It is a belief system. Valid obseravtions, but to infer to totality from a limited set -- that's religion.
Nitpick much? I answered the question he was actually asking, not his poor word choice while asking it.
Where's all the antiparticles btw?
All around us. Try reading the links again.
Gone walk-about. And actually, a non-testable obsevation. Therefore not science, eh?
Wow, you understand even less about physics than you do about biology. I hadn't thought that possible.
It is a belief system.
No, it's physics. I can understand how you'd be unclear on the concept, though, given how you've made it clear that to you, *everything* is "just a belief system", and all opinions on all matters are as valid as any other because they're just "belief systems" with no way to differentiate valid ones from invalid ones -- never mind the fact that some of us, unlike yourself, actually test our conclusions against the real world by a very effective method (working out the predicted consequences of those conclusions, then comparing those predictions against real-world evidence and tests, and rejecting, modifying, or accepting the conclusions based on the results). This is what validates the conclusions of science against untested beliefs held not only in the absence of evidence, but often in spite of contradicting evidence, such as religious beliefs. This is why your following bit of silliness is especially disingenuous:
Valid obseravtions, but to infer to totality from a limited set -- that's religion.
Sorry, no, but science doesn't work that way. But to someone who sees everything through the prism of religion, such as yourself, I can see how you'd presume that *everyone* does. But it's simply not true. When you folks finally grasp that fundamental point, you might begin to be able to hold up your end in a discussion about scientific issues, instead of endlessly making pointless rants and false accusations like this.