Posted on 08/08/2002 3:09:19 AM PDT by 2Trievers
That would leave the base thread open to those of us who are actually interested in the SCIENCE posted.
Never thought I'd hear an evolutionist admit that.
We guess that means that, anthropologically speaking, we who inhabit the United States of America are all African-Americans.
Now let's discuss reparations!
There is no "theory of the creation of man." There is a religious belief that man was created directly by God, but that belief has no predictive powers and cannot be falsified, which means it is not a theory in the scientific sense.
Posted article: "..The truth is, science cannot yet tell us anything conclusive about the origin of our species. The fossil record is scant, and what we dont know about our own ancestry greatly outweighs what we do know.."
Icthus: Never thought I'd hear an evolutionist admit that.
This is what scientific approach is about: if you don't know, you say I don't know, not enough evidence, etc. Theories come and go, some remain as the best explanation of observable facts. The difference between scientific approach and faith-based one is that when faced with contradictory facts, science eventually will develop a better theory explaining new facts as well. Contrary to this, if you just believe in your theory, what do you do when you are faced with the new facts you can't explain?
There is no shame for a scientist to admit that his knowledge is not complete, or that the existing theory can't explain all facts. It is a shame for a scientist to ignore new facts and rigidly hold for the old wrong theory. Of course, history of science is full of examples when indeed even big name scientists could not bring themselves to admit that they were wrong. But this is just a human failure, not the wrongs of the scientific method of inquiry.
But just because our knowledge is limited, it does not mean that science as principal needs to be abandoned in favor of faith-believes every time when our old theories are challenged.
I absolutely agree. But it is usually the exception rather than the rule. Creationists have been tagged as superstitious idiots, ignorant of scientific facts. My beef with the Evo's revolves more around their absolute "refusal" to admit that #1, they don't have any concrete proof of macro evolution, and #2 that the creation theory could be just as much of a possibility.
From an archeaological standpoint, the Bible has been shown to be accurate time and again, rarely is it questioned from a historical context. Yet science, by its very nature, cannot accept something as fact unless it can be proven true (which is where the beef with the Evo's comes in)
Science attempts to answer a question using all available data and probabilities. Faith doesn't necessarily require that I know the answer....just that I believe it is correct.
I am willing to concede that if they would just shut up and go away.
What unstated profound PC message are we failing to infer that causes these "scientists" to continue beating that dead horse?
1. Origin of life and ultimately origin of the Universe: creation by G-d versus natural (no G-d involved). This is a clearly argument between believers and non-believers.
2. Once the life exist, the evolution of it. A number of believers insist that there is no contradiction between their faith in G-d creating the beginning of life, and their acceptance of the science of life developing: Evolution. So this argument is between Evolutionists (including believers and non-believers) versus creationists who don't accept evolution.
From an archaeological standpoint, the Bible has been shown to be accurate time and again, rarely is it questioned from a historical context.
Many events in Bible looks like did happen some time in history. You don't need to be a believer to have a high regard to Bible as a historical document.
Yet science, by its very nature, cannot accept something as fact unless it can be proven true (which is where the beef with the Evo's comes in) .
Science attempts to answer a question using all available data and probabilities. Faith doesn't necessarily require that I know the answer....just that I believe it is correct.
Yes. I absolutely agree. We differ in approach. I have a deep respect to believers and their faith. But I use science to explain the universe. I don't think science needs to revert to concept of G-d every time when it encounters an unexplainable. Honest "I don't know" is quite acceptable to me. There are countless examples of things that were absolutely unexplainable at previous levels of knowledge, had a "divine" explanation at that time, and received a scientific explanation later on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.