If you want to understand the processes of life, you should at least know some biochemistry. That generally requires some organic chemistry and some general chemistry. In addition, you should probably know some physical chemistry (to better understand issues of entropy and activation energies).<quoted text>
I guess what u r saying, with your arrogant, bigot-minded assumption, is that everyone who is not as 'highly educated' in science as you does not have the capacity to understand life?
Yes, if you do not have at least a grounding in these topics, you cannot understand the processes of life. Sorry to break this to you, but ignorance is no excuse.
Nobody does *all* of the experiments backing up their subject. But science students typically do enough to show that the principles are correct.Did YOU compose all those experiments?? Are YOU verifying that everything in The text books is absolute truth??
Your blatant ignorance of the science shows you didn't comprehend any science you read. perhaps you should go take a directed course?So u read a coupe books and did some philological research. Who's to say I didn't??
Of course. But it is crucial for reason to have the basic facts and assumptions. If you do not know what entropy is, don't argue about it. if you don't know how to correctly calculate probabilities, don't use arguments based on such calculations. If you don't know relativity and quantum mechanics and the evidence for them, don't argue that they don't make sense to you.Not everything revolves around what other people say or think. We all have a mind of our own... For a reason.
What we have found through long, hard experience is that logic alone is not enough to learn about the world. That was the fundamental mistake of the middle ages: that we could know about the universe while never actually observing the universe. Another hard won lesson is that we have to try to show our ideas are *wrong*, not simply attempt to prove them. Confirmation bias is too easy to fall into. It is those ideas that survive after people attempt to show them wrong again and again and fail that are worthy of being accepted. Another aspect of this is that only ideas about the world that can actually be tested (in the sense that there is some test that could show them wrong if they are) are acceptable for true investigation.
So here's a question: what evidence would, if it could be found, show that your idea of a deity is wrong? If you cannot produce *one* test, then the whole idea can be discarded as useless for knowledge.