Posted on 10/14/2005 3:27:55 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
"How is that any different than putting your faith in a bunch of fossils and what scientists are telling you."
It's interesting that you would use the word "faith" regarding fossils. No faith is required. Fossils are real, tangible evidence. I've seen them, both in nature and in collections. I've even dug quite a few of them myself. When assembled into a series, they make a pretty darned good evidentiary case for evolution.
On the other hand, "faith" is definitely required to believe that supernatural entities, such as deities, exist at all. Many people do believe that they exist, in all sorts of forms and varieties, of course. They have "faith."
The Theory of Evolution does not rely on "faith," but on phyysical evidence.
Also, the two examples you cite weren't committed by scientists but exposed by them. What's even more interesting is the fact that the methods they used to examine these "fossils" aren't even accepted by most creationists.
So as far as those creationists are concerned we should still not be able to tell whether those fossils are fake or genuine.
Thanks for the ping!
Oh come on, just because some scientists can be dishonest you propose we trash all of science?
Then why do people throw out all religion just because some preachers are dishonest? Hypocrisy on the part of some people doesn't mean the message is less true. It just means that some people are jerks. Yet people will totally turn their backs on God and religion based on the actions of people instead of finding out for themselves what they should or want to believe. The point I'm making is that the same accusations made at the creationists can be made at evolution and scientists, yet they won't acknowledge it. The attitude is," Well, we know we're telling you the truth." I'm to take that all just on their say so? That requires trust in the scientists that they are telling the truth. No, we don't trash science because some scientists are dishonest, but it takes more than "Because I said so" to convince me.
I don't think God is tricking anybody but of course I could be wrong. Either the Bible is true or it isn't, unless you want to pick and choose what may be or may not be true, rendering the entire Bible useless, IMHO.
First, I never implied you were stupid (i.e., slow to learn or lacking intelligence), but merely ignorant (i.e., lacking knowledge). There is no shame in being ignorant; it simply describes the state of having a lack of knowledge. That can be remedied. There is no shame, that is, so long as one does not shut out the knowledge when it is provided. It is only at that point that ignorance becomes stupidity.
So if, in fact, you feel you look stupid, it is perhaps because you are rejecting knowledge that is provided to you. That is on you.
Oh, and I am not in the game of winning "converts." That's for religious hucksters and politicians. If someone wants to wallow in ignorance, practicing voluntary stupidity... what can I say, it's a free country; he can do what he wants.
There are plenty of people who are not stupid who reject the TOE, your judgment aside.
No kidding. Some are insane, others ignorant, still more are brainwashed. They're just as wrong, even if they aren't stupid.
"..Piltdown Man and Archeoraptor..."
Peer review sussed out the truth. Thank you, Science!
read the message this is in reply to and the whole post
Perhaps you are wrong. Nah, impossible.
You're replying to anything in the posts you click reply to, to anything BUT the scientific content. That's trolling.
So ban me.
Of course there are people who reject religion for irrational reasons (i.e. dishonest priests) but that doesn't mean that all do. Further, something like dishonest priests or followers of a certain religion can lead a person to reexamine her beliefs which in turn may lead her to reject her current religion or even religion in general. There's nothing irrational about that.
I'm to take that all just on their say so?
No, of course not. And no one expects you to do so.
However, if you follow the crevo threads more closely you will notice that a lot of evidence gets posted (inline as well as links) by the evo side.
That requires trust in the scientists that they are telling the truth.
It's more trust in the scientific method than in individual scientists. Most scientists aren't satisfied with a "Because I said so" answer either so they check the results of their peers and publish their findings if they deviate in any significant way from the original results. And scientists aren't very coy when it comes to exposing the errors of their colleagues, whether they were deliberate or only honest mistakes.
LOL... Perhaps I am. Actually, evolution happened, I am sure, in a manner slightly different than the model which is currently accepted as the most accurate representation of the evolutionary process. The model will, in the future, become more and more refined as evolution and its processes are better understood. That's what science is about.
But we can say for sure that the theory will be fundamentally similar in most every respect (and in many, many areas absolutely identical) to the theory as we now know it, regardless of how many cranks, kooks, religious hustlers, charlatans, or ignorant, stupid, brainwashed or insane people are out there push their religious dogma or cockamamie crap like creationism and ID creationism on the world.
We sure as hell didn't all get here as set out in Genesis (with petulant spirits, global flooding, a talking snake, magic fruit and all that...)
"We sure as hell didn't all get here as set out in Genesis (with petulant spirits, global flooding, a talking snake, magic fruit and all that...)"
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Well, the bible is clearly not literally true in everything. For example, in 1 Kings 7:23, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is given as three. We know that this value (pi) for the mathematical, is actually 3.1428..., so the bible is not literally correct here.
Once you understand that the bible is not absolutely literally correct everywhere, and that interpretation is necessary and subject to error, it pretty much throws the possibilities of modern science wide open to persons of faith.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.