A Scientist Visits Kentucky's Creation Museum

[PostmodernProph]

Right next to the story about how Noah got marsupials from Oz and back again, and how the worldwide flood left no trace.

concentrate on the methodology of understanding why certain secular posters remain consistently ignorant, despite being repeatedly schooled....that methodology is the science being referred to here........

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Scientific theories aren't pulled out of anyone's ass. They are the best current explanation of the currently available evidence which comes from a convergence of different fields and are used to make predictions. Theories are not facts, they are never proved, and are subject to change or rejection if new or contradicting evidence is discovered, or if any of the theory's predictions are inaccurate. Theories are not beliefs. I don't believe theories and neither does PratchettFan, who is a theist.

It seems the arrogance is yours, and so is the hypocrisy.

No hypocrisy here. Point it out, asshole. Yes, genius, theories are subject to change, that's why they aren't science. The best understanding doesn't explain theories on bubble universes, a recycling universe, parallel universe, etc. etc. Useful for discussion perhaps but not science.

If theories were science and you say you don't believe in theories then what's that say about you?

Your hypocrisy is calling out "secularists" for their evidence-based perspective as practicing faith when you are a theist. Your arrogance is based on ignorance, and yet you call me and PratchettFan arrogant.

Theories are the penultimate science. That you don't understand that only demonstrates that you don't know what science is.

Since theories are science, and I don't believe in theories (meaning I don't accept them as truth, only as the current, best explanation of the currently available evidence which is used to make predictions) I guess what that says about me is that I don't practice faith-based reasoning. What do you think it's says about me?

I pointed out a fact. Maybe it rubs you the wrong way but that's your shortcoming. If one believes in a secular cause then they so so on faith, not science. There's no evidence for it so what else can it be?

No, theories are not science. Science is fact based, tested and verifiable. Theories aren't. Great for discussion but not fact. Those who choose to make is so are misapplying science as a quasi-religion. Faith based science, as it were.

But that's all a side step to the fact that it's mindless to state that theists have no basis in believing in a secular cause while the secularist has no science to support his views.

Actually, theories are fact-based, tested, and verifiable. That's exactly what rigor and standards to which theories are subject. That you think that theories are not that demonstrates your lack of knowledge about the scientific method.

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change."

What is a Scientific Theory Definition of Theory

Theories are not fact, on this we agree. If someone believes in the theories of evolution, or the Big Bang, or General Relativity then they are doing it wrong. At most, scientific theories should be accepted as the best, current explanation of the currently available evidence and subject at any time to revision or rejection.

However, scientific theories are science, and theoretical models are how scientists use theories as tools to make predictions. If those predictions prove inaccurate, then that theoretical model is abandoned and the theory on which it was based is modified or rejected. That is how science works.

If a theist rejects a scientific theory, then they should, out of their own self-interest, explain to themselves why they reject it. If the reason is religious, that is not a good enough reason. If the reason is because of a flaw in the theory, then the theist should write an article and submit it for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal so that information can be distributed to the scientific community and incorporated into humankind's body of knowledge at large.

 

[PratchettFan]

Well, science is pretty monolithic. Scientists will certainly disagree, but science itself is really just a set of rules. Religion is a tad more complicated, but to be fair it is a lot older.

"Science" is far from monolithic. It is a series of rules about how to observe the natural world and interact with it. That's all science is. It doesn't concern itself with morals or "truth", it is only concerned with facts, and the accurate gathering of them.

How is a standardized set of rules not monolithic?

Because as we learn more they are modified to conform to the new paradigm. Monolithic implies a belief system. Science is an observational protocol, that's all.

Yes. Theories and hypothesis are modified to conform to the new information. But the rules don't change. I completely agree that science is a protocol, but the protocol does not change. You don't suddenly say that for this we don't need testing and for that we can call assumption fact. Fudging data is fudging data regardless of what discipline one is in. In that science is monolithic, and it needs to be.

Untrue. If a new system emerges that allows greater measurement detail, it is adopted once it's accuracy is confirmed. Theories technically are not allowed to be modified by new information. The hypothesis is formulated. Tests for that hypothesis are created. If the hypothesis survives the initial attack (for that is what it is) then it graduates to the level of a theory.

If at any time the hypothesis, or the theory, fails a test it is considered a failed theory (or hypothesis) and is discarded. Then a new hypothesis is formulated based on the new evidence. It's a tortuous process and is intended to be that way.

Please note this is a very abbreviated description of the process.

I disagree with what you are saying, but that does not change my point. The rules don't change.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

"Science" is far from monolithic. It is a series of rules about how to observe the natural world and interact with it. That's all science is. It doesn't concern itself with morals or "truth", it is only concerned with facts, and the accurate gathering of them.

How is a standardized set of rules not monolithic?

Because as we learn more they are modified to conform to the new paradigm. Monolithic implies a belief system. Science is an observational protocol, that's all.

Yes. Theories and hypothesis are modified to conform to the new information. But the rules don't change. I completely agree that science is a protocol, but the protocol does not change. You don't suddenly say that for this we don't need testing and for that we can call assumption fact. Fudging data is fudging data regardless of what discipline one is in. In that science is monolithic, and it needs to be.

Untrue. If a new system emerges that allows greater measurement detail, it is adopted once it's accuracy is confirmed. Theories technically are not allowed to be modified by new information. The hypothesis is formulated. Tests for that hypothesis are created. If the hypothesis survives the initial attack (for that is what it is) then it graduates to the level of a theory.

If at any time the hypothesis, or the theory, fails a test it is considered a failed theory (or hypothesis) and is discarded. Then a new hypothesis is formulated based on the new evidence. It's a tortuous process and is intended to be that way.

Please note this is a very abbreviated description of the process.

I disagree with what you are saying, but that does not change my point. The rules don't change.

I think you two are arguing definitions: in that how can the word monolithic be applied describe a vaguely defined idea: science.

 

[Iceweasel]

Actually, theories are fact-based, tested, and verifiable.

However, scientific theories are science, and theoretical models are how scientists use theories as tools to make predictions. If those predictions prove inaccurate, then that theoretical model is abandoned and the theory on which it was based is modified or rejected. That is how science works.

You are just repeating what I said earlier. Theories are part of the scientific discussion. But the fact that they are not proven and may be modified or rejected demonstrate that it isn't science. Part of the method yes, but not a agreed on fact. I don't think it's a small point, take AGW for example. Many believe it is a proven fact while it is in reality just a working theory.

If a theist rejects a scientific theory, then they should, out of their own self-interest, explain to themselves why they reject it. If the reason is religious, that is not a good enough reason. If the reason is because of a flaw in the theory, then the theist should write an article and submit it for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal so that information can be distributed to the scientific community and incorporated into humankind's body of knowledge at large.

I have no idea why you assume a theist, or anyone else, has the burden of disproving every wacky ass theory some pinhead dreams up.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Actually, theories are fact-based, tested, and verifiable.

However, scientific theories are science, and theoretical models are how scientists use theories as tools to make predictions. If those predictions prove inaccurate, then that theoretical model is abandoned and the theory on which it was based is modified or rejected. That is how science works.

You are just repeating what I said earlier. Theories are part of the scientific discussion. But the fact that they are not proven and may be modified or rejected demonstrate that it isn't science. Part of the method yes, but not a agreed on fact. I don't think it's a small point, take AGW for example. Many believe it is a proven fact while it is in reality just a working theory.

If a theist rejects a scientific theory, then they should, out of their own self-interest, explain to themselves why they reject it. If the reason is religious, that is not a good enough reason. If the reason is because of a flaw in the theory, then the theist should write an article and submit it for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal so that information can be distributed to the scientific community and incorporated into humankind's body of knowledge at large.

I have no idea why you assume a theist, or anyone else, has the burden of disproving every wacky ass theory some pinhead dreams up.

Muddying the water, eh?

Earlier you wrote: "No, theories are not science. Science is fact based, tested and verifiable. Theories aren't."

Now you write: "Theories are part of the scientific discussion. But the fact that they are not proven and may be modified or rejected demonstrate that it isn't science. Part of the method yes, but not a agreed on fact."

It seems theories, according to you, though not science are part of the scientific method. If that is true, then what exactly is science if not the scientific method? On what is the very basis of all scientific inquiry? By the way, facts do not need to be agreed upon. And that theories may be modified or rejected demonstrate that they are exactly science,

Do yourself a favor, just admit you're wrong, and stop making yourself look even more like a fool.

I don't think anybody needs to disprove any theory, especially a "wacky ass theory some pinhead dreams up". But when a theist rejects generally accepted, and robust scientific theories like the theories of evolution, or The Big Bang theory, or a conservative rejects global warming they should do so on scientific grounds and not religious or political grounds. And if you must include that there is some sort of global conspiracy involved in your rejection of a scientific theory, your credibility among more reasonable people will decline.

 

[Iceweasel]

Actually, theories are fact-based, tested, and verifiable.

However, scientific theories are science, and theoretical models are how scientists use theories as tools to make predictions. If those predictions prove inaccurate, then that theoretical model is abandoned and the theory on which it was based is modified or rejected. That is how science works.

You are just repeating what I said earlier. Theories are part of the scientific discussion. But the fact that they are not proven and may be modified or rejected demonstrate that it isn't science. Part of the method yes, but not a agreed on fact. I don't think it's a small point, take AGW for example. Many believe it is a proven fact while it is in reality just a working theory.

If a theist rejects a scientific theory, then they should, out of their own self-interest, explain to themselves why they reject it. If the reason is religious, that is not a good enough reason. If the reason is because of a flaw in the theory, then the theist should write an article and submit it for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal so that information can be distributed to the scientific community and incorporated into humankind's body of knowledge at large.

I have no idea why you assume a theist, or anyone else, has the burden of disproving every wacky ass theory some pinhead dreams up.

Muddying the water, eh?

Earlier you wrote: "No, theories are not science. Science is fact based, tested and verifiable. Theories aren't."

Now you write: "Theories are part of the scientific discussion. But the fact that they are not proven and may be modified or rejected demonstrate that it isn't science. Part of the method yes, but not a agreed on fact."

I said that in about the second post. Thanks for reading. But being part of the process doesn't make it science, I posted the definition too. There can be numerous theories about the same phenomenon, they can't be all correct. They don't know until it's proven.

It seems theories, according to you, though not science are part of the scientific method. If that is true, then what exactly is science if not the scientific method? On what is the very basis of all scientific inquiry? By the way, facts do not need to be agreed upon. And that theories may be modified or rejected demonstrate that they are exactly science,

Do yourself a favor, just admit you're wrong, and stop making yourself look even more like a fool.

Why don't you go **** yourself? I explained it early on and you want to sling shit like a child. All that I suppose to avoid the point, secularists have as much faith as the theist if they believe in a secular cause. Period. You can run but you can't hide.

I don't think anybody needs to disprove any theory, especially a "wacky ass theory some pinhead dreams up". But when a theist rejects generally accepted, and robust scientific theories like the theories of evolution, or The Big Bang theory, or a conservative rejects global warming they should do so on scientific grounds and not religious or political grounds. And if you must include that there is some sort of global conspiracy involved in your rejection of a scientific theory, your credibility among more reasonable people will decline.

Oh **** you, you blowhard. The Big Bang theory was laughed at by assholes like you because the steady state universe was the consensus of the day. It wasn't SCIENCE, just a guess, or popular theory. The term was one of derision, making fun of the scientist that put it forward. The community believed Georges LeMaitre (sp?) was simply trying to make his religious views, as a Roman Catholic priest fit the Bible.

You assholes talk big and bluff a lot but you are the least scientifically minded people around. You're nothing but a Moonie.

 

[Dot Com]

I took a walk through it when it first opened. I must confess, I had a real hard time keeping from laughing out loud. A reeeeal hard time!

It's one thing to believe God created everything, but an entirely other thing to believe he did it 6,000 years ago and people hung out with dinosaurs.

has just about as much credence as harry potter

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Actually, theories are fact-based, tested, and verifiable.

However, scientific theories are science, and theoretical models are how scientists use theories as tools to make predictions. If those predictions prove inaccurate, then that theoretical model is abandoned and the theory on which it was based is modified or rejected. That is how science works.

You are just repeating what I said earlier. Theories are part of the scientific discussion. But the fact that they are not proven and may be modified or rejected demonstrate that it isn't science. Part of the method yes, but not a agreed on fact. I don't think it's a small point, take AGW for example. Many believe it is a proven fact while it is in reality just a working theory.

If a theist rejects a scientific theory, then they should, out of their own self-interest, explain to themselves why they reject it. If the reason is religious, that is not a good enough reason. If the reason is because of a flaw in the theory, then the theist should write an article and submit it for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal so that information can be distributed to the scientific community and incorporated into humankind's body of knowledge at large.

I have no idea why you assume a theist, or anyone else, has the burden of disproving every wacky ass theory some pinhead dreams up.

Muddying the water, eh?

Earlier you wrote: "No, theories are not science. Science is fact based, tested and verifiable. Theories aren't."

Now you write: "Theories are part of the scientific discussion. But the fact that they are not proven and may be modified or rejected demonstrate that it isn't science. Part of the method yes, but not a agreed on fact."

I said that in about the second post. Thanks for reading. But being part of the process doesn't make it science, I posted the definition too. There can be numerous theories about the same phenomenon, they can't be all correct. They don't know until it's proven.

It seems theories, according to you, though not science are part of the scientific method. If that is true, then what exactly is science if not the scientific method? On what is the very basis of all scientific inquiry? By the way, facts do not need to be agreed upon. And that theories may be modified or rejected demonstrate that they are exactly science,

Do yourself a favor, just admit you're wrong, and stop making yourself look even more like a fool.

Why don't you go **** yourself? I explained it early on and you want to sling shit like a child. All that I suppose to avoid the point, secularists have as much faith as the theist if they believe in a secular cause. Period. You can run but you can't hide.

I don't think anybody needs to disprove any theory, especially a "wacky ass theory some pinhead dreams up". But when a theist rejects generally accepted, and robust scientific theories like the theories of evolution, or The Big Bang theory, or a conservative rejects global warming they should do so on scientific grounds and not religious or political grounds. And if you must include that there is some sort of global conspiracy involved in your rejection of a scientific theory, your credibility among more reasonable people will decline.

Oh **** you, you blowhard. The Big Bang theory was laughed at by assholes like you because the steady state universe was the consensus of the day. It wasn't SCIENCE, just a guess, or popular theory. The term was one of derision, making fun of the scientist that put it forward. The community believed Georges LeMaitre (sp?) was simply trying to make his religious views, as a Roman Catholic priest fit the Bible.

You assholes talk big and bluff a lot but you are the least scientifically minded people around. You're nothing but a Moonie.

So all that typing just to express that you can't accept that you're wrong...

Let's just leave it at that.

 

[Dot Com]

I took a walk through it when it first opened. I must confess, I had a real hard time keeping from laughing out loud. A reeeeal hard time!

It's one thing to believe God created everything, but an entirely other thing to believe he did it 6,000 years ago and people hung out with dinosaurs.

 

[rdean]

You guys have such a shallow understanding of both science and religion. You act as they are both some monolithic concepts that completely agree. Not all religions agree. Not all scientific theories agree.

until you guys begin to recognize nuances in human thought you won't get far in discussing it

Not all scientific theories agree? What the **** are you talking about? Give some examples. I need a good laugh.

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

That's the problem with your kind. You go and find something you think "fits" but you don't actually know anything about it. In fact you don't know much of anything.

But let me help you out a little:

Remember, Einstein only discovered General Relativity a quarter way through the last century. A blink of an eye considering human history. The theory hopefully helps us to understand the big stuff: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, on to the entire universe. And even Einstein didn't believe his own theory. He thought the universe was infinite and unchanging. In his equations, he used "K" for the "universal constant". It was Hubble and his work that physically proved Einstein wrong. Try to figure out why dunce. Hint, what was Hubble famous four? That proves that science is ever changing as understanding grows from discovery. Religion doesn't change. Duh.

Quantum Mechanics is about the "little stuff". Like molecules, atoms, and even tinier stuff like electrons and quarks. Republicans think "quarks" are the sounds ducks make.

So the two theories, WHICH ARE STILL BEING DEVELOPED, don't agree. Yet.

Republicans are so ******* stupid, they don't give scientists credit for anything because scientists don't know everything. Republicans and conservatives are just laughable people.

I'm not a physicist and I am in awe of their brilliance. Republicans, people who put a young earther in charge of the US science committee, think physicists are over educated and without common sense. Worse, they become angry and defensive when people call conservatives fools. Well, I think fools is being polite.

 

[rdean]

I took a walk through it when it first opened. I must confess, I had a real hard time keeping from laughing out loud. A reeeeal hard time!

It's one thing to believe God created everything, but an entirely other thing to believe he did it 6,000 years ago and people hung out with dinosaurs.

 

[cnm]

Theories are part of the scientific discussion. But the fact that they are not proven and may be modified or rejected demonstrate that it isn't science.

These people are trying to tell you that scientific theories are never proven. You're not getting the message.

 

[Iceweasel]

Actually, theories are fact-based, tested, and verifiable.

However, scientific theories are science, and theoretical models are how scientists use theories as tools to make predictions. If those predictions prove inaccurate, then that theoretical model is abandoned and the theory on which it was based is modified or rejected. That is how science works.

You are just repeating what I said earlier. Theories are part of the scientific discussion. But the fact that they are not proven and may be modified or rejected demonstrate that it isn't science. Part of the method yes, but not a agreed on fact. I don't think it's a small point, take AGW for example. Many believe it is a proven fact while it is in reality just a working theory.

If a theist rejects a scientific theory, then they should, out of their own self-interest, explain to themselves why they reject it. If the reason is religious, that is not a good enough reason. If the reason is because of a flaw in the theory, then the theist should write an article and submit it for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal so that information can be distributed to the scientific community and incorporated into humankind's body of knowledge at large.

I have no idea why you assume a theist, or anyone else, has the burden of disproving every wacky ass theory some pinhead dreams up.

Muddying the water, eh?

Earlier you wrote: "No, theories are not science. Science is fact based, tested and verifiable. Theories aren't."

Now you write: "Theories are part of the scientific discussion. But the fact that they are not proven and may be modified or rejected demonstrate that it isn't science. Part of the method yes, but not a agreed on fact."

I said that in about the second post. Thanks for reading. But being part of the process doesn't make it science, I posted the definition too. There can be numerous theories about the same phenomenon, they can't be all correct. They don't know until it's proven.

It seems theories, according to you, though not science are part of the scientific method. If that is true, then what exactly is science if not the scientific method? On what is the very basis of all scientific inquiry? By the way, facts do not need to be agreed upon. And that theories may be modified or rejected demonstrate that they are exactly science,

Do yourself a favor, just admit you're wrong, and stop making yourself look even more like a fool.

Why don't you go **** yourself? I explained it early on and you want to sling shit like a child. All that I suppose to avoid the point, secularists have as much faith as the theist if they believe in a secular cause. Period. You can run but you can't hide.

I don't think anybody needs to disprove any theory, especially a "wacky ass theory some pinhead dreams up". But when a theist rejects generally accepted, and robust scientific theories like the theories of evolution, or The Big Bang theory, or a conservative rejects global warming they should do so on scientific grounds and not religious or political grounds. And if you must include that there is some sort of global conspiracy involved in your rejection of a scientific theory, your credibility among more reasonable people will decline.

Oh **** you, you blowhard. The Big Bang theory was laughed at by assholes like you because the steady state universe was the consensus of the day. It wasn't SCIENCE, just a guess, or popular theory. The term was one of derision, making fun of the scientist that put it forward. The community believed Georges LeMaitre (sp?) was simply trying to make his religious views, as a Roman Catholic priest fit the Bible.

You assholes talk big and bluff a lot but you are the least scientifically minded people around. You're nothing but a Moonie.

So all that typing just to express that you can't accept that you're wrong...

Let's just leave it at that.

LOL. Doubling down on retard doesn't make you look smart. Asshole.

 

[Iceweasel]

Theories are part of the scientific discussion. But the fact that they are not proven and may be modified or rejected demonstrate that it isn't science.

These people are trying to tell you that scientific theories are never proven. You're not getting the message.

You can't read then, apparently. I said it was part of science and I use the term science as defined by dictionary terms, not like a religion. If you believe in an unproven theory you have no high ground in claiming a secular cause as "science" while the theist is surrendering the ability to think. It's arrogant and a misuse of the word science.

 

[Iceweasel]

You guys have such a shallow understanding of both science and religion. You act as they are both some monolithic concepts that completely agree. Not all religions agree. Not all scientific theories agree.

until you guys begin to recognize nuances in human thought you won't get far in discussing it

Not all scientific theories agree? What the **** are you talking about? Give some examples. I need a good laugh.

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

That's the problem with your kind. You go and find something you think "fits" but you don't actually know anything about it. In fact you don't know much of anything.

But let me help you out a little:

Remember, Einstein only discovered General Relativity a quarter way through the last century. A blink of an eye considering human history. The theory hopefully helps us to understand the big stuff: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, on to the entire universe. And even Einstein didn't believe his own theory. He thought the universe was infinite and unchanging. In his equations, he used "K" for the "universal constant". It was Hubble and his work that physically proved Einstein wrong. Try to figure out why dunce. Hint, what was Hubble famous four? That proves that science is ever changing as understanding grows from discovery. Religion doesn't change. Duh.

Quantum Mechanics is about the "little stuff". Like molecules, atoms, and even tinier stuff like electrons and quarks. Republicans think "quarks" are the sounds ducks make.

So the two theories, WHICH ARE STILL BEING DEVELOPED, don't agree. Yet.

Republicans are so ******* stupid, they don't give scientists credit for anything because scientists don't know everything. Republicans and conservatives are just laughable people.

I'm not a physicist and I am in awe of their brilliance. Republicans, people who put a young earther in charge of the US science committee, think physicists are over educated and without common sense. Worse, they become angry and defensive when people call conservatives fools. Well, I think fools is being polite.

No scientists are conservative or Republican? WTF?

 

[cnm]

If you believe in an unproven theory you have no high ground in claiming a secular cause as "science" while the theist is surrendering the ability to think. It's arrogant and a misuse of the word science.

Again, no scientific theory is ever proven. A scientific theory is simply the best available knowledge/explanation until better knowledge/explanations come along. You've been told this, how come you can't accept it?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Theories are part of the scientific discussion. But the fact that they are not proven and may be modified or rejected demonstrate that it isn't science.

These people are trying to tell you that scientific theories are never proven. You're not getting the message.

You can't read then, apparently. I said it was part of science and I use the term science as defined by dictionary terms, not like a religion. If you believe in an unproven theory you have no high ground in claiming a secular cause as "science" while the theist is surrendering the ability to think. It's arrogant and a misuse of the word science.

No, you wrote, just above here, that theories weren't science. Changing your tune now, huh?

 

[Iceweasel]

If you believe in an unproven theory you have no high ground in claiming a secular cause as "science" while the theist is surrendering the ability to think. It's arrogant and a misuse of the word science.

Again, no scientific theory is ever proven. A scientific theory is simply the best available knowledge/explanation until better knowledge/explanations come along. You've been told this, how come you can't accept it?

I told you why. You can have differing theories for the same thing. Why can't you accept that? The "beginning" of the universe is an excellent example. Not all theories can be right, maybe none are. IF you choose to believe one it's by faith, not science.

 

[Iceweasel]

Theories are part of the scientific discussion. But the fact that they are not proven and may be modified or rejected demonstrate that it isn't science.

These people are trying to tell you that scientific theories are never proven. You're not getting the message.

You can't read then, apparently. I said it was part of science and I use the term science as defined by dictionary terms, not like a religion. If you believe in an unproven theory you have no high ground in claiming a secular cause as "science" while the theist is surrendering the ability to think. It's arrogant and a misuse of the word science.

No, you wrote, just above here, that theories weren't science. Changing your tune now, huh?

You can't ******* read.