I think this is the second time that you accuse me of not knowing much about god or religion. You never did answer my challenge about the Hebrew name of G-d.
I did not accuse you I asked you. As far as God's name I will not type it nor do I speak it without just reason. I stipulated this the first time or somewhere in that article. I have not changed my mind on that issue.
They are smarter because they can comment on evolution without making up what evolution is. That makes them a lot smarter than the anti-science crowd who never manage to write even a short article on why they reject evolution that does not misrepresent evolution completely.
in my article that science proved evolution false, I did not misrepresent evolution I quoted Darwin and other proponents of evolution. I am not anti-science and I know you did not accuse me of it I am just stating a fact. I never brought up creation or ID or told people they were ignorant for believing in something they can not prove or test. I left the door open for proof at a later date because I am being as fair as I know how to be.
There is no "religion of evolution". Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion. I understand the theory and my religion is Judaism, not evolution. It's two different things.
According to science religion is the belief in the things unseen. The proof is yet to be seen, as I stated before there is some evidence but not enough to make the theory a fact. It may be a working theory but that in itself is something not seen. Based on the available evidence there is not enough to prove it one way or the other, and given the evidence so far there is more that says evolution is not real than real. Just because a bunch of scientists say they believe it does not make it so. Remember all those scientists that said the debate for global warming was over? Where are they now? They have moved on to other projects because global warming was wrong. Try to pin a scientist down on evolution and they get real silly. One even said that ID was possible as long as it was not god that did it. He even suggested that space aliens seeded the Earth bringing life to a lifeless planet. He believes in space aliens? Where is the science in that? There is less proof of space aliens than evolution that is not scientific. Is it?
You asked for religious leaders, I gave you the biggest one.
That is the problem, you said leaders and only produced one. Your statement would lead one to believe that this was fully accepted in the religious world. Just because the Pope is the head of a billion member church does not make him the biggest. There are a billion Christians that do not follow the Pope there are a billion Muslims that don't follow the Pope. The planet has 5 billion people on it and only 1/5 of it follows the Pope. Good numbers but that does not support your claim of many leaders. That was my point.
According to Roman Catholicism G-d's will is whatever his representative on earth decides, so I don't see how they could possibly be hypocrites theologically.
Which one of the 10 commandments was not broken by the Catholic Church? I won't even go into the book of Levi.
What exactly is "definitive scientific proof"? I think you are confusing science with logic. A theory is the top level in science, there is no level of "scientific fact" above it.
In a vacuum all objects fall at the same speed. It was a theory by Galileo and proven on the moon some 500 years later. A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and either confirmed or denied. The theory of relativity is still a theory because there are so many holes in it that have not been proven. Red shift was a theory but now proven. Air has substance something that was not proven for a while now a fact. Until you can test the theory in a controlled environment and replicate it in other labs, it stays a theory. People latch onto theories in lieu of facts because most theories we see today are very close to being right.
And there are no competing theories any more. The one I mentioned was discredited over a hundred years ago.
"I think you could quibble over whether we actually “see” evolution in the fossil record (it's going to depend on how you define “evolution”), but Coyne's point is well-taken. He backs it up further with six good reasons for accepting natural selection as an especially important evolutionary mechanism". Jerry Coyne
What I see here is a person saying that it depends on how you define evolution. How many definitions are there that are accepted?
Evolution can be demonstrated in labs and has been. The typical experiment is the fruit fly experiment where it is easily demonstrated that a population of fruit flies will branch into two species over several generations.
The problem with this experiment is they are not naturally reproducing which I thought was a requirement for evolution. Am I wrong?
In effect you are saying that evolution is "more religion than science" because you don't know a lot about it. But the correct solution would be for you to read about evolution rather than spread the idea that evolution is something it isn't.
Well I thought that if a person is quoting the people in that discipline then one would have to have actually read what they wrote in context in order to quote it properly. Am I wrong with this assumption? I quoted for you Mr. Darwin, Dr, Coyne, and Dr. Rosenhouse. All are supporters of evolution, In fact I don't know of any people that are opposed to evolution that I have ever quoted. Mainly because I have not read anything on ID and all I know about creation is what I read in my bible. I am starting to think that you believe I am a creationist trying to prove or disprove evolution for religious reasons. Is that why you attempt to jump into religion every time someone writes about evolution, are you trying to fight an argument that has not been brought up?
I recommend Richard Dawkins' books. Once you read two of them (The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker should do) you will know a lot more about evolution and if you really work your way through the books you will understand how the scientific method works and how scientists know what they do know about the origin of species.
May I suggest you look up Jason Rosenhouse, he is an athiest I think, he has done some good work on the subject.
