Jump to content

blackbird

Senior Member
  • Posts

    7,652
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by blackbird

  1. You just say that as a coverup. You actually seem to believe the woke Marxist ideology You believe Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto which is based on the ideology that there is a class struggle has been embraced by the woke as meaning society is divided between victims and oppressors. To you the liberals and progressives are defending the "victims" and the oppressors are the "Chuds" (or conservatives).
  2. Socialism has always failed. It destroys incentive, destroys investment, and chases away hard work and prosperity. The world has never been "equal" and never will because that is not now things work. Communism has never worked. Communists have always set up systems to take care of themselves and forget everyone else. It can't work because it is against human nature. Human nature if left to itself destroys the work ethic. Your mind is brainwashed to believe government can solve all problems and provide everything. That is the biggest fallacy. You will end up with disasters. That is why we have homelessness and tent cities. It is people like you who believe government intervention will solve everything. It actually does the opposite. It destroys business growth and prosperity and scares investment away.
  3. One of the main reasons we have all the homeless people and tent cities now is because of the government interventionism or excessive control of home building, apartment building or building anything. There are so many regulations and red tape and approval processes builders must go through to get approval and the fees are so expensive. These regulations and costs are imposed by municipalities, regional districts, provincial and federal governments. Excessive taxation by all levels of government has been getting worse. Add to that now the carbon taxes which is going up every year. That's the Marxist-Socialist mentality of governments in Canada. They think they know better and most of the people believe it. They think government needs to babysit and look after everyone from cradle to grave. It's not possible. Government doesn't have the mentality or resources to look after everyone. That's not how the world can function. People have to grow up and learn to take care of themselves instead of expecting government or food banks to feed them and cloth them and shelter them. Some are mentally ill and need help. Some should be in mental institutions but they were shut down by the new woke ideology. Same reason criminals are constantly released. The federal government is a kind of post-national United Nations government that believes Canadians must provide social assistance for the whole world and hence why we have given several billion dollars to the middle east for various causes the last few years. You want to know why Canada is so far in debt. There's the answer. We are now paying so much interest on the debt that it is taking away from the money available for all the social programs. Socialism is government trying to do everything by taxing, regulating and controlling every aspect of your life. No more freedom. That is why there is so much homelessness and tent cities. Government has meddled in the economy so much that it has destroyed the natural ability of the country to build homes and apartments for all the people. Very few can even afford to buy a home in Canada now. On a middle income, there is not enough money to save the huge down payment and not enough money to pay the thousands of dollars per month for a mortgage payment.
  4. I already posted part of the article which explains it clearly. You just chose to ignore it. "The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels — the seminal text of political economy, which became the handbook for bad economics and the woke movement alike. Published in 1888, it opens with the simplistic declaration: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed.” In this rigid oppressor/oppressed scheme, which is the heart of woke ideology, everyone is either tyrant or victim — not based on anyone’s choices, mind you, but by the accident of historical circumstances. If you are an oppressor, you can never be anything else." The woke movement believes we are in a class struggle. That is what Karl Marx based his ideology on. Victim and oppressor. That is part of wokism.
  5. The words "faith alone" are not necessary because those passages say essentially the same thing. You are using a phony excuse. I have done my best but you close your mind to everything. I also quoted Acts where someone asked what must I do to be saved and the reply said believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. What more do you need to know? When they answered they gave a straight answer BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED. Why would the words faith alone be needed when that verse says believe. It is using a verb to express the act of faith. That is what believe means. So simple .
  6. John 1:12; 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 20:31; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31). "30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:30, 31
  7. The article already gives you several verse that show salvation is by faith. One does not need the word "alone" to understand the meaning. You are twisting something to try to back up a false argument. " 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. " Romans 4:2-8 The apostle Paul says quite clearly Abraham was justified (received imputed righeousness) by faith alone. You don't need the word alone to state the same thing. This is just common sense. Word games won't help you.
  8. You replied in 2 minutes so obviously did not read and consider the article explaining it. If you would rather remain in ignorance that is your choice. You are choosing ignorance because you think you have the absolute truth. Sad really. You are putting what is called a negative inference on the verse. It does not say someone who is not baptized will not be saved. If that is what it intended, it would say so. But it doesn't.
  9. This article explains that verse, Mark 16:16, very well. I could not explain it better myself. It really answers the question "is baptism necessary for salvation". You are making a negative inference of that verse. It does not say he who is not baptized will not be saved. quote As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches through careful consideration of the language and context of the verse. We also filter it through what we know the Bible teaches elsewhere on the subject. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation is a faulty interpretation. For more information, please visit our webpage "Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works?" Regarding Mark 16:16, it is important to remember that there are some textual problems with Mark chapter 16, verses 9-20. There is some question as to whether these verses were originally part of the Gospel of Mark or whether they were added later by a scribe. As a result, it is best not to base a key doctrine on anything from Mark 16:9-20, such as snake handling, unless it is also supported by other passages of Scripture. Assuming that verse 16 is original to Mark, does it teach that baptism is required for salvation? The short answer is, no, it does not. In order to make it teach that baptism is required for salvation, one must go beyond what the verse actually says. What this verse does teach is that belief is necessary for salvation, which is consistent with the countless verses where only belief is mentioned (e.g., John 3:18; John 5:24; John 12:44; John 20:31; 1 John 5:13). “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). This verse is composed of two basic statements. 1—He who believes and is baptized will be saved. 2—He who does not believe will be condemned. While this verse tells us something about believers who have been baptized (they are saved), it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized. In order for this verse to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, a third statement would be necessary, viz., “He who believes and is not baptized will be condemned” or “He who is not baptized will be condemned.” But, of course, neither of these statements is found in the verse. Those who try to use Mark 16:16 to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation commit a common but serious mistake that is sometimes called the Negative Inference Fallacy. This is the rule to follow: “If a statement is true, we cannot assume that all negations (or opposites) of that statement are also true." For example, the statement “a dog with brown spots is an animal” is true; however, the negative, “if a dog does not have brown spots, it is not an animal” is false. In the same way, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” is true; however, the statement “he who believes but is not baptized will not be saved” is an unwarranted assumption. Yet this is exactly the assumption made by those who support baptismal regeneration. Consider this example: "Whoever believes and lives in Kansas will be saved, but those that do not believe are condemned." This statement is strictly true; Kansans who believe in Jesus will be saved. However, to say that only those believers who live in Kansas are saved is an illogical and false assumption. The statement does not say a believer must live in Kansas in order to go to heaven. Similarly, Mark 16:16 does not say a believer must be baptized. The verse states a fact about baptized believers (they will be saved), but it says exactly nothing about believers who have not been baptized. There may be believers who do not dwell in Kansas, yet they are still saved; and there may be believers who have not been baptized, yet they, too, are still saved. The one specific condition required for salvation is stated in the second part of Mark 16:16: “Whoever does not believe will be condemned.” In essence, Jesus has given both the positive condition of belief (whoever believes will be saved) and the negative condition of unbelief (whoever does not believe will be condemned). Therefore, we can say with absolute certainty that belief is the requirement for salvation. More importantly, we see this condition restated positively and negatively throughout Scripture (John 3:16; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:53-54; John 8:24; Acts 16:31). Jesus mentions a condition related to salvation (baptism) in Mark 16:16. But a related condition should not be confused with a requirement. For example, having a fever is related to being ill, but a fever is not required for illness to be present. Nowhere in the Bible do we find a statement such as “whoever is not baptized will be condemned.” Therefore, we cannot say that baptism is necessary for salvation based on Mark 16:16 or any other verse. Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? No, it does not. It clearly establishes that belief is required for salvation, but it does not prove or disprove the idea of baptism being a requirement. How can we know, then, if one must be baptized in order to be saved? We must look to the full counsel of God’s Word. Here is a summary of the evidence: 1—The Bible is clear that we are saved by faith alone. Abraham was saved by faith, and we are saved by faith (Romans 4:1-25; Galatians 3:6-22). 2—Throughout the Bible, in every dispensation, people have been saved without being baptized. Every believer in the Old Testament (e.g., Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon) was saved but not baptized. The thief on the cross was saved but not baptized. Cornelius was saved before he was baptized (Acts 10:44-46). 3—Baptism is a testimony of our faith and a public declaration that we believe in Jesus Christ. The Scriptures tell us that we have eternal life the moment we believe (John 5:24), and belief always comes before being baptized. Baptism does not save us any more than walking an aisle or saying a prayer saves us. We are saved when we believe. 4—The Bible never says that if one is not baptized then he is not saved. 5—If baptism were required for salvation, then no one could be saved without another party being present. Someone must be there to baptize a person before he can be saved. This effectively limits who can be saved and when he can be saved. The consequences of this doctrine, when carried to a logical conclusion, are devastating. For example, a soldier who believes on the battlefield but is killed before he can be baptized would go to hell. 6—Throughout the Bible we see that at the point of faith a believer possesses all the promises and blessings of salvation (John 1:12; 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 20:31; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31). When one believes, he has eternal life, does not come under judgment, and has passed from death into life (John 5:24)—all before he or she is baptized. If you believe in baptismal regeneration, you would do well to prayerfully consider whom or what you are really putting your trust in. Is your faith in a physical act (being baptized) or in the finished work of Christ on the cross? Whom or what are you trusting for salvation? Is it the shadow (baptism) or the substance (Jesus Christ)? Our faith must rest in Christ alone. “We have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace” (Ephesians 1:7). unquote Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? | GotQuestions.org
  10. I don't ignore it. You just misinterpret it. How can baptism be absolutely necessary for salvation when over a hundred verses say salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ? Baptism is recommended as a sign of being born again. It dos not save anyone. No priest can save a person by administering baptism. They do not have the power to do that. You are taking one verse and ignoring the rest of the Bible. That is not rightly dividing the word.
  11. "Current economic and philosophical problems both originated in the same place — The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels — the seminal text of political economy, which became the handbook for bad economics and the woke movement alike. Published in 1888, it opens with the simplistic declaration: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed.” In this rigid oppressor/oppressed scheme, which is the heart of woke ideology, everyone is either tyrant or victim — not based on anyone’s choices, mind you, but by the accident of historical circumstances. If you are an oppressor, you can never be anything else." Opinion: Western societies must stop the spread of Marxism (msn.com) We know this is a fact. Didn't Trudeau claim Canada is guilty of genocide? According to the woke or new Marxists we have the white settlers who invaded the country, and the rightful owners of Turtle Island, the FN. The BC NDP is busy trying to make amends to FN and give them control of the land. They came out with a proposal to change the land act recently but after the great uproar, had to retract it to rethink how they are going to do it. They haven't given up on the idea but will come up with another scheme. In the minds of these new Marxists, the white people and anyone who is conservative or non-woke are the problem and they must be made to pay.
  12. You replied in 2 minutes with your standard go to reply. Obviously didn't read the article on the link. The fact is the influence of Communist China (authoritarianism) has crept into all levels of government and society in Canada and even helped the Trudeau Liberals get elected. Why? Because the Liberals are Marxist authoritarian oriented and suck up to China. There is also billions of dollars in trade at stake with Communist China. A massive amount of goods we buy comes from that place. Money talks.
  13. Canada has a history of cozying up to Communist China. China's influence in Canada is extensive according to some writers. China appears to have had a significant influence in federal elections and could be at work in all levels of government. We know the Canada's military has been totally ignored and is in a death spiral now. These news articles are more eye openers about Communist influence. Opinion: Western societies must stop the spread of Marxism (msn.com) There was a news article that said Canada does not refuse to hire people who have links to Communist China. The article disappeared before I could get the link or read it, but the heading tells a lot.
  14. The fact is Israel is a small country in a sea of Arabs or Muslims who believe they should be eliminated. So to carve Israel up into an even smaller piece and give their sworn enemies an area where they could arm with support from places like Iran would be suicide.
  15. Nothing deceptive at all. The subject line states a simple fact which you can't understand. You may not agree with the premise because you don't accept the reality, but there is nothing deceptive about stating the truth. It seems some people have a mental block to reality. The article explains it. Perhaps you didn't bother reading it or can't understand the simple truth. I am Groot understand the reality. Sadly this is strictly a partisan issue to you and you feel you must support the government's two-state policy.
  16. You just demonstrated a complete ignorance of the real situation in Israel even though it has been explained to you many times. The Palestinians are not willing to accept Israel's right to exist and have proven this forever. No matter what land they are given, they will never cease fighting against Israel. That is deeply engrained in their psyche. What is it you don't get about that?
  17. This article by Professor Phillip Stott gives a very good overview of the theory of evolution. quote Evolution has played such a major role in shaping modern society that it is essential for every member of our culture to understand the theory, the evidence for it, and its implications. It is more difficult than one might first expect to discover exactly what the theory of evolution says. One reason is that it has changed drastically over the relatively brief period that it has been the ruling paradigm of Western thought. Changes are not usually broadcast to the general public. (See Arthur S. Lodge's search for a definition.) When the theory first became popular, following Charles Darwin’s proposal of natural selection as the means to drive the process, it was a simple and very appealing hypothesis. Life was rather simple in those days. Algae, amoebae and such humble creatures were blobs of protoplasm which Darwin postulated might have just happened in some warm little pond by the chance coming together of chemicals. It was rather easy to imagine that a few relatively simple changes in this protoplasm could lead to developmental change, and that natural selection would ensure that better adaptation would be preserved. Changes which led to worse adaptation would die out as poorly adapted creatures would perish in the struggle for existence and fail to leave offspring with their inferior design. The idea of natural processes bringing complex life forms from simple ones, which themselves came from dead matter, logically leads to the idea of all things having arisen by chance through purely natural processes. This way of looking at the world is reflected in the definition given in Evolution and Genetics by Julian Huxley, one of the most influential evolutionists of all time :- "Evolution, in the extended sense, can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution - a single process of self transformation." For many years this was the accepted view. It is still the view put forward in popular literature, the media and school text-books. But in "scientific circles" it has become an embarrassment. It contradicts the best established law in the whole of science. The Law in question is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In language easily understood this law guarantees that any physical system subject only to natural processes follows a downward path to ever lower levels of energy, it becomes more disorganized - it suffers decay. For many years supporters of the theory attempted to overlook the contradiction between evolution’s requirement (self transformation to ever higher levels of organization), and the Second Law’s exactly opposite requirement, by claiming that the Second Law applies only to "closed systems" in which no energy enters from outside. Few now try to support this discredited position, (see, for example, The Mystery of Life's Origins) and changes in the definition of evolution itself have been brought in to address the problem. Another difficulty for the theory has come from microbiology. As scientists have learned how to examine life in ever greater detail, Darwin’s picture of organisms consisting of a few simple chemicals has given way to one of mind-boggling complexity even in the most humble of creatures. The lowly E coli bacterium possesses not only miniature electric motors of outstanding efficiency, but also the apparatus to build, repair, maintain and operate them - as well as the electricity-generating system to power them. As it has become possible to calculate the probabilities of evolution’s mechanisms producing evolution’s supposed results, ever growing numbers of scientists have become convinced that there are problems which the theory is unable to cope with. Many are now seriously considering intelligent design as an alternative. As the founder of the "cult" of evolution, Charles Darwin and his magnum opus, the Origin of Species are presented for study. A more modern text, an Introduction to Evolutionary Biology by Chris Colby shows the enormous change which has taken place in evolutionary thinking in the last century. My annotations are rather full and attempt to show what I see to be the weakness of much of modern evolutionary thinking. I recommend this annotated work as showing the case for and against the modern theory. The antipathy between evolution and Christianity is sometimes denied. This idea is examined in "Creation, Evolution and the Christian" . The weakness of evolution as a "scientifically" defensible position and the truth that it is largely a religious question is very ably presented by Philip Johnson, professor of law at the University of California, Berkley. Johnson's position deserves some explanation. The "scientific" press is a tightly controlled unit which does not allow any neutral discussion of evolution, the time scale or Einstein. Any paper questioning orthodoxy, or submitted by a scientist known to be skeptical of orthodoxy, is simply denied publication. Any scientist questioning the orthodoxy is ostracized and outcast. Scientists are then able to set up a vicious circle to exclude debate. Such questions could only be seriously considered if they were discussed in the reputable journals. Any attempt to bring such discussion to the journals is prevented by editorial policy. The situation was brought into the spotlight in the chapter "The Scientific Mafia" in "Velikovski Reconsidered." A recent example can be seen in Persecution of Richard Sternberg. Philip Johnson is a highly respected professor of law. The secular humanist watchdogs apparently anticipated no danger from this field. They did not, apparently, set up a similar exclusion principle for lawyers. Johnson was able to question Darwinism by comparing the strength of the evidence put forward to support it with that required by a court of law - without the weight of his entire profession descending to crush and stifle him. His position is expressed very simply in an interview with Citizen Magazine. Johnson's examination of the stand of influential liberal Reformed Christian scientists can be seen in "The Hostage Takers." The internet has many of his articles examples being "What is Darwinism," a well reasoned account of what evolution really is - a philosophical necessity of atheism. "The Church of Darwin" is a look at Darwinists aims for education. "Shouting Heresy in the Temple of Darwin" and "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning" reinforce his analysis of the way Darwinists operate. Johnson has been involved in may debates -on the subject. An example ("How Did We Get Here?" with Kenneth Miller) reproduced here is typical. Many more of his contributions on the subject can be found on the Internet. A major contribution to the question of the credibility of evolution was Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box," in which he drew attention to many marvelous micro-biological systems which exhibit what he termed "irreducible complexity." The importance of irreducible complexity is that Darwin had stated that if any case could be brought forward where development could not have been achieved by small successive advances, then his theory would be disproved. Irreducible systems provide that disproof. Evolutionists have fought irreducible complexity fiercely, but many scientists have become convinced that intelligent design is an undeniable feature of living organisms, and a strong "Intelligent Design" group has emerged. Many articles by Behe and the Design group can be found on the internet. Behe explains his stand in Evidence for Intelligent Design. One of his colleagues, William Dembski's "Still Spinning" illustrates the tricky tactics of the opponents of design and how they can be dealt with. Non-biologists have increasingly entered the evolutionary arena. Examples are given from well know mathematician, and philosopher David Berlinski, ("The Deniable Darwin" and "Keeping an Eye on Darwin" ). Physicist Lee Spetner in A Scientific Critique of Evolution demonstrates an important point for anyone wanting to enter the arena. The claims of the evolutionist are expounded with intimidating authority, and a superior knowledge of the scientific literature is needed to show up their fatuous claims for what they are. Despite the evolutionist's bluster and the total commitment of the scientific establishment to supporting it, I believe most would concede that evolution is in its weakest and most unconvincing state for many years. (See for example, Atheism In Decline Everywhere) However weak or strong the orthodox evolutionist's position may appear to be though, it would be unwise to be swayed simply by the strongest "scientific" argument. As can be seen by contrasting Darwin and Colby, "science" changes its mind - sometimes very quickly. Whichever side is considered to have the strongest arguments today may find itself discomfited by new arguments tomorrow. The Word of God though remains the same for ever. God is true though all men be liars. unquote Studies in Evolution - Reformation International Schools (refcm.org)
  18. https://theconversation.com/what-exactly-is-the-scientific-method-and-why-do-so-many-people-get-it-wrong-65117
  19. "The history of science has many remarkable examples of the difficulties which can arise when dubious but attractive ideas become firmly established in scientific thinking. The chemists of three hundred years ago were convinced that fire was caused by something escaping from a burning body. This of course is eminently reasonable. A fir cone or a piece of paper , when burned, becomes just a little heap of ash; the form, structure and organization, as well as much of the volume are gone. Obviously something has been lost. This "something" was given the name "Phlogiston". This is not an isolated chapter in the history of science. Plenty of notable errors have been made, even in this century." ---- Professor Philip Stott in his book Vital Questions
  20. Sorry, I will have to try to reduce the number of replies into one. Remember, the number of scientists or people who believe something does not make it true. That is the case with the theory of evolution.
  21. Actually it has been thrown out by some scientists. If you look at it closely, you have to admit it is unproven. It is impossible to prove for one thing because it allegedly happened over hundreds of millions of years and it cannot be replicated in an experiment. It cannot be observed.
  22. The subject becomes quite complex. It seems different people will have different ideas on what is genuine science. I have had trouble even trying to locate a simple example of something using the scientific method. When it comes to the theory of evolution, you need to be very careful because that is obviously not empirical science. Much like the "Big Bang" is not science. It is only speculation.
  23. An example might be: "1500s: Nicolaus Copernicus advanced the understanding of the solar system with his discovery of heliocentrism. This is a model in which Earth and the other planets revolve around the sun, which is the center of the solar system. 1600s: Johannes Kepler built upon those observations with his laws of planetary motion. Galileo Galilei improved on a new invention, the telescope, and used it to study the sun and planets. The 1600s also saw advancements in the study of physics as Isaac Newton developed his laws of motion." Not all things are infallibly proven. Some assumptions or perhaps even what we thought were proven facts changed over time. So perhaps man does not know as much as he thinks he knows.
  24. " The steps of the scientific method go something like this, according to Highline College: Make an observation or observations. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility — no science." Science and the scientific method: Definitions and examples | Live Science Notice it says the foundation of science is the reproducibility of published experiments. The theory of evolution does not fit into that definition. That is why it is called a theory. But when people and schools teach it as a fact, they are therefore not telling the truth. Let's see if we can find an example of something that used the scientific method.
  25. This little article answers that well. " Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe. The word "science" is derived from the Latin word "scientia," which means knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis, a process known as the scientific method. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California, Berkeley. Anything that is considered supernatural, or beyond physical reality, does not fit into the definition of science." Science and the scientific method: Definitions and examples | Live Science The reality is many scientists and others have deviated away from the scientific method and now claim speculation or assumptions are sufficient proof of their hypotheses.
×
×
  • Create New...