I don't have any prophets. Not everybody worships something. Not all of us are comfortable grovelling to imaginary beings.
Oh no... I can smell...
God can be any god; including mother nature.
[...]
So they grovel to mother nature.
... this.
I don't think AV quite understands the meanings of "grovel", "worship", "religion" and "god".
Well to address the posted question, yes, science is to blame for the lack of interest. NOT because science is not interesting, but because of the hard anti-God push that has been found over and over and over to be false, only for another false claim to be put in it's place.
Show me an example in the scientific literature of this hard anti-God push. I bet you I read more of it than you do - mostly evolution-related literature, at that -, but the only place I've seen gods even
mentioned is in articles about the evolution and underlying mental structure of religion. Those articles, as a rule, make no claim about the existence of deities.
The next part of your post was utterly shredded by multiple posters, so all I will add is that even if all of these were hoaxes (what, including several hundred Neandertal individuals from newborns to the elderly, not to mention the Neandertal genome? Really?
All of them?), they constitute but a fraction of the evidence put forward about human evolution - let alone evolution in general. You have a
great deal of fossil evidence to expose as hoaxes. Might as well find a museum basement and get to work on it.
Science makes such huge assumptions anymore, and does not want to be questioned. There is a constant 'Time of the Gaps' Fallacy that runs through science. Don't have an answer? Throw time at it.
Would you mind providing a few specific examples? Would you also mind presenting a critique of the several independent dating methods that contributed to our knowledge of deep time?
For those of you who still support the hoaxes I listed, and they were all extreme cases, lets not start with the Lemur or pin the dinosaur tail on the bird games.
Dunno about the lemur, but
Archaeoraptor never made it into a peer-reviewed publication. It was rejected by
Science. (By the way, while it was a composite, parts of it belong to two quite legitimate transitional fossils. Somehow, that part never gets brought up by creationists.)
You are really blind to the evidence, empirical evidence, and frankly you would learn a LOT by simply Googling the subject.
Without critical thinking, Googling something is likely to lead you to an internet-sized pile of crap.
For those that stated science is 'self-correcting'. Obviously, it is not.
For those that claim that no outside forces corrected these things, there are ministers debunking this garbage every day. It is science that is stopping it's ears and closing it's eyes.
Ranting doesn't really help your case, you know. Show us those ministers - or show their arguments. Otherwise, you have nothing and we still have the fossils.
A good example of this is the 'No Intelligence Allowed' video.
Which is totally unbiased, right?
Whether you agree or disagree with ID, it is an obvious bias in science -
What is an obvious bias? I haven't seen Expelled (and what I heard about it doesn't make me too keen to see it), so I would rather you elaborated.
Which debunks the whole there is not anti-God movement in science. Richard Dawkins trumpets it.
Richard Dawkins is not a movement. He's one man with a loud voice, and he's hardly representative of the whole of science.
And, in conclusion, I only addressed a small, tiny fraction of the problem, from Abiogenesis teaching that all life comes from a ROCK
Which it doesn't... (
feel free to explore; though I suspect that that site is slightly outdated)
...to the Time of the Gaps fallacy that magically turns a single cell organism into a dinosaur.
Geez, that's so garbled I don't even know where to start.
Science would be a LOT more respected if it announced, 'We do not Empirically Know', and provided hypothesis, instead of being bias towards a hypothesis, calling it a 'Theory', and trying to shove it down everyone's throat.
I have to question your familiarity with science.
I've been known to grump about the quality of science news articles, but even in those, you often see caveats and signs of uncertainty.
Here's one that I picked randomly, by going to ScienceDaily and clicking on the first headline (it's a very interesting article, incidentally). Notice how it uses words like "may" (in the title, hello!), "suggests", "hints", and how the researchers caution in it that "there still remain big questions..."
That's fairly standard practice in the news, and in actual papers, (1) every conclusion is usually accompanied by the specific piece(s) of empirical information that made the author(s) conclude it, and (2) alternative explanations are routinely considered. As a rule, scientists are reasonably honest about the uncertain nature of their work. When they aren't, you can guarantee that some other scientist will jump on the opportunity to dismantle their arguments.
From which you should be able to guess that when the vast majority of scientists agree that a finding is pretty solid, it's saying something about said finding.
Good day!
"I've just written two posts insulting your entire profession. By the way, have a nice day!"
Well, you too
Really, no.
