I'll trust what the scientists say, and you trust what the preachers say, and we will see which works better. However, I only trust scientists a little more than I trust preachers. All humans tend to have an agenda they push. One of the things that most scientists know that the lay person does not seem to understand, is how very little they do know.
On a very clear night look into the sky as far as you can see, then pick up a small pebble. Everything there as far as you can see represents what there is to know, the pebble represents what humanity actually knows. To me it is wonderful that we will never run out of things to learn, to others it is scary as hell. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- Tom C wrote: >> I don't think many scientists call it a fact. I've seen it described >> in terms such as: >> >> -As close to fact as a theory can be. >> >> -One of the longest-standing scientific theories still existant. >> >> -An as of yet unrefuted theory, a theory in which all of the evidence >> to date merely confirms that it can be relied upon. >> > > It confirms nothing of the sort to a true scientist. > >> Evolution is not used to describe the spontaneous generation of life. >> It's used to describe mutations in DNA code and the subsequent success >> or failure of such mutants to survive, replicate and pass on that >> code. It explains how life has moved from single-cell organisms to >> the huge variance of life on this planet that we see today. > > It depends what, biologist, cosmologist, paleontologist one would talk to. > The field is in an upheaval. > >> How life started may (or may not - I don't know) still be >> controversial among the scientific community, but the failure to >> present a viable theory as to how life may have started in no way >> refutes the fact that evolution is the best scientific explanation for >> the diversity and adaptability of species. >> > > I'm not trying to convince you of anything, BTW. I find first cause and > subsequent occurrence to be inseparably linked, in my mind at least. > > >> Picking examples of old theories that didn't stand the test of time in >> no way refutes that a current theory works. That doctors no longer >> use leeches (and leeches are making a comeback, BTW!) has nothing to >> do with whether the Theory of Evolution holds water... >> > >> cheers, >> frank >> > > It doesn't refute the theory. It does show that to put blanket trust in what > a scientist says, just because he calls himself a scientist, is not the > brightest thing to do. > > I wouldn't trust a person that didn't know how to change a tire, to inform > me of how internal combustion engines work, or of the technological > development of the automobile for the last 100+ years. > > Likewise, since 'scientists' are unable to put together the basic building > blocks of life, amino acids, proteins, etc., and produce even one single > living cell from the basic components, not to mention a blade of grass, I > don't trust them to tell me how it all happened over billions of years, > especially when they blatantly ignore evidence of design. Even if they > could do that, it would still indicate an intelligence was required. > > They think they're pretty smart being able to figure things out. Yes it > does take intelligence to figure out the complex systems and mechanisms that > exist in living things. To turn about face then, and think that these > systems and mechanisms, which has taken individual humans lifetimes, and the > human race, arguably thousands of years to reach the point of beginning to > understand, had no designer... it's the height of arrogance and willful > ignorance combined. > > Tom C > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
