But if you truly believe that researchers are always objective men and women devoted solely to the pursuit of knowledge, you're more blind than the Christians you mock. Research was done in the past to prove cigarettes weren't bad for you.
Don't strawman my argument with this. I mean legitimate research that is not biased. The case you bring up is the exact distinction to which I am referring that separates science from religious dogma. These geologists have no agenda like the cigarette companies do. And scientists don't just prove or disprove things in their mind - there is also data to back that up. And the data must be repeatable by other non biased researchers.
What exactly do you mean when you say Christians shouldn't comment on scientific practices?
Sorry, that was rather wide reaching. I meant that someone with a Christian agenda shouldn't comment on the nature of science - at least in some kind of official capacity. So, for example, the church should not have arguments against scientific research, in my opinion. This simply spreads ignorance and is a deception to sometimes easily deceived people.
I got it! But it's not mice, it's "hyperintelligent pandimensional beings!" -------- If the Earth was 10,000 years old, then written history-and therefore, humanity-is wrong. The latest civilization that we have records from were from an Oriental village, and we have records of time from them. According to their records placed in a timeline with other B.CC. civilizations, human civilization goes back 12,000 years, with paleoindian tribes before that. With all the evidence contradicting creationism, I'm surprised there are still Creationists out there.
Don't strawman my argument with this. I mean legitimate research that is not biased.
It was quite a leap, but you must recognize that even legitimate researchers go into their research expecting a certain set of results. I'm sure there are rare examples where a scientist goes into a study with a completely subjective mindset and no clue where the research will lead him, but aren't most studies donw with the intent of proving or disproving something? That isn't to say a legitimate researcher would "doctor" his results, but isn't there usually a goal in mind?
I agree with you that a person in a position of Christian power (i.e. the Pope) shouldn't go around arguing with legitimate scientific research. Catholics are taught that the Pope (who was born a normal human being within the last century) is the holiest man on Earth and speaks directly from God. So if a researcher is telling you one thing, and the voice of God is telling you another, who to believe?
The one your mamma taught you to believe, of course.
According to their records placed in a timeline with other B.CC. civilizations, human civilization goes back 12,000 years, with paleoindian tribes before that.
So you are saying that someone traced civilizations all the way back to there? You would have to start at around 1000 BC, find a civilization that you absolutely know existed then, trace it back until you find a place where an older civilization interacted with it and trace that civilization back...etc. And you have to use people's age to do all that. I don't think anyone even bothered to do it. Why should they? They've got the faulty carbon dating that works fine for them.
With all the evidence contradicting creationism, I'm surprised there are still Creationists out there.
With all the evidence contradicting evolutionism, or "science" as you guys call it, you wouldn't expect evolutionists to exist!
[quote] mice created the Earth
The hitchikers guide to the galaxy! [/quote]lol...if you look at my username, you'd sorta expect me to know that. I didn't know it, so boo to me
With all the evidence contradicting evolutionism, or "science" as you guys call it, you wouldn't expect evolutionists to exist!
I am curious as to what this evidence is? I have seen all of the science that decimates the creationist argument, but I have never really seen a real, scientific argument that actually disproves evolution.
Thank you Carlie - There is only religion for a few purposes I know - Fun, Bedtime stories 2000 years ago (For christianity anyway), Storytelling Ideas, or just an idiot thinking of a very successful apocalyptic conspiricy, yes! CONSPIRICY!
I am curious as to what this evidence is? I have seen all of the science that decimates the creationist argument, but I have never really seen a real, scientific argument that actually disproves evolution.
Just something I said on page 95 of the Christianity vs. Atheism thread...
One example. You all look at fossils in the geological column right? Well, you only look at like one percent of the fossils. You don't even glance at all the clams that are scattered all over the geological column. How come they never changed?
You look at similarities between different animals and say those animals must have evolved from each other. The DNA that controls those parts of the animals that look similar are not similar at all.
When you look at the DNA of stuff the way your theory tells you to (the complexity of the creature), most of the time, stuff evolves in the "wrong" order. I sometimes looks like rats are more complex than apes.
One thing people commonly argue with evolutionists about is that there are absolutely no "in between" animals. You already made changes to your theories to explain that, but how much chance is there of two different animals that require each other evolving at the same time?
If the earth has been able to support life for as long as you evolutionists believe it has, the oceans would be WAY saltier than they are. The oceans get salty because of mineral deposits from rivers and rain returning to the ocean.
And I want to add something about the geological column. How come in most places, the layers are all mixed up?
Thank you Carlie - There is only religion for a few purposes I know - Fun, Bedtime stories 2000 years ago (For christianity anyway), Storytelling Ideas, or just an idiot thinking of a very successful apocalyptic conspiricy, yes! CONSPIRICY!
I've seen a few forums that have rules where you can be banned if you are caught flaming...sometimes, I wish the armorgames community was like that, because I am often insulted by people who don't agree with my perspectives.
