The Nehor wrote:Buffalo wrote:I'm not sure whether you're being intentionally stupid or not. Are you trying to discount the importance of evidence, or making a childish argument about "proof"?
Neither, read again.
I read it again. Your "argument" was just as stupid the second time around. Massive ignorance.
Did I say any of that? No, I even acknowledged that those things are useful. I made it clear that they are not directly observable phenomena. They are indirect evidence. Often very convincing. However the events they indicate cannot be proven in ways studies and experiments in the "hard" sciences (physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, etc) are. Please pay attention.
It's kind of cute that you think that physics/biology/astronomy deals with only the "directly observable."
As if ancient DNA isn't directly observable.
Wrong again.
Name a single credible archaeologist who supports the Book of Mormon scientifically.
It does what now?
I can't be held responsible for your ignorance about your own religion.
Different from who? Catholicism? Anglicans? The Church of the Holy Fish-Cake? The Church of Suriving Snake Bites 2.0?
All of the above.
No God is pretty smart actually.
Hurr
Regularly and often throughout college. My main interests were astronomy and quantum physics. I still follow these fields in my spare time.
You're either lying or you slept through them.
Which has nothing to do with the flaws in Occam's Razor.
Don't just assert. Back it up.
I'm not. I'm telling you what you clearly don't know. I'm pointing out your areas of ignorance in which you are proven to be an ignoramus. Quite a different proposition.
You don't seem to even be able to grasp what science is or how it operates. It'd be helpful if you boned up on that before attempting to proceed further.
dividing up your responses into multiple posts just makes you look childish. Just so you know.
Non sequitur.
And, as usual, most of your rebuttals boil down to "nuh uh!" Very convincing.
