolutionary OOL storyline, dogma and myth).

You appear here to be deriding scientists for testing hypotheses.
What do you think Science is? By what means do you think Science could test the hypothesis of supernatural creation?
I mean, Science IS limited to the testable. Surely you can understand that basic concept.

Harte

originally posted by: cooperton
Where specifically was I corrected and shown to be wrong? Show a specific example.

It is a little fuzzy to me, but it was that time where you typed text in a box and pressed the "reply" button.