“So this is science now? Come up with a belief the human race has never seen,”
No. Not a belief.
Facts. Evidence. Come up with a hypothesis, present it to scientific people, who examine evidence and determine if it’s real or not.
Like, scientists did not just look at water and decide it’s made up of two different gasses. There’s science behind saying ‘burn hydrogen to get water.’ People who object to the existence of water just end u looking stupid.
“that also contradicts observable, repeatable, scientific fact,”
But it doesn’t. Not really. You’re objecting to some things you think are connotations, but really aren’t. And also, science is about ‘repeatable observations,’ not repeating the science in the lab. You’re wrong there, too.
“and if x% of scientists believe in it, that makes it science anyway?”
Belief don’t matter. It’s accepting the evidence that matters. If 93% of the scientists look at the science and feel it’s science, then what in the goddamned fuck is the basis of your objection?
“ Please cite where that definition of science exists.”
You’re the one tilting at windmills, sweetie.
"Sorry but their profession of faith in it doesn't make it science.”
And your rejection of the science doesn’t make it any sort of religion.
“Secondly no scientists need to believe that populations of fish of the past are their ancestors to do their job.”
You’d be amazed at how many disciplines of science and technology actually use evolutionary principles to do their jobs. So, you can’t say ‘no scientists,’ there, you’re wrong yet again.
“They also know how hateful evolutionists will get, smearing reputations, attacking your funding, and even getting you fired, so of course when asked most scientists will say "yeah, sure, I believe in it" - all so they can go back to doing actual science in peace.”
Because if you DO know a scientific reason to reject evolutionary theory, and publish that, with the required evidence, you’re going to be on the cover of every news or news-adjacent magazine for the next year. The few evolution-believers do NOT have the main force of scientists cowed.
“Ironic since your only support of the fish to man evolution is the commentary from scientists that claim to also believe in it.”
They claim that it’s the best explanation for the evidence they see AND they’re willing to show it. It’s not just a tale we all voted on. But that’s real science, something you’re afraid of.
“Here's what is science: It's observable, repeatable, biological, scientific fact:”
First off, not all science is biological. Jets, computers, astronomy, geology… LOTS of science isn’t biological. Wrong again.
Second, being able to repeat the science is nice, but not a requirement. It’s the observations that are repeatable for science, and that does NOT mean ‘an eyewitness to.’ Your objections are noted, weighed, measured, and discarded as bullshit. CLOSE, but no cigarillo.
"that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, amphibians remain amphibians, and so on.”
And you can prove this? Or do you just hold it to be true, the way you accuse scientists of holding evolution to be true?
“What is it you have against this observable, repeatable, biological, scientific fact?”
That it’s wrong.
“Why do you think the beliefs of evolutionists nullify what IS observable, repeatable, biological scientific fact?”
Because you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.