scientific and faith

[outhouse]

what part of my post reveals a lack of understanding with the scientific method?

try this

There are scientists who are athiestic, Christian, Muslim, and so on. They each start out with a bias

scientist are not biased

 

[outhouse]

Which scientific proofs have shown evolution to be true?

you ever heard of a little field called biology????

 

[The Neo Nerd]

The only thing that is proved by scientists being religious is that they are human. They are prey to the same fears, social pressures and religious brainwashing as they rest of us.

Same as the "there are no atheists in foxholes" argument. Even if this was true (which it isn't) it only proves that proves that soldiers are prey to normal human psychological pressures.

-Q

 

[WordSpeaks]

scientist are not biased

Sure they are! Evolutionary scientists are not prepared to accept that the earth was created by a divine being, nor that the universe is not billions of years old. (Conversely, I concede that creation scientist are not willing to accept that life on earth came about as a product of evolution.)

Dr. David Pilbeam is a noted paleoanthologist. He wrote "Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleonanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But this is heresy." - American Scientist 66:379.

 

[WordSpeaks]

you ever heard of a little field called biology????

Certainly. Which biological proof would you like to discuss? (I hope it's the Miller-Urey experiment. Do you know why biological proteins only use left handed amino acids?

 

[outhouse]

Evolutionary scientists

there is no such thing, this is the lack in your education speaking.

christian scientist discovered evolution.

many scientist today are christian

scientists are not prepared to accept that the earth was created by a divine being, nor that the universe is not billions of years old.

unlike religion, we have evidence . big difference there


one thing is certain, the other is a wishfull guess with only imagination provable


[

 

[outhouse]

Maybe you would like to refute this

if you havnt heard the debate over evolution has been over for more then a hundred years

 

[McBell]

What of someone who follows no congregation?

They are still biased.

I place God first....Spirit first.

Science is nothing but an examination how things work.
Faith places God as creator.

ANd here you have revealed to us your bias.

 

[outhouse]

Can you enlighten me with some of the evidence?

its called google ,,,, knock yourself out

 

[McBell]

And of course you are ignoring spiritual beliefs.
Such as Chapter Two of Genesis.

So you can't rationalize it.

Too bad.

I strongly suspect you are confusing the word "rationalization" with the word "ratification."

I have seen you doing loads and loads of the latter, but precious little of the former.

 

[WordSpeaks]

unlike religion, we have evidence . big difference there



[

No you have facts. We all have facts. And based on your bias, you have interpretations of those facts.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure they are! Evolutionary scientists are not prepared to accept that the earth was created by a divine being, nor that the universe is not billions of years old. (Conversely, I concede that creation scientist are not willing to accept that life on earth came about as a product of evolution.)

Many biologists are theists and believe that earth was created by God, you know. That doesn't mean that they must pretend to be unaware of the available evidence about how life evolves, or of how old the Earth is.

Dr. David Pilbeam is a noted paleoanthologist. He wrote "Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleonanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But this is heresy." - American Scientist 66:379.

A small amount of google search exposes that fragment of text as a fabrication, apparently from one Dr. David Menton at Answers in Genesis.

In other words, it is a lie.

 

[outhouse]

We all have facts.

no religion has no facts regarding science or evolution

And based on your bias

wrong again , you really need to bone up bud

im not biased and you dont know me at all to assume so much

you have interpretations of those facts

my interpretations are based on the scientific method and years of study and lab time.

having a brother who is a biology proffessor and author helps a little, religion is my gig. Biology is his. Doesnt mean I do not pick up on a little now and then.

 

[LuisDantas]

No you have facts. We all have facts. And based on your bias, you have interpretations of those facts.

After a certain point, that becomes irrelevant. You are implying the existence of a certain kind controvery in Biology, and well, that is simply not true. Evolution is quite simply a reality... a proven, uncontroversial reality.

What is controversial is the desperate need of some people at denying it.

 

[outhouse]

In other words, it is a lie.

I thought it was creationist quote mining

the Dr has been pro evolution for a long long time lol

 

[McBell]

Evolutionary scientists are not prepared to accept that the earth was created by a divine being, nor that the universe is not billions of years old.

I completely disagree.
Scientists go where the EVIDENCE points them.
Since there is no evidence for a divine being, they do not accept a divine being.

 

[LuisDantas]

I thought it was creationist quote mining

It isn't. It is a pure fraud. Or at the very least, it is apparently impossible to find the original source (that supposed article from a 1978 issue of American Scientist), while strangely enough it is fairly easy to find works by him in 1965 issues of the same periodical.

What are the odds?

 

[WordSpeaks]

Maybe you would like to refute this

if you havnt heard the debate over evolution has been over for more then a hundred years

(Took me a while to figure out why I couldn't post this. Kept saying that I can't post a URL until after 15 posts. Finally remembered your picture had hyperlinks in it. Let's try this....)

Um... you want me to refute a picture? Not sure which part you're talking about.

There are similarities between apes and men. However, the only evidence that can be cited are fossils. Only 0.1% of the fossil record even consists of vertebrates (boned animals.) Most are marine invertebrates.

The fossils show us that these animals lived and died. They don't tell us who they were related to. Some of them (teeth are often used to point out similarities) show us what type of food they might have eaten.

This is a picture of skulls, put into a clever drawing containing artists' representations of what the animals may have looked like. Are you familiar with Nebraska man?

Harold Cook discovered "Nebraksa man." He used skeletal remains (to be specific - a tooth) to draw a picture of this apeman. It was later found that the tooth was that of a pig.

I notice that Lucy is included in the picture.

Australopithecus afarensis is stated here to have walked upright. These apes are actually known today to be long-armed knuckle walkers.

In the American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60 p 279-317 Paleoanthropologists Jack Stern and Randall Sussman said that their hands are "surprisingly similar to hands found in the small end of the pygmy chimpanzee-common chimpanzee range," and that the feet are :long, curved and heavily muscled," consistant with other tree-living apes. Yet here and in many places, Lucy is still depicted with human like hands and feet. Why? Because it better fits the bias and conclusion.

 

[WordSpeaks]

They are still biased.

ANd here you have revealed to us your bias.

Yes. My bias is that I believe in the God of the Bible. What's yours?

 

[McBell]

Yes. My bias is that I believe in the God of the Bible. What's yours?

I already figured out your bias long ago.
Just as I have with Thief, the person I was replying to.
The difference being that I was merely pointing out Thief's bias to him.