₦airaland Forum

Ferisidowu:
MY QUESTION TO THE EVOLUTIONISTS HERE IS WHAT YOUR ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION WHAT DO YOU REALLY KNOW ABOUT EVOLUTION .....PLS ANSWER ASAP AM NOT A BIASED PERSON LETS REASON

How will this help?

AgentOfAllah:
Okay, now that you've defined "undirected" more clearly to mean "with no foresight or purpose", then yes, this presupposition is justified, and should be the natural starting point, following the principles of Occam's razor.

Occam's razor does not confer justification. It is only a protocol.

AgentOfAllah:
Let me invoke just one reasons why evolution seems purposeless to an objective observer: Now, bear in mind that current evidence puts the percentage of extinct species at around 99% (W. E. Kunin and K. J. Gaston, 1997). This extent of wastefulness does not exude any sense of purpose.

"Exude any sense of purpose" is woolly.
Also, according to the ToE, extant species, like humans, would not exist if it were not for a whole line of extinct species. So your argument is groundless.

Can you specify examples of both definitions, and cite their sources. I need context to better understand the equivocation you're referring to.

I will look for description of ToE or within ToE and post up what I find.

EDIT: A good example is Richard Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design is a 1986 book by Richard Dawkins, in which the author presents an explanation of, and argument for, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection.

AgentOfAllah:
So you don't accept that something which is pointless has no purpose?

Don't shift your point. Let us debate fairly and diligently. Your original questions says "ends up being pointless".
You recognize that something can be given a purpose that "ends up" pointless in some sense. One could also argue that the point may have been to discover its inappropriateness -- i.e it was a deliberate exploration or learning experience for better success.

Your line of argument then has to explain how you get from pointlessness to undirectedness. They are different concepts. A child can talk to himself and do a crazy dance in the middle of his backyard. His behaviour may be considered pointless, but it is directed.

sino:
I wonder how and where a hydrolysis reaction wouldn't involve water, isn't it very straightforward that hydro means water?!

Good luck getting a sensible response out of Graycoder.

(Note: an enzyme does take part in a reaction [of course], but it is not used up in the reaction. Industrial catalysts, for example, are known to work in various ways and are the subject of big patents. They can totally alter the balance of an equilibrium reaction by bonding with and releasing from the reactants. Sometimes this saves a lot of energy with reactions that would not go without a lot of heat. It must be a very interesting field. The last I heard, new things were happening involving the use of electromagnetic radiation and catalysts to drive reactions and save energy.)

AgentOfAllah:
It is implied in the word "selection", isn't it? That is to say, nature is doing the selection, albeit, mindlessly. Unless you wish to impose a mind (by which I mean purpose) on the director, in which case the onus is on you to explain why this is necessary. I should stress that evolution doesn't necessarily rule out a sentient director, it just doesn't see any need for it.

In the sense Richard Dawkins (for one) uses the term "undirected" it means "with no foresight or purpose". In fact, he stresses that the word "selected" is unfortunate and should not be construed as implying "directed".

AgentOfAllah:
This is true. But the theory of evolution itself does not require mutations to be undirected, it takes mutations as a matter of course and proceeds from there.

You are saying two different things.

The theory is sometimes stated including the idea of "undirectness", sometimes not. So whether it is required or not cannot be determined, until the equivocation is resolved.

AgentOfAllah:
However, back whether they are directed or not. Would you say it is safe to assume that if >90% of the mutations that occur end up either pointless or harmful then they are undirected?

Not at all.

.

Graycoder:
I understand your excuse. You cannot argue science if you cannot explain or understand it.

I gave you academical and credible links you cannot refute and this is the best response you can give. Then go to any laboratory and test the hydrolysis of proteins with water. I'm sure you can wait for 600 hundred years.

You need to find a more mature approach to debating. This is your standard:

Graycoder:
(a) Please, tell us, is the HCL in the stomach a gas or in the gaseous state or a solution?
(b)Tell us, is the stomach's temperature the same as room temperature?

Two totally irrelevant red herring questions. If HCl is a gas at room temperature, then it is clearly a gas a body temperature or at the stomach's temperature.

Stomach containing HCl in solution does not defend your erroneous claim that you can hydrolyze a protein with HCl and an enzyme alone. It is a ridiculous claim.

And it seems as if you have struggled to read or understand the definition I gave you, of hydrolysis. So you come up with this rhetorical waffle:

Please show me where it is written that water hydrolyzed the protein.

I'm sorry, but your illogical mode of debate is a waste of my time.

oh, don't bother. That was my last post to you. I know you will carry on in the same vein.

Graycoder:
Am I the one who is not being logical here or you are the one arguing straw man?

1. Your statement which brought up the HCL and Pepsin for the digestion of proteins was "I can't even decipher what you have written. Hydrolysis of proteins happen in the body all the time. It involves water, acid and enzymes."

- Now, I responded by saying this only happens in the stomach. Why bring up gaseous state argument for HCL?
(a) Please, tell us, is the HCL in the stomach a gas or in the gaseous state or a solution?
(b)Tell us, is the stomach's temperature the same as room temperature?

I must say, sir, your inability to decipher is really a huge setback



So you know it is vague, but you made it anyway.



Digestion is a hydrolytic process. This is why I have been hammering your field of study. You can't keep talking about the things you have little or no knowledge about.

I want you to read this quote, maybe you'll catch a clue that hydrolysis is not just about water and it doesn't happen to all compounds or molecules too.

"Hydrolyzed protein is a protein that has been hydrolyzed or broken down into its component amino acids. While there are many means of achieving this, two of the most common methods are prolonged boiling in a strong acid (acid-HVP) or strong base or using an enzyme such as pancreatic protease to simulate the naturally occurring hydrolytic process"

Please show me where it is written that water hydrolyzed the protein. They said the most common methods of hydrolyzing protein to boil it in Strong acids or bases. Did you see water there? Still, note that acids don't contain water

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolyzed_protein

You have no argument. You should read properly the answers I have already given you, and structure your responses logically.

I can do nothing with illogical replies.

AgentOfAllah:
I'm not sure I understand your meaning. Do you dispute that mutations occur randomly or you dispute that natural selection of favorable mutations is a directed process?

"Natural selection of favorable mutations is a directed process" is not a claim made by scientists.

I have said that scientists have provided no evidence that "mutations are undirected".

Graycoder:
Protein digestion depends on HCL(for hydrolysis) and Pepsin(Proteolysis) in the stomach alone. Hcl denatures the protein and also provides an acidic environment for Pepsin and enzymes break the bonds. Water has no input.

If you disagree, give me credible links that say water is involved in the digestion of proteins.

Sir, your argument is not flowing logically.

You claim that "HCL (a gas at room temperature) and Pepsin ALONE can hydrolyze protein."

Then you ask for a link that says water is "involved in the digestion of protein". There is no reason for any article to make such a vague statement.

Why have you suddenly switched from "hydrolysis" to "digestion"? The involvement of water in hydrolysis is as per the definition I gave you.

Hydrolysis is a reaction that breaks down a molecule using the elements of water.

You want a link to this fact?

Graycoder:
Oga, water can be involved in hydrolysis, I didn't say it cannot. But so can Acids and Bases, not water alone. And when acids and bases are hydrolyzing, water is not necessarily a reactant there.

Chief, you are repeating some basic stuff that nobody is arguing about, but your earlier incorrect supposition that you could hydrolyze protein with HCL and an enzyme alone actually demonstrates the problem nicely. Water HAS TO BE INVOLVED as per the definition I gave.

The word "involved" covers "reactant" and ALL other situations.

Now, the fact is water does not hydrolyze all compounds, acids and bases can also hydrolyze compounds. This is the case when it comes to proteins. Why are you becoming anti-knowledge for goodness sake?

I am not. You are repeating basic things that nobody is arguing about, without acknowledging that your own terminology has led you astray into believing that you can hydrolyze protein with HCL and an enzyme alone.

The conditions for hydrolyzing must be met before it even starts at all.

Chief, is it anti-knowledge for me to ignore this truism? (While you ignore the substantive point)

Anyway, I have no religion.

But I posit that the theory of evolution is nothing more than an unproven hypothesis.

It is equivocal and opaque in regards the teleological argument.

(Specifically, its claim that random, "undirected" mutations feed the evolutionary process.)

The theory justifies the use of the idea of undirectedness firstly by claiming that direction is not necessary to account for biology, but at the same time, hides behind the claim that "chance does not require any explanation". Therefore, it makes a teleological argument, without any evidence.

Graycoder:
Water does not hydrolyze all compounds, water also hydrates.

The conditions allowed for hydrolysis must be met before it takes place. If the conditions are not met, nothing will happen.

It is not automatic. Hydrolysis is not automatic. Water can hydrate or hydrolyze depending on the conditions met.

And?

Graycoder:
Can I know your area of study before we continue? Chemists don't use the language "water is involved," we are not confusionists. There specific scientific languages you use in science. They either use words like, reacted, added, eliminated, and produced. What do you mean by involved in science?

Nope. Argue the facts.

Hydrolysis is a reaction that breaks down a molecule using the elements of water. That is the sense in which "water is involved". The language a chemist would use depends on the situation. If it was a peer reviewed paper, he would have to explain precisely the word "involved".

Graycoder:
1. Now you are contradicting yourself. You said hydrolysis of water only take place slowly and takes several hundreds of years. This means it cannot happen in anybody's lifetime. Which inturn means it is impossible.

2.Then you said it can be made fast by using enzymes, I agree with this. But concerning he arguments of Akin1212 and DoctorAlien, they were arguing in respect to the formation of body proteins during evolution. DoctorAlien said proteins would break down if water was present, hence evolution cannot be true. This means if proteins are formed now now, then they would break down again in the presence of water.

3. Akin1212 said water cannot break down protein. I remember he said water can be added to more water. And according to the facts conceded to by you that it may take 700 years, then it means it is impossible, and hence evolution can take place.

4. Hydrolysis of edible proteins that takes place in the body is called digestion and it solely depends on HCL and Pepsin alone. Wheter water is present or not.

So evolution is related to the hydrolysis of proteins. That was the argument

You are confusing yourself by conflating the argument and my rebuttal of a statement made by Akin1212. In doing so, I was not defending anybody else's argument. I don't "takes sides and work backwards" when I debate.

You are wrong. You cannot hydrolyze protein with HCL and pepsin alone.

Graycoder:
But irrespective of the clue, the FACT is that hydro does not mean water is involved in hydrolysis. It may mean acid and bases, given that these substances are aqueous solutions. But that's not the argument.

We are talking about water directly. And please let me remind you, they were not arguing about hydrolysis in general, they were arguing "hydrolysis of proteins."

Water do not hydrolyse all compounds readily.

When chemists talk about water being "involved" or a "water molecule being added", they don't mean that the protein reacted directly with water. They may even talk of a compound "losing a water molecule", which would make no sense at all if you interpreted it the way you are doing.

Graycoder:
1. So sir, in light of enzymes, can you give me one natural enzyme that would make this hydrolysis possible under natural conditions that would prevent the process of evolution to take place? I would really appreciate that.

I can't even decipher what you have written. Hydrolysis of proteins happen in the body all the time. It involves water, acid and enzymes.

As for the "prevention of the process of evolution taking place", that has nothing to do with the statement that "hydrolysis of proteins does not involve water"!

Graycoder:
4. Hydro doesn't mean water is involved. Acids and bases also break down proteins into amino acids and it is still called hydrolysis.

That is not a logical argument. I said that hydro- gives you a clue.

You clearly don't understand what hydrolysis means. Water is involved whether you use an acid or a base.

Graycoder:
1. He is not wrong sir. Do you agree with me that a reaction that is as slow as the hydrolysis of proteins which may take up 700 years will never complete? Given that nobody will stay that long to observe it.

Chief, the reaction takes a matter of hours with enzymes. These enzymes catalyze the reaction.

Also, he refers to the hydrolysis of protein, himself, and says that it doesn't involve water!

Graycoder:
He didn't say water is not involved in hydrolysis, you don't have to this. He said water is not involved in the hydrolysis of Proteins. These are two different things.

Water is involved in the hydrolysis of proteins.

His argument that such hydrolysis is too slow to be of consequence is flawed. In practice, enzymes are involved, which speed up the hydrolysis. Also, the difficulty in the hydrolysis has a lot to do with exposing the bonds, as proteins tend to wind around themselves.

"Hydro" should give you a clue the water is involved. Sorry, but his statement was a gaffe of major proportions.

Akin1212:
When proteins are broken down into their constituent amino acids, the reaction is called hydrolysis, and water is not involved at all.

Oh dear!

When you make a dreadful mistake like this, you should just correct it, instead of arguing.

baby124:
Where is Segun Gele's proof that they are divorced? The guy is mostly speculating jare and looking for attention. He should not be commenting on such a topic like this. His dates don't add up. Training the woman through school is 4yrs alone. Then they have an 18month old. They were married in 2013. Do your math. Segun should hold his mouth and hear from both sides before making a video.

1. They have filed for divorce, but the divorce has not been finalized. In US Law, until the divorce settlement, the marital home is joint property. He cannot throw her out.

2. She did not tell the police that he was beating her. She told the police that she was in a domestic abuse situation. When asked if it was with the husband, she said, "NO, MORE LIKE THE BABY'S FATHER'S MOTHER". So the fact is that she was not trying to stitch the man up.

3. It is likely that the mother-in-law is involving herself in the divorce and probably the child custody issue. That would explain why the whereabouts of the girl's mother was mentioned, and why the girl is so animated about what is being said (if the mother-in-law is a threat to custody of the 18-month-old baby).

4. I don't know why the man called his mother out of the room, instead of waiting until the police arrived.

5. The man laid his hands on her a couple of times, despite his repeated claims that "his hands are in the air". He was too angry to control himself. That is when the girl said to somebody on her phone that her ex was beating her up. It wasn't said to the police. I think her intention was to scare him into leaving her alone. It worked. He had been getting to the point of losing it.

plaetton:
Lol.

You shown yourself to be a science denier and anti- science nut.

Let's go back the link.

Here is an excerpt :

And ;

And of course this :


https://home.cern/about/updates/2015/09/atlas-and-cms-experiments-shed-light-higgs-properties

And finally,

Now, run along and be quite.

[color=#FF0000][size=16pt]Dude, you are just as bad as all the fake pastors and astrologers you complain about![/size][/color]

THIS IS YOUR OWN LINK YOU ARE DENYING!!!

IT SAYS "[color=#FF0000]TENTATIVELY CONFIRMED[/color]".

Do you not know what "tentatively" means? If you don't, then DON'T BE LAZY!!! LOOK IT UP!!

In particle physics, CONFIRMED refers to a statistical accuracy of "five sigma", meaning less than 0.00006% error.

"TENTATIVELY CONFIRMED" is undefined, but is implies [color=#FF0000]NOT CONFIRMED[/color].

Later, your link says, "[color=#FF0000]BELIEVED[/color] TO BE CONFIRMED".

See how they twist their words. It should NOT be a matter of [color=#FF0000]belief[/color].

It is hypocritical to be complaining about belief in religion, and then using belief in science to "confirm" things. The results are either accurate to 5-sigma or they are not.

[color=#FF0000]SO, YOU SEE, YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN SOURCE!!![/color]

It says:

"All of the measured properties are in agreement with the predictions of the Standard Model"

This is where you show you ignorance of science. "in agreement with" does not mean "confirmed" LOL!!

It means "not disproved". You lack the logic to understand the BIG DIFFERENCE.

AND THE STATEMENT IS A LIE, ANYWAY!

The mass of the observed particle has a 5% ERROR, when the maximum error permitted for confirmation is 0.00006% !!!(5-sigma)

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120711-higgs-what-was-left-unsaid

..but while this is exciting it is far less clear that what they’ve detected is the fabled Higgs. If it is, it seems [color=#FF0000]CURIOUSLY LIGHTER THAN EXPECTED[/color] and more work is needed to EXPLAIN AWAY the discrepancy.

[color=#FF0000]WHY DOESN'T THE CERN WEBSITE ADMIT THIS?[/color]

plaetton:
I guess you have never used an Android keypad that tries to fill in words as you type them ?

Let me repeat, if you're not smart enough to recognize a typo error when you see it, then I am way way out your league.

You , my friend, actually have a personality issue.
Same today as you were last year or so.

You're trying to force yourself to be smart .
It takes more than big words, or asking people ' do you know this and do you know that' to be smart.

I wish you happy maturity

So, it's autocomplete's fault! LOL!!!

Autocomplete created the word "bosson", LOL!!!

Have you ever asked yourself why you struggle to be truthful. It is glaringly obvious that you are unfamiliar with the topic of the Higgs Boson.
I used it as an example to show that the scientists that you worship and parrot are as crooked as most people, especially when large sums of money are at stake.

Science is just another religion to you. Scientists are your gods.

We have IN THIS THREAD an example of you REFUTING a link which states categorically that the status of the existence of the Higgs Boson is NOT "confirmed".

You continue to pretend that it is confirmed.

Your credibility is shot to pieces!

You are an example of why it is pointless believing the hype of scientists, media, and religious disciples of science, like you.

plaetton:
Lol.
If can't spot a typo error when you see one, then clearly you are way out my league, way way below.

I have no idea how Dawkins has come into this discussion. For the records, I repeat that I have never read a book or article written by Dawkins.

Truths and facts need no embellishments. They are the same no matter who speaks it.

And did you say " the popular media" ?
I assume that you get your facts from " the unpopular media " , with their own version of science ?

I have, in this case, and like past previous encounters with you, given you wide latitudes to actually come out and make your case, whatever it is.
And just like in the past you're hiding behind big words and phrases to camouflage your,.. your funny and contradictory aversion for science and the scientific method.

You are just a cheerleader, who doesn't really understand science.

If you have not read any articles by Dawkins, then you are parroting him, second or third hand, without realizing it. That is what happens when the source of your information is populist media.

I have an aversion to hypocrisy, and, unlike you, I don't care whether it comes from religion or "science".

You called the Higgs Boson the "highs bosson" TWICE, in two separate posts, and after EyeHateGod called it the "highs bosom". He was probably being facetious, but still parroted him! LOL!!!

EyeHateGod:
Pls can u tell me what the Highs bosom is?

You are clearly clueless about the subject that you are pontificating about.

plaetton: Like many things in the universe, the highs bosson might exist in such a rare state that we might not be able catch it using convention tools of physics. In such a case, we look for its footprints, its primary or secondary emanations.

What a laugh! "Catching a boson using conventional tools" is MEANINGLESS DRIVEL, that may fool some people.

You clearly have no notion what you are talking about. A statistical signature is what determines the existence of a boson. And since you don't understand that, you have no concept of what statistical outcomes, sigma levels and confirmation means.

The article went over your head.

Go and educate yourself. The article states that all the signatures mentioned are below the level required for scientific confirmation of the existence of the Higgs Boson.

plaetton:
I think that perhaps you , I and the rest of the world's scientific community have an English comprehension scale that are different.

Like many things in the universe, the highs bosson might exist in such a rare state that we might not be able catch it using convention tools of physics. In such a case, we look for its footprints, its primary or secondary emanations.
In similar manner, many planets are discovered in our solar system and outside our solar system by measuring gravitational perturbations of such planets on distant lights. From the gravitational perturbations , we are able to calculate the mass, the orbital spin and orbital periods of such planets long before a visual confirmation.
That's the way of the system.

We have seen enough evidence for the confirmation of the higgs bosson. There is no holy war to compel anyone to believe or swear by its existence.
When we discover more in the future, we upgrade or knowledge.
Meanwhile, you are very very free to offer an alternative theory or refute what has been found or known.
This is the way of science.

In what other way can we make you understand the scientific system ?

You are clearly in over your head. You clearly do not understand the science, or even what science is in general.

Just say so, instead of pretending.

You spend your time parroting some very worn phrases, popularized by Dawkins, most of which are of no relevance to the specific point being raised.

You even parroted somebody who earlier called it the "highs bosson" -- then you called it the "higgs bosson"...

Stop this massive pretence, and "we" nonsense. I am not impressed.

If you had any understanding whatsoever of the subject, you will see from the article that the Higgs Boson (one 's') has not been confirmed.

It demonstrates the problem precisely, that people, like you, who have to rely on popular media due to of their lack of understanding of the fundamentals, are easily fooled by headline spin.

Yes, imo, religion is a blight upon Nigeria, but making that the starting point and motivation behind your argument is being political and shortsighted. You are promoting a kind of blindness that you think is justified on political grounds.

onetrack:
Well if you are willing to accept any explanation for any phenomenon then you are going to have quite a list of possible explanations for everything. Occam's Razor at least permits one to narrow down the possibilities in a way that makes sense, even if it can be wrong from time to time. "We" refers to people who work in the field of research/education.

Is there a better way? Apart from algorithms which may not be feasible...

What test is there for "better"?

Where are your results?

Pastors, Gurus and Astrologers also work in the field of research and education.

SirWere:
What do you mean??

The higgs boson particle was proven BEFORE they were awarded the nobel.

They only gave them because they had the foresight (and genius) to predict 40 YEARS before!!

So............


I feel like I'm missing something here.

You are wrong. The Higgs Boson is not proven.

Read the article (and ignore plaetton, who is a load of pretence).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

Spin: Spin-0 tentatively confirmed.

Parity: Even parity tentatively confirmed.

Decay: observed; but not "yet" confirmed.

Couplings to mass: "strongly evidenced" ("At 95% confidence level cV is within 15% of the standard model value cV=1"wink.

Higher energy results remain "consistent".

So, when we look at the small print for the "confirmation" of the "Higgs Boson", we see wishy-washy double speak. Confirmation in particle physics is supposed to have a very precise definition -- statistical confidence to a level of what is known as 5 sigma, or above. Instead, we have evasive claims of "tentative confirmation", and "strongly evidence", "not yet confirmed", which are just euphemisms for unconfirmed. It's a bit like saying that a woman is "a bit pregnant".

3 years after announcing the confirmation, it is NOT confirmed.

onetrack:
I do not have faith in Occam's Razor, because it can be wrong, as any heuristic can be. However, lacking any other satisfactory explanation, using Occam's razor is the best we can do.

What proof do you have that it is the best "we" can do? (whoever "we" is)

SirWere:
The disillusionment of a former religious member into irreligiosity (atheism) is a slow, revealing, life- changing process that occurs when the individual is willing; in all honesty and boldeness; to discard the crutch of faith, vodoos, supernaturals and Use only his Logical and unbiased faculties to examine religion(s).

Perhaps you will be able to answer my earlier question to plaetton "in all honesty and boldness, without the crutch of faith"..

sinequanon:
You are not honest, and you know it.

You are evading facts, and then claiming to be rational.

Explain how it is that the Nobel Prize has been awarded to Peter Higgs because "the existence of the Higgs Boson has been confirmed", when the black and white evidence shows that it has not been confirmed.

What you are is a cheerleader. A lot of scientists are cheerleaders, too. Numbers of supporting cheerleaders means nothing when it comes to facts.

onetrack:
Evolution: look at antibiotic resistance, breed of dogs, etc. Artificial selection works on the same principles and is testable.

Religion is not divine because of 1: errors and inconsistencies in all of them, and 2: the holy books are made of the same material as any other book. Using Occams Razor, I deduce that these books are also of human origin like any other book.

Why is your faith in Occam's Razor any better than any other faith?

Note that...

Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor[/url]

plaetton:
Let's be honest....

You are not honest, and you know it.

You are evading facts, and then claiming to be rational.

Explain how it is that the Nobel Prize has been awarded to Peter Higgs because "the existence of the Higgs Boson has been confirmed", when the black and white evidence shows that it has not been confirmed.

What you are is a cheerleader. A lot of scientists are cheerleaders, too. Numbers of supporting cheerleaders means nothing when it comes to facts.

plaetton:
The facts are rather simple. If you , as a rational whatever you call yourself, is convinced that the highs bosson is a hoax perpetrated by the assembly of world renowned physicists, then do the world a favor by exposing them WITH YOUR OWN EXPERIMENTS or at the least, a theory or model.

The religious section is already full of science deniers. We don't need a smart fella like you to add to what is already a big mess.

I don't need my own experiments. The ACCEPTED EXPERIMENTS state that the Higgs Boson is NOT confirmed.

Did you not read the articles?

The Nobel Prize awards state, contrary to current ACCEPTED EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE, that the Higgs Boson is confirmed.

So, when scientists say that something is confirmed, it doesn't mean that it is.

Sorry, but not believing in god, does not make me believe blindly in scientists.