doG

It's defined for real numbers that way!

Did you mean this one?

Are you asserting that as some kind of fact, one you've failed to support, or just some personal belief?

Can you prove that? without any hearsay I might add...

I seem to remember from some news in the past that some scientist floated this idea and he was labeled 'nuts'. A small percentage of error and we'd all be extinct.

False. democracy ≠ rule by reason BTW, you really need to do a better job at supporting your alleged assertions. We really don't care for your fiction.

Yes, it does happen occasionally. It is most effective when applied immediately when the heart stops. When I learned CPR they were still teaching the cardiopulmonary thump which was effective in some cases when applied at the time a heart attack stopped the heart It is now discouraged because of misuse causing more injury to the patient.

False. Please support this assertion or retract it.

Here we don't consider unsupported assertions to be facts since they are against the rules. We need more than just your say so.

Maybe? Or did you just misspell 'likely'?

No, you still don't get it. The sunlight you see everyday takes 8 minutes to reach the Earth. You literally see the sun as it was 8 minutes ago. When you look at light that took 13.7 billion years to reach us you are literally looking at an event that took place 13.7 billion years ago and you are directly observing it.

Experience ≠ faith. If you have been a car before and the brakes have always worked before then the belief that the brakes will work next time is based on your experience, not faith. Faith is a belief in something for which there is no proof, there's plenty of proof that brakes work.

Um.....NO. The effects of these things is observable, not the things themselves. Heck, we don't even know exactly what causes gravity, just that it exists.

'nuf said!!!

An important point to note: Historically religion has nothing to do with belief in scientific theories like gravity as sammy7 would have us believe. This thread is effectively pointless. That is INCREDIBLY obvious!

I disagree. No where in the lineage of 'law' is the word god mentioned. Further, your assertion would imply that laws and morals did not exist before man developed the ideology of god to begin with. I can't wait to see your attempt to support this assertion.

We've been through this before and it's quite obvious you either didn't understand or chose not to. At any rate, this is a PRIVATE internet forum run and regulated by a private staff assembled by this site to uphold the rules they made for this site. If you don't like it then quit bitching about it and go make your own site with your own rules and you can have it exactly the way YOU want it.

Sorry, you're not allowed to move the goal post you started with. Now, we did not observe the birth of Earth. Again, are you saying that makes our belief in the result, the existence of Earth, one based in faith?

What's that got to do with anything?

That's odd because he never said that. He said there's no limit to variation in DNA. Now you've raised questions about your ability to comprehend by reading and listening to what others write and say because he wrote and said DNA and you read and heard speciation.

So our belief that Earth exists is based on faith?

We don't observe the birth of planets in our lifetime either, particularly the Earth's. Will you now tell us that accretion disks are not science either?

I did see it. It contains zero evidence proving the scientific method to be faith based. Neither does this one. Back up your assertions or retract them. baloney! I posted a 9 minute video and you claim you watched it in 2 minutes, the time by which you responded to the post with the video.

Didn't watch it did you? Didn't think so. What's the matter? Are you afraid of the scientific method? By the way, it's not faith based. Anyone that thinks otherwise is uneducated.