CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by JEDsContour:
Attack? I donâ??t think so â??? unless by attack you mean stating it just as it is. No idea what your beliefs are? Of course I do â??? youâ??ve spent six flipping pages explaining it all to us. Incidently cjbaldw, you can bloody well bet I know where your talking points come from.
Yes, attack. You have not once said one word in regard to the lack of fossil evidence though I've provided multiple points upon which you could argue your case. I spent six pages? I didn't even start posting to this thread until page 5 JEDSContour, so please stop with the exaggerations. Amazingly enough, you've still managed to post your own personal opinions without a hint of supporting evidence and have yet to even attempt to refute anything I've said. Overt or covert, that leaves attacking my personal views. Still waiting...
Quote:
I think the merits of the case are clear to any thinking person.
Not true, and quite a value judgement to boot. I think differently, I've stated my case, and have only gotten meaningless doubletalk in response from someone who does his best to appear as though he knows what he's talking about but has yet to say anything useful outside of the usual talking points provided by the NCSE.
Quote:
The religious right wants to redefine science in a way that no scientist can accept. Science under the new definition means â??Because it says so in the bible.â?
There you go again attempting to reduce this to religion versus science. Show me one place where I've in any way done so? I'm attacking the science JEDSContour, because the empirical evidence from the fossil record doesn't support The Origin of Species. Simple as that. Believe it or not, there are a growing number of intelligent people who are questioning evolution simply based upon the science, no religious goals, overt or covert, are involved. What do you have to say to that?
Quote:
Using this new definition of â??scienceâ? they want to teach all children that a â??scientificâ? alternative to evolution in creationism. That evolution is â??just a theoryâ? sort of on par with clouds made of cotton candy theory. They want to do this harm to children in pursuit of their political goals.
Your words allude to what I posted previously as potentially true. Scientific naturalists are fearful that if they lose any ground, it means that the religious creationists will inevitably take over and do harm to children in the process. I have not once mentioned creationism as my goal and in fact it is not. I want the truth, plain and simple. I hope you can also see how this underlying motivation can easily color objectivity on any level, including basic science. Double blind pharma studies have demonstrated this basic placebo effect time and time again. We will find what we're looking for no matter how objective we try to be if we're all functioning under a similar naturalist ideology, that doesn't make the results correct, it makes them incorrect, but we are often unable to see this fact until much harm has been done.
Quote:
Where am I wrong here? Is this not the real issue? The question is who decides what science is. The scientific community or a religious organization?
No, it's NOT the real issue I've been posting about. I take issue with evolutionary theory based upon the what I've posted JEDSContour, I have no evil ulterior motive to promote creationism. If you feel it necessary to reduce it to this level, which you have now repeatedly done in every single response, then quite frankly that is sad, I'd expect more from someone who is supposedly so knowledgeable about that which they believe in so much. If your best argument is not to deal with my argument on it's merits but rather to summarily dismiss my arguments and provide nothing else, well, I'm not surprised, this is what I find when I deal with most folks like yourself, but it is disappointing to say the least.  
|
