I don't trust what the 'preachers' say. Quite a few put forth ideas that are untenable scientifically. It's because of them, that people that believe in a creator and have a healthy respect and enjoyment of science, are too frequently painted with the same broad brush.
With regard to your last statement, I think it's wonderful too. Tom C. >From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:23:07 -0400 > >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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
