clax, just because I didn't respond to your post first does not mean I was not going to respond. Like I said already though, I don't have the time or energy to spell everything out for you. I just don't want to do it. If you want to look it up, the information is readily available on the Internet. Here are some of the things you were said were not true, but are:
-peer review is a major part of science
-applying the scientific method, you can't come to the conclusion that God is real
-there have historically been clashes between science and religion. It doesn't matter that you don't take the stance of the church as gospel, but others do. For them, the church is the ultimate voice of the religion and the church's voice has often conflicted with science (from Galileo and Copernicus to evolution)
-the dictionary is not a comprehensive source of definitions. Furthermore, definitions are often vague (like with science the definition you use talked about a "systematic" approach. "systematic" is very vague and it includes peer review in modern science)
etc.
No, you misunderstood every thing I said. First peer review is subjective, I can go into detail from my experience in the world of science, anybody with half a brain cell would understand why I say it is subjective but you wish to continue with your character assassination of me.
Second point I never stated that wasn't true, I mealy said being a scientist doesn't require you to look at everything scientifically, again you crammed words in my mouth, nasty habit of yours.
Third point, you mistake a collective for a person, and I never disagreed with you that the religious leaders denounced science, I simple explained the social structure that have them the power to halt the furthering of knowledge. You insist that it is a religion, it may be the people with in the religion but blame the proper people, I only took exception to your statement that religion (by which I assume you mean people) halts science, I exist in opposition to that statement. I am religious (mildly) but I do not wish to stand in the way of science. In fact quite the opposite I support the Bibles take on furthering of knowledge, it states that we should learn of things in science in proverbs.
I am a religious person that doesn't practice hypocrisy, my fellow Christians over look things to be part of a culture, that culture is what halts science.
Cough..cough. Sorry still choking on your words.
The last point you are correct on, the dictionary does not illustrate the entire meaning in words. The systematic approach, can include many things.
My exception was purely emotional on that peer review issue. I had an experience in academic science where peer review acted as the ninth Centry church. They rejected all the data I had gathered in a study, and my peers saw fit to cast me out much like Galileo was in the fifteenth century, and dub my findings heresy for lack of a better word. My grants were taken away because I fails that class because the findings were not something they could support.
I was lagitamatly treated as Galileo aside from the imprisonment. Because my study would be politically controversial and would potentially damage reputations.
Further more it took guts for Galileo to go against the church and not comprise, many people in the realm of academics are spineless. Although I can't say I blame them.
Peer review must be regarded, I was mistaken and for that I an sorry. But peer review can become much like the situation Galileo was in, especially when people have motives aside from advancing knowledge. Sorry that was all of my sour grapes from wasting time in that university.
Ontop of that my nature, slightly oblivious, severely dyslexic (as I am sure anybody who reads any of my posts is aware) forced me into outcast status in the group that had given me my grants, they were all about image, and pretended to be about intellect.
Perhaps I will start a thread to explain that dark side of peer review.
That aside, observable evidence isn't everything- there are other forms of evidence and statistical solutions. When it comes to the Big Bang, there is observable data supporting it though such as the universe is expanding, etc.
