In spite of the fact that you’ve twice now called me a liar...and in this recent post for saying something I never said...that my religion is science....I’ll treat you with respect. I only ask that you do the same with me.
In post #1379 I specifically say that it is not empirical science.....I don’t pretend it is.
The theory of evolution (specifically macro-evolution) is not empirical science either...it is mostly philosophy, especially when dealing with origins....See post #1394.
If you want to know what I think about something, ask me and I’ll tell you. For instance, although I am a young earth creationist, I don’t particularly care that creation is not taught in science class. What I do care about is that along side the evidence for the theory, they show the evidence against the theory, which in spite of what Eugenie Scott says, is mountainous.
Just a couple more comments...
Science only deals in what is natural/material. That’s fine with me. What happens, though, when the answer that they seek doesn’t fall into that realm.....should they make something up or should they admit that it might be outside the realm of science?
They really have no clue where matter came from (see my post #1394). A lot of scientists will admit that and I could give you a lot of quotes from evolutionists to back that up but every science text book deals with that. Should it?
Spontaneous generation defies the law of Biogenesis (as I’ve said also in earlier posts)....and by the way, a law is an absolute, that’s what makes it a law...yet spontaneous generation is in every science text book as if it’s a fact.
Look...you are free to believe what you want but don’t hide your head in the sand. We all come at this with a bias and I’ll admit mine. I have read copiously on both sides of this issue and I’m not a dummy...I’ve been on this earth 58 years.
If you want to read something on the other side, I can suggest a few books for you. What I’ve found is that most people on your side of the argument are unwilling to consider the other side. If you are a newbie as you say you are then you should consider both arguments.
Let me know if you’d like to read something that refutes the theory of evolution...I’ll gladly recommend something.
If you’d like for me to present a couple of arguments, I’ll do that as well.
In the meantime, it might be worth visiting that website that I mentioned to Fawn, www.dissentfromdarwin.com where you’ll find a whole bunch of scientists (over 700), mostly at the PhD level who say it’s to take a good hard look at the problems with the theory.
Regards to you......
Sorry, but you are selling snake oil fraudulently labeled as "science." Well, it's NOT science, so you ARE a liar. That's a fact, not an accusation. You & your pals are what you are. AND YOU OUGHT TO STOP DOINT IT!
"Science only deals in what is natural/material. That’s fine with me. What happens, though, when the answer that they seek doesn’t fall into that realm.....should they make something up or should they admit that it might be outside the realm of science?"
Any good scientist, certainly including Scott, is happy to say that much of reality as we experience it, is outside the realms of science. For examples, anything spiritual, divine, supernatural, metaphysical, philosophical, moral, etc., etc. Even beauty is ultimately in the eye & mind of the beholder. The best science can do is take a stab at analyzing patterns we find "beautiful." But there's no scientific way I know of to appreciate beauty.
In a science class, if the pupil asks, "teacher, what came before the 'big bang?', the scientific answer is, "we don't know, all we can do scientifically is speculate, which philosophers & religions have been doing for thousands of years. Among the early philosophers, the best was a Greek, Aristotle, who believed there must be a First Cause. The Bible identifies God as the Universe's creator. But none of this is science. Science doesn't know the answer."
I'll say again, your basic problem is, you don't actually know ANY real science. That's why I recommend you read the Scott book -- it will STOP YOU from telling gosh awful lies about what science says or doesn't say.
For example, there's certainly no recent scientific theory of "spontaneous generation" of life from puddles of mud.
That's because any REAL scientist would begin to investigate this question by first asking, "what is life?" Well, a relatively simple bacteria is surely alive, but is a virus? What about ancient precursors of life? Are there any naturally occurring chemical compounds which might behave in somewhat "lifelike" fashion, etc., etc.?
Remember, from a scientific perspective, we are dealing with hundreds of millions, even billions of years, during which the very simplest forms were the ONLY forms to leave traces in the fossil record.
schaef21:"In the meantime, it might be worth visiting that website that I mentioned to Fawn, www.dissentfromdarwin.com where you’ll find a whole bunch of scientists (over 700), mostly at the PhD level who say it’s to take a good hard look at the problems with the theory."
"Problems with the theory"? Do you mean, scientists who say that some early organic compounds may have arrived on earth inside comets or meteors? That's not a "problem with the theory?"
But your implication of an actual "700 scientists," who oppose the theory of evolution and subscribe instead to "Intelligent Design," is I'm certain is a flat out lie. That's because I'm not aware of ANY serious scientist who has published ANY major anti-evolution work in ANY recognized peer-reviewed scientific journal. None, zero, zip, nada.
THAT's what makes your pretense of "science" so fraudulent. You are not in the least science -- by your own words, you are ANTI-SCIENCE. And your pretense otherwise is just despicable.
By the way, this is exactly the point which distinguishes anti-evolution from anti-"global warming." In the global warming debate, there ARE actual scientists, who do real scientific work on the subject of climate change, who have published scientific articles pointing out real flaws in the typical AlGore global warming scenarios.
In my view, your anti-evolution "scientists" are far more akin to the so-called historians who work at the Institute for Historical Research, trying to "prove" the Holocaust never happened!
It's all a fraud and mascarade, and you guys really ought to go do something more honorable.