While you obviously have nothing to proof to a random forum dweller like me, I find that hard to believe to be honest. Even if you're a genius it'd be nigh impossible to have an academic degree in five different fields in your 20s. Unless you mean you have a high school degree where you were taught chemistry, geography, etc.

The way you formulate your questions doesn't even hint at a scientific background. I don't mean this as a jab because there is nothing wrong with not being scientifically educated and asking questions about science.

Could also be that you are screwing with us for the lolz and hiding your academic background extremely well.

"it'd be nigh impossible to have an academic degree in five different fields in your 20s."

i didn't say i have 5 degrees, i said i had one and several certificates 

"i have various certificates in chemistry, biology, physics, maths and geography with other subjects of course

a degree in a scientific field"

"Unless you mean you have a high school degree where you were taught chemistry, geography, etc. "

yes i'm referring to certificates i earned in school and college

"The way you formulate your questions doesn't even hint at a scientific background."

can you give an example?

I can give a few just from this thread alone.

You compared the existence of God to the existence of electrons, saying that both require faith to believe they exist. Any scientist would know that to be a bullshit comparison. Scientists know claims are made based on evidence. You can't prove something doesn't exist, you can only prove something does exist. There is no faith required to accept a scientific theory, just evidence.

You seem to lack any understanding of what peer review is and how it works. You even compared it to the structural hierarchy of the church, which is so bizarre that I couldn't come up with it even if I tried. You go on about how peer review makes science vulnerable to subjectivity and flaws because it's the same kind of top-down selectivity as the church, while it's exactly the other way around. Peer review exists to remove subjectivity and to solidify scientific findings. Your comparison once again truly defies logic...

When you are confronted with this you bring up Einstein as the most recognizable scientist, claiming that this proves science is hierarchic like the church. Bringing up Einstein in this context just screams "I'm a high school student" to me. You really think a chemist, or a geologist or a neurologist thinks "hmm, I'm just a lowly scientist, Einstein is the real deal, I wish I was as respected as him"? In the scientific community you earn respect by contributing to you field, it doesn't require you to be famous among laymen.

You also type very short sentences without much depth to them, your arguments jump from one point to another without much consistency. It doesn't help that you hardly use punctuation as well. Frankly I can't see you publishing any scientific articles with a writing style even remotely like the writing style you use on this forum.

This post may seem like an attack, but it is not intended as such. You asked for clarification so hereby I did. I read along this thread along with the other thread about science you started and, while the topics themselves can be interesting, I feel people are having a hard time discussing these (admittedly difficult) topics with you, as you appear to be on a completely different wavelength sometimes.

May I just ask, how old are you and what is your highest graduated education?

"You compared the existence of God to the existence of electrons, saying that both require faith to believe they exist."

yeah i then went on to say that it was a bad comparison, but i was making another point that appears to have gone over your head

"You even compared it to the structural hierarchy of the church, which is so bizarre that I couldn't come up with it even if I tried."

i did not do a direct comparison between the two i said that both have a selection criteria and an associated structure... go back and read my posts 

" You can't prove something doesn't exist"

you can't prove that you don't have on a blindfold right now?

" You go on about how peer review makes science vulnerable to subjectivity and flaws"

it doesn't? isn't consensus inherently subjective?

"because it's the same kind of top-down selectivity as the church"

no didn't say that either, i said both have a selective structure in place, i didn't say they have the same type... right here in my post i even said so "i didn't say its the exact same thing"

its funny though that you don't have a problem with spokentruth saying that there is no selection or structure in terms of peer review

"Bringing up Einstein in this context just screams "I'm a high school student" to me. You really think a chemist, or a geologist or a neurologist thinks "hmm, I'm just a lowly scientist, Einstein is the real deal, I wish I was as respected as him"?"

"what scientist does the general person think of instantly when asked? einstein right? or edison or maybe tesla... how many more can they name?

does that not show that there is a hierarchy where some scientists are more widely respected than others?"

really? in this context? you wouldn't agree that they are more respected than just about all scientists? why assume that i'm speaking about myself when i didn't bring myself into the discussion?

"Frankly I can't see you publishing any scientific articles with a writing style even remotely like the writing style you use on this forum."

why not?

"This post may seem like an attack"

its cool i'm still having fun

I don't see any reason for me to continue this. I made my point and your reply only amplifies my doubts about you having even a basic understanding of science and logic. In the other thread about science vs religion I've just now seen you state that scientific theories are just propositions. No one with a academic background would state such an ignorant thing. Thankfully many other posters made you expose yourself as well, for example the excellent rebuttal Aura7541 made in that thread.

The most optimistic scenario is that you're just screwing with everyone to see how far you can go. If so: have fun with it, but I have better things to do.

"In the other thread about science vs religion I've just now seen you state that scientific theories are just propositions. No one with a academic background would state such an ignorant thing."

the definition of theory from dictionary.com

"a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:"

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory

what i personally find alarming is that you appear to believe that knowing the definition of a handful of words demonstrates that someone has a scientific background lol

"Thankfully many other posters made you expose yourself as well"

expose myself in what way? 

Knowing the difference between a scientific theory on one hand and a belief/faith or "just a proposition" (like anyone could just throw an idea around and call it a scientific theory) on the other is kind of fundamental to understand science.

Either your academic education has failed you greatly or you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, which I find very tiresome so I'll leave you with it.

if i told my friends who went to  university with me that some guy online doubts that i went because i supposedly couldn't remember what theory or proposition means they'd laugh at me... because its stupid to say that

in none of my classes did we go through the definitions of words like theory... because it was irrelevant to coding or wiring things

what are your qualifications btw? its kind of rude to ask for mine and not give me yours

I'm curious at this point what certificates in a number of scientific fields entails, what your degree is in, and what subject you are considering postgraduate work in? Because I have to agree with others that have said it's difficult to believe you are both honest with the arguments you have presented and in the scientific field.

Swear we met in MKE, but I could be thinking of another user. 

my degree is in computer science and electronics

the post grad certification is in cybersecurity

my other qualifications were from school and college

what arguments have i made exactly that are hard to believe?