WHAT SAY YOU ALL? Evolutionists consider this ?

Question

If the evolution of man is the "truth" proud men are seeking, then anthropologists must be the high priests of scientific prejudice, dedicated to reading false meanings into every new "find" they unearth for their followers.
Fortunately, some of us have been around long enough to know that the "experts" are constantly disagreeing with one another. And often, while today's expert is busy debunking yesterday's expert, another expert will proclaim that the day-before-yesterday's expert was on the right track after all !
Can you believes that ? And here they are lambasting the Churches with different Bible versions !
So much for scientific facts !

Evolutionists, What say you all ?

Answer 1

Kinda like the way religions and even people who share the same religion, contradict themselfs? Oh ok I see

Answer 2

Err...

First anthropology is only the study of human existence. Although it points to a much longer human existence than you guys claim, it has nothing to do with evolution.

Second, there is NO OTHER scientific explanation that has any evidence whatsoever. Not a single paper has passed peer review. And if you want to include Old Earth data in that to it covers nearly EVERY branch of science including Chemistry, Physics, Palaeontology, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Geology, and so on.

There have been recent papers that go against Newton's gravity laws, so there is no way that you can claim they won't publish i because of prejudices. If you don't think that is causing a bit of a stir, you are really wrong. It is just that peer review REQUIRES REAL EVIDENCE. I can tell you haven't the slightest idea how research scientists think, because they LOVE to stir things up. They live for it. They give people the Nobel Prize for it.

Answer 3

I say that I don't think you understand how science works. They aren't a bunch of "high priests" making proclamations. Scientists use controlled experiments to make and verify predictions. They are sometimes wrong, because new evidence comes to light. To expect science to get everything right on the first try and never change is an absurd expectation.

There is a difference between science having contradictions and science fixing errors that you don't seem to see.

Answer 4

"Experts" SHOULD constantly disagree with each other -- it is the way communities of learning further their research: by challenging the findings of others. Every researcher or scientist has their own point of view; the contrary point of view of a colleague is necessary to avoid intellectual stagnation.

It's when everyone agrees on everything that I get worried...

.

Answer 5

Flexibility is the strength of science.

It is the idea that slowly adjusting one's belief as new evidence becomes available is much superior to making absolute claims and rationalizing away any contrary evidence found.

Religon is shallow and brittle. Science is deep and flexible. In religion, 2000 year old claims are pushed as absolute truth, while rationalizing away anything that doesn't quite fit. In science, truth is something to strive for. It is not something claimed through dictates, but approached carefully by examining evidence.

Answer 6

I say that you haven't ever been accused of being the brightest penny in the jar have you--science is in search of the most probably true arguments based on known facts, and tested, then reviewed by peers.

"Truth", as a goal is something best left to philosophers--who are good for some things, such as study of ethics, but NOT for deciding the direction of applied science! No our scientists are NOT priests! Scientists search for the existance of facts or processes in a REAL world! (And ironically enough, quite often priests of the catholic faith have been instrumental in such research--just look at all the lingual studies conducted by the Jesuit priests whose materials helped E.A. Wallis Budge in his translation of the Egytian Book of the Dead)--but all this proves is that science works, and is a meaningful vocation--even among many who still posess superstitious beliefs.

In order to be a priest you must worship some vain and immaterial "God". The scientists sees no cause to worship something just because it may be fascinating--simply to be in awe of it and to observe its beauty and to attempt to understand it is reward enough--no threats of eternal damnation required! Religionists must be threatened with the fear of eternal afterlife punishment simply in order to WANT to believe in the insane ramblings of their priests--scientists study out of a love for knowledge--I think that is the major difference between the two!

I'll risk not ever having anyone pray for me in a time of need! Would you be willing to forgo science-based medical treatment and to rely on the power of your faith alone, were you to be diagnosed with a life threatening illness???

Answer 7

What I say is that there is scientific consensus that evolution is reality.

Answer 8

i don't know any credible scientists who dispute evolution. find me some who aren't involved with with discovery institute and get back to me.

Answer 9

except science uses this to empower future science.

Answer 10

What?