Considering the past record of it--a century of bogus science (Haeckel, Bathybius, Piltdown, eugenics, sociobiology, ev psych, etc), it's reasonable to say that the burden is on the evolutionist to prove that his stuff is real. I don't see why you should be the one to go track down that supposedly vanished box full of Peking Men and prove it was all fake... I mean, it's their box-full-o-evidence, their story, their problem. Not mine. There's no reason on earth why we should be compelled to believe in such stuff.
But thats not how the evolutionist sees it. Their view is remarkably like that of the flying saucer enthusiast or alien abductee. He'll show you pictures of cigar-shaped UFOs and photos of interplanetary vegetables and maybe bits of metal thingies. But if you say, look mate, that's nice but I'm not really buying it... he'll get uppity and challenge you to PROVE that these vegetables did not come from outer space, and so on.
>>Considering the past record of it—a century of bogus science (Haeckel, Bathybius, Piltdown, eugenics, sociobiology, ev psych, etc), it’s reasonable to say that the burden is on the evolutionist to prove that his stuff is real. I don’t see why you should be the one to go track down that supposedly vanished box full of Peking Men and prove it was all fake... I mean, it’s their box-full-o-evidence, their story, their problem. Not mine. There’s no reason on earth why we should be compelled to believe in such stuff.<<
So science uses its methodology to ensure fidelity to scientific principles and that proves that science cheats. Or — wait it is proof it doesn’t cheat since its methodology exposes cheats.
Jeeze, with you folks it is always a loss. Your inability to see the scientific method in action in your examples (well, the real ones — eugenics has no relationship to TToE except in the really, really slow amongst you). Piltdown is no more a mark against TToE than a robbery means we must tear down all banks.
Do I need to get started with the Televangelists who have used Christ’s name as a scam? Do they mean that Christ never came down and saved us? (It does by your “logic.”) Let’s go point for point: Televangelists vs. Science scammers. Loser has to change his tagline to anything the winner wants, within FR rules.
(yeah, that’ll be the day)
Evos keep telling us that the burden of proof is on the person making the claims, that it’s up to them to provide enough evidence to support it.
But here, apparently, we’re simply expected to accept their word on it and if we don’t like it, prove them wrong.
Double standard time again.