Wait.....it seems here you're saying all the sciences are part of this anti-God agenda. Do I have that right?
No, what I am saying is that acceptance of evolution is spread across all branches of science and that all will look for validation of their conclusions within the parameters created by their theory. I have no problem with science or scientists, but I disagree strongly on their promotion of evolution as scientific fact, especially to children.
LOL....I'm starting to wonder just how much experience you have in science. Can you please describe your background and experience in science?
Do I need a background in science to see that it has no actual proof for any of its claims? I can read its papers and articles.
If you scan this thread, I have demonstrated how science gets away with its claims without actually needing to provide any real proof that its interpretation of the evidence is accurate. It is all suggestion and conjecture....the papers are littered with "could have"....."might have"...."it is suggested that"...."leads us to the conclusion that".....this is not the language of facts....but supposition.
Again, that's quite a set of accusations; you're just missing one critical element.....actual evidence.
But that is just the point...science doesn't have
actual evidence that microbes evolved into dinosaurs.
They have evidence for adaptation and then take that to unprovable extremes.
All the fossils tell us is that these creatures once existed, but there is not a shred of real evidence that one evolved into another...that is where the supposition and interpretation of the evidence comes in.
You cannot prove that it ever happened though you can "suggest" it till the cows come home.
Being a scientist myself, I see colleagues "stick their neck out" all the time. History has all sorts of examples of scientists going against the grain.
If your accusations were true, then one has to wonder just how any scientific advancements were made. After all, if "no one wants to be publicly humiliated", then the status quo would have been maintained for over a century now. Have you considered the possibility that it's not merely that you are challenging their beliefs, but how you're doing it? For example, in my field of work I and my colleagues get challenged, and challenge each other, all the time.
I guess it depends upon "how" they stick their neck out. It is one thing to debate realities within the parameters of the theory, ( I am assuming that this might take place all the time with scientists challenging one another and to be the first to write a paper about it and get published in one of the journals) but I am guessing that it is something else entirely to step outside of that boundary altogether.
But we also know that if you're going to do that, you have to bring some actual data to the table. You can't just say "You're wrong", make a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations, and expect everyone to just accept them without question.
That seems to be what you're doing here, which I suspect is the reason behind the reactions you get.
My posts are not intended to evaluate scientific data, but to challenge what is commonly believed about it.
I want to show people that it isn't as conclusive as science makes it out to be. That is why I present things the way I do.
Most people are not educated in the sciences to any great degree, but have come to believe what they say without question. But science can be wrong about many things, as it has been demonstrated through decades of discovery.
I have no problem with evolution being taught for what it is...a theory, but I do object to it being regarded and taught as established fact, when it is no such thing.
Below is a good example of what I'm talking about. You've leveled quite a series of accusations against a large number of professional scientists. But when asked to present some evidence to back up these serious accusations, you respond with "I have as much evidence as you".
My aim is not to convince scientists of anything because I know better than to try. My aim is to create a more level playing field where people can use their common sense as well as other faculties to determine their own truth about how life originated, rather than just how it changed. The existence of a Creator is a game changer.
I hope you can appreciate how that sort of weak response after being asked to substantiate your accusations is going to generate some rather strong responses. Quite frankly, what you're doing is rather dishonest and offensive to someone like me who works in the biological sciences, so if we respond harshly......well, it's because we don't like being accused of things by people who have no basis from which to level the accusations.
I appreciate that, but at the same time, I think most people have an exaggerated opinion of science and its capabilities. I want to explode that myth.
For example, we can examine what science has contributed to the world and balance that out with the damage that it has done as well....atomic power plants and weapons come to mind.....
What I am doing is something you do not consider reasonable from your viewpoint, but you have to appreciate that what science teaches regarding life on this planet is unreasonable to people like me. Who is to say that you must be right and I must be wrong? Don't we each have the capacity to make that choice for ourselves? But the choice must be based on truth, not just one side's version of it.
Informed choice is the only one worth making.
That's nothing more than a complete dodge. You've made some serious accusations. If you can't back them up with any evidence, that speaks very poorly of you.
I have backed up my claims with logical reasoning and common sense, which will appeal to people of faith.....if you can back up your arguments with actual proof that evolution ever happened, that would be adding balance to the discussion.There is much that has already been presented and dealt with at this stage however.
Name calling and put downs accomplish nothing and add nothing of value to an interesting topic. But so far we have seen that many of those who support the sciences, also support character assassination as their weapon of choice.
I would just like the plain unadulterated truth to be told.
