Posted on 03/01/2009 5:30:40 AM PST by Salman
“Really, the argument that scientists were wrong once so they must be wrong about [fill in what you don’t like] is about as lame as they come.”
You are right about one thing - real scientists will dispel all your foolish notions about evolution.
“I don’t believe in evolution.”
Do you believe the Earth is only about ten thousand years old?”
Don’t let them make it an age of the Earth argument. Look at how they always twist it that way. Manipulative evolutionists always try to twist the argument.
The issue here is utterly disproven and discredited EVOLUTION, which they have ZERO evidence for.
Nice drawings though.
They are also notorious for demanding religion be kept out of science while dragging the Pope into the argument. And giving the scientific study of prayer a a complete free pass.
They also argue endlessly and unusccessfully, that evolution does not address origins or has nothing to do with origins etc., nevermind their God, Darwin’s work was titled “Origin of the Species” and they then go on and on about earth age.
Not. The whole flat earth thing is just an example of scientific mythology. Google up flat earth or scientific mythology and you'll find that very few people in those days believed the earth was flat. It was commonly known that the world was round and Scripture was there before the flat earth stuff anyway.
Hmm, who was it that pursued alchemy for hundreds of years to try to turn lead into gold? Oh, right, scientists.
Who was it that laughed at Simmelwies about washing hands to prevent the spread of disease? Oh, right, scientists.
Who was it that thought that blood letting was an acceptable treatment for illnesses?
Who was it who virtually ignored Mendel's initial work because Darwin's ideas had center stage? Oh, right, scientists.
Who was it who denied that the universe had a beginning and advocated the steady state until Hubble's observations FORCED them to admit the inescapable beginning? Oh, right, scientists.
And who's providing the data to challenge anthropogenic global warming? Oh right, scientists again.
The data has always been there. It isn't like scientists are looking for data to disprove it. All people with common sense are doing is pointing out the misinterpretation of the data that has existed all along. Sorry, not the heroes in that one.
Really, the argument that scientists were wrong once so they must be wrong about [fill in what you don't like] is about as lame as they come.
Wrong HOW MANY times? ONCE?!?!? You've got to be kidding.
How many times have scientists "revised" the age of the earth as *new data came in*?
Implying that scientists are wrong once, or rarely, is about as lame as it comes.
They are wrong with astounding regularity and predictability, not to even begin to mention the outright deception and fraud they engage in.
People are skeptical of scientists pronouncements because of the horrendous track record that *science* has. The medical community alone can provide a plethora of examples of that.
Your answer to my question is pertinent to your question in post 18. Give it some thought and let me know.
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.
I love that old chestnut of the flat earth.
Eratosthenes did his famous experiment and proved the earth round and produced a fairly accurate figure for the size of the earth.
Columbus knew the earth wasn’t flat, in fact, the success of his voyage depended on a spherical earth, though a bit smaller.
And of course fishermen on large bodies of water knew the earth curved away from them at distance so a round earth was rather well known.
Was Jesus lying then, when He said that Adam and Eve were created? In order for Christianity and evolution to be compatible, that would have to be the case.
Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he [Jesus] replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
Mark 10:5&6 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’
Jesus verifies the Genesis account here. God created different groups of animals in separate creation events in that same Genesis account.
For all the variation within species that scientists have found, by their own admission, they still don’t have anything that clearly connects the groups. See post 21 and 76 in this thread alone.
“We do not have any available fossil group which can categorically be claimed to be the ancestor of any other group. We do not have in the fossil record any specific point of divergence of one life form for another, and generally each of the major life groups has retained its fundamental structural and physiological characteristics throughout its life history and has been conservative in habitat.”
G. S. Carter, Professor & author
Fellow of Corpus Christi College
Cambridge, England
Structure and Habit in Vertebrate Evolution
University of Washington Press, 1967
What we call "science" today - for thousands of years - was just a part of the general pursuit of knowledge. In Western culture, the early achievements were by philosophers with a particular interest in the physical world. Ditto for mathematical achievements, etc.
The book of Enoch, fragments (DSS) of which have been carbon dated to 200 BC also speaks of orbits.
These would not be called scientists or works of science, except in retrospect.
Moreover, modern science has built a wall around itself, intentionally separating itself from theology, philosophy and mathematics.
Personally, I think they went too far. betty boop mentioned on another thread that of the four Aristotlean causes, modern science has dismissed two - first and final. It excludes purpose on principle as if to presuppose that everything happens by pure, blind chance, etc.
I know the flat earth thing gets overblown, but I didn't bring it up. If it's a myth, then so is gscc's claim that scientists believed it. And I'm not sure what you mean by "in those days"--I didn't specify a time period. I actually had Eratosthenes in mind.
It was commonly known that the world was round and Scripture was there before the flat earth stuff anyway.
Except Scripture is more easily read to be about a flat earth, which is in line with what the local cultures believed at the time.
Hmm, who was it that pursued alchemy for hundreds of years to try to turn lead into gold? Oh, right, scientists.
Actually, it seems that alchemy developed as a philosophy, and it was scientists who put an end to it because they disproved the metal-into-gold part of it.
Who was it that laughed at Simmelwies about washing hands to prevent the spread of disease? Oh, right, scientists.
Right, and that was a mistake. On the other hand, who do we have to thank for the fact that hygiene eventually became accepted? Scientists. Or do you think doctors wash their hands now just because they like the name "Simmelweis"?
Who was it that thought that blood letting was an acceptable treatment for illnesses?
People who weren't practicing scientific medicine. Once the scientific method was applied to medicine, bloodletting fell out of favor.
Who was it who denied that the universe had a beginning and advocated the steady state until Hubble's observations FORCED them to admit the inescapable beginning? Oh, right, scientists.
And what was Hubble? Oh right, a scientist.
They are wrong with astounding regularity and predictability, not to even begin to mention the outright deception and fraud they engage in.
People are skeptical of scientists pronouncements because of the horrendous track record that *science* has.
And yet, here we are living in a world made by science, in which we rely every day on the work of scientists to produce reliable results, and every day it does. You call that a horrendous track record--who has a better one? Can you demonstrate that scientists engage in deception and fraud any more than any other group of people? And furthermore, science has a built-in method for detecting fraud (which, by the way, is the only reason you know about any of it), which most other endeavors do not.
Choosing to reject evolution (to return to the subject of the thread) because "science is wrong all the time" is lame both because science is no less reliable than other paths to understanding (and more reliable than most), and because it's just a way of avoiding thinking for yourself about whether science is wrong this time and if so, why.
We got rid of him. :)
You forgot the best quote:
The All-Time, Ultimate Evolution Quote
“If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing...”
Jeffrey Dahmer, noted Evolutionist
“Was Jesus lying then, when He said that Adam and Eve were created?”
No, he wasn’t lying. The bible is allegorical. Why do you want to disappoint God by not using the minds that he gave us to figure out his creation method?
speaking of global warming. It's humorous to watch people pretend the only human beings that are always objective or don't allow ideology or polticis or money to influence them are scientists.
In each instance you have acknowledged that science initially got their conclusions wrong. In each instance they eventually came to a more accurate conclusion. This will happen with evolution also. I understand that when one’s total world view is dependent on preserving one’s conclusion on the origin of life, it is hard to consider the conclusion that there is no evidence to support that theory.
The bible (small “b” as I notice you like to use) is allegorical?
Then Jesus must be allegorical as well.
Do you believe that Jesus is allegorical? Sin? Redemption? God? All the people groups that archaeologists have found evidence for? All the historical figures that are referred to in the NT, either in the Gospels or by Paul? Heaven? Hell?
The allegorical crowd, when it comes to Scripture, has a view that permits them to make Scripture mean whatever they deem it to mean. No Scriptural authority!!! They define the meaning of Scripture, not God. Scripture is the Word of God and through proper application of the “science” of hermeneutics can be rightly and clearly understood.
You are extremely focused on the minutiae (capitalization, etc.); that may partially explain the creationists’ inability to accept the compatability of evolution with Christianity. The bible is allegorical, and most major Christian denominations are fine with that. Believe what you want, just don’t expect to be taken seriously as scientists.
“The allegorical crowd, when it comes to Scripture, has a view that permits them to make Scripture mean whatever they deem it to mean. No Scriptural authority!!! “
OK, so pi=3. So says Scripture, the authority on all such matters.
If Scripture addresses the value of pi then it would be the authority for the value of pi, however it does not. Not sure what that was all about??????
It does.
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.