To: armymarinedad
Evolutionists base their faith on a theory developed by scientists. The people who once thought the world was flat. I don't think your example has it's intended effect. For your example to prove your point, scientists would still have to believe that the world is flat and refuse to believe any new evidence that the world is indeed round.
Science history is full of instances where scientists once thought one thing, only to have it proven wrong. But at that point, they (eventually, in some cases) accept the new facts and move on.
42 posted on
05/25/2005 6:17:26 AM PDT by
TomB
("The terrorist wraps himself in the world's grievances to cloak his true motives." - S. Rushdie)
To: TomB
Science history is full of instances where scientists once thought one thing, only to have it proven wrong. But at that point, they (eventually, in some cases) accept the new facts and move on. By doing this, not only accepting new evidence but actively seeking it all the time, science relentlessly converges on an increasingly accurate description of nature. It may never be perfectly right, but it gets very, very accurate. The people who argue that it's just some big pendulum that swings back and forth between flat-Earth and round-Earth are ignoring what is going on as a matter of their own convenience in argument. Creationism is full of intentional little errors of observation and logic like this one. Or, you could say it's full of bull.
46 posted on
05/25/2005 6:23:29 AM PDT by
VadeRetro
( Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: TomB
Science history is full of instances where scientists once thought one thing, only to have it proven wrong.
That is exactly my point.
57 posted on
05/25/2005 6:41:35 AM PDT by
armymarinedad
(Character makes you draw a line in the dirt.)
To: TomB
"I don't think your example has it's intended effect. For your example to prove your point, scientists would still have to believe that the world is flat and refuse to believe any new evidence that the world is indeed round."
I think the point of the example was to show that scientific views are continually superceded. Science is a method, not a fixed worldview or a philosophy, and in my opinion those who argue for evolutionism are not honestly admitting their philosophical presuppositions. They are pretending they have none, and this is intellectually dishonest.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson