Personally I'm a fan of mainstream science and it's discoveries, however there are those who feel it is ALL wrong, especially when it comes to evolution, and particularly when it comes to challenging the evidence for evolution of the human species.
I'd expect arguments like "there are no transitional fossils", of which there are plenty, and I have posted examples here before, as well as "the dating methods are flawed", which doesn't explain why so many different methods all concurr. The often quoted MT St Helens example is long resolved now..
However I would like to see the reasoning behind denying the many independant fields and disciplines in applied science which cross check each other and interweave as part of the scientific descriptions of the natural world.
Remember, ALL mainstream science perspectives concurr across the globe, so any religious explanations which conflict each other will need to be unified in order to present a solid case.
Ok, what have you got then..
2007-05-24
14:13:38
·
17 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Religion & Spirituality