chris777
Senior Veteran
This one little sentece is going to be tricky , as it leads into a great deal of the issue, but here goesNo where in my post did I say science was perfect.
in a reply to chief you stated:
I have several elaborations on this . First you stated this in such a manner that unless the anwser is given to you in the exact manner you demand then you are unwilling to listen to it.I have yet to see anyone going from TE->Creationist actually understand evolution. For example, most Creationists say they use to believe evolution. You don't believe in a theory, you accept it based on the evidence. Until I find a TE->Creationist that can correctly give me the scientific definition of a transitional fossil and then explain why none exist, I will continue to believe that no Creationist actually understand evolution. (Go ahead and try, no Creationist has ever done this).
If, you do not hold science as the" do all end all, be all" method of communication, or debate, then, Why is no other explanation acceptable to you?
Much like the manner you claim that creationist do.
I never claimed you stated science was perfect, But I will say I think you hold to it like you would a wife, "omitting her imperfections" and singing her praises.
Or maby a better analogy would be a classic car, that has seen better days, that You (as well as all the other scientist you keep refering to ) are continually tuning up, and patching, much in the way you keep stating about your supposed not viewing science as perfect.
another quote to demonstrate
Yes after re reading this I do think the "tuner" car is the better analogy, in that You are devoted and commited to working on it, and it will always be a project, a "work in progress"In fact, you quoted me saying that the may be problems with the theory and it must be refined. If I though science was perfect, why would I also say that evolution is continually being updated. Not only that, if you look through my history, you'll constantly find me posting that science is nothing more than a tool for studying the natural world. .
Perfectionist are never satisfied, and if you want to know how I would know that then you need to hand me a mirror, and ask me what I see in it.
See you have been so defensive and rejecting of what I am attempting to show you that you assume that my replies and statements were done in the form of insult or attack, When my purpose is to try to get you to reflect on these things from another perspective, you love science so much what can you tell me about a frame of reference and observation?This seems very dishonest, but on par for being a Creationist
While i am thinking about it, I am not a creationist, and I do not believe in creation science, (or you could toss in accept where I stated believe as I am about to explain)
This is another flaw of science, it ask so many questions yet never looks upon itself and ask whether or not it should.This is why scientists tend to not listen to the general public, since they only seem to hold back science.
a wise man once said inScience is reckless, and is in far too many cases careless, and inconsiderate of consequences, and much as stated in your own reply rebellious (how many scientist have you heard in the past year alone that have broken the law in the name of scientific "progress") Rebellion is Not a value of someone who should be obedient.Luke 14
26] If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
[27] And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
[28] For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
[29] Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
[30] Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
[31] Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
[32] Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
[33] So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
[34] Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?
[35] It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Like I tried saying in another post, Is a miracle still a miracle if you know how it is done?Science is a tool, and it is not the only way to gain information. However, until you figure out how to supernatural or why including the supernatural would improve science, science will be perfectly content to continue to study the natural world.
Perhaps I should go a step further, and ask in a manner that will cause some to question which is true.
The Bible speaks of how Jesus Fed the masses with mere scraps. Now I have seen many modern so called "scientific" explanations for many biblical miracles even how Jesus walked on water, But I ask you and anyone else who cares to respond, how can science explain where he pulled tangable (and edible) matter completely and totally out of thin air?
The problem Is many of the Facts used in science take dinosaurs for example are not observations, but extrapolations from current living animals, therefore it is NOT in fact an observation.It seems if anything, you continue to fail to understand science. Facts are observations.
I call it the "shuffeling" of the genetic deckEvolution (change of allele frequencies over generations) can be observed.
acording to your fact/theory statement some post backEvolution is also a theory
(selection+mutation drive the observation).
it is an observation highly influenced, antd therefore tainted by a pre concieved expectation as to what the results will be.
Upvote
0