No one was stating religion is science either. It is not based on evidence or observation...it is based on faith. Now if you look at the other sciences, such as physics, and chemistry, etc. They have no problem working with religion. In fact, you can look at it as it being the deciphering of what a God might have thought up to govern this universe. No one has been trying to prove creationism, because most people realize it CANNOT be proven scientifically. It is a faith, and they stick to that. Their job however, is to show all the flaws and problems with evolution, and that is what they do. They also have very many valid arguments and ideas that the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY decides to ignore. Once again, no one stated or treated religion like a science. It is different of course. Your scientific theory of evolution however contradicts the main points of many religions and so obviously those people are not going to easily believe in it. Now sometimes they are wrong..and science prevails..but this time is doesn't seem as such.
You say you didn't say people were unintelligent? Well..it sure seems that comments questioning whether a scientist can be trusted if he believes in creationsim sure sounds something like it. You also said that people who don't believe in evolution are misinformed, or uneducated about the subject. I don't think that is the case at all. I think I have carried on this argument with you for pages now without feeling lost myself..and I haven't taken one class on evolution etc. I do HONESTLY think that you believe that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is lacking something compared to evolutionists...maybe not intelligence..but something..and that is wrong. It may not be a scientific theory (creationism) but it is an alternative to a flawed and dangerous theory..and I see no illogical reasoning in that.
You say that it was religious people who were against the heliocentric idea. That is very true...the church and religious things have been the cause of a lot of bad things...but a HUGE amount of good that far surpasses that. Now...if you look at today and compare evolutionists to that previous church you will see many similarities. One is that anyone who questions evolution within the scientific community either loses his job, is ridiculed, has his education and credentials checked, etc. Sounds like persecution to me? Next we have the evidece that supports your theory. As much as you would like to think I am being stubborn and not wanting to accept evidence that isn't the case. I feel the opposite. That that evidence is wrong and I have reasons why. Now if I am correct,which I feel I am and there are many scientific ideas to back that up, then your evolutionists are beleiving in something VERY strongly (like fact) without their being evidence to support it. Now that is exactly what faith is. I can support this because if you look back to when evolution was first accepted, and the fossil record was much less complete and things were more primitive they STILL believed just as strongly in their theory as they do now. It hasn't gotten any stronger! It has been the same forever (aside from when the scientific community first accepted it) which obviously shows if any evidence was important, it isn't making a difference in how much or little "faith" an evolutionist has in his/her theory.
I want to also state again since you said that I blindly went into believing what I did that I used to believe in evolution fully. That I would have come into this thread and looked up info to support your side. Now what would you have done had that been the case? Patted me on the back and said "good job". I would have been using your websites, etc etc with just as little knowledge about evolution, and without looking at any of the flaws. You would have supported me. Well I was on the evolutionary side and I now feel it isn't such a great theory to put my beliefs in. I FOUND those flaws and I decided NOT to support it to the extent which I had. So I WAS on the other side, the side in which I would have been supported by you here simply because I argued your side. Well now I am arguing the other side, and I am using what scientists HAVE said...REAL scientists. Of course you will never believe that a REAL scientist could not believe in evolution. I'm just showing that you say I am just jumping on one side simply because I am against you. You wouldn't say the same had I done it for your side.
I didn't destroy my argument. What I was showing is that if you don't consider certain people scientists..or reputable in explaining evolution..then you have to admit that they don't know what they are talking about when they teach evolution because they aren't REAL scientists. I use that because many people have said they disagree with evolution....people who DO understand it..and who are REAL scientists...yet every time they do, they are questioned as to whether or not they are reputable. So...if they are NOT reputable..and can't be listened to...then the other's who share those same credentials and qualifications must also not be listened to. What I am showing is that it is a double standard. You are allowed to have any credentials...education and be trusted fully if you teach that evolution is correct. But if that same scientist or teacher/professor changed his mind..he would instantly NOT be a REAL scientist or reputable source anymore. Just because the majority of the scientific community supports something doesn't mean that it is true. A minority can be correct as well..and the amount of scientists who DON'T agree with evolution is growing. Take your Darwin for example. If you think his theory is so correct...then you must imagine what it was like for him. Here he is..with the "truth" and the MAJORITY of the scientific community doesn't agree with him. The same with those with the heliocentric views. Before that minority of scientists came up with that new idea...most did not question it. That doesn't mean that the minority is wrong. You treat the minority though....as many evolutionists do, as if they are not able to be a REAL scientist and question evolution at the same time..and that is just totally false. It isn't even if they believe in creationism or not...it is ANYONE who disagrees with evolution.
You keep coming back and saying my site is wrong. It isn't whatsoever! How did you come to the conclusion that person wasn't a scientist? You said it was "incrediably" erroneous? Maybe by YOUR standards..because you disagree...but when I look back on it I find much of that info elsewhere. If you are referring to some spelling mistakes, etc...I don't think that should disqualify a page from being an argument against something. Not to mention, much of what is listed I found elsewhere..and many of the arguments he stated that evolutionists use etc...actually came up in our talk...and on the internet. Everytime I go back and read that site..I find the language and ideas are just as suitable as any brought up on your websites.
I'm not JUST talking about Social Darwinism, and not JUST Hitler. Many dictators can be accused of the same. I am also not BLAMING evolution for them...as a reason why it should be thrown out. It is more the fact that ideas have consequences. Of course Hitler was crazy..and I highly doubt that evolution was his driving force...but it was essential. You want to say that you can blame Christianity because he was a Christian? Well..lets see..what does Christianity teach? Love, Kindness, Forgiveness, Mercy, Faith, Moral values, etc. Now...does any of what Hitler did match those teachings? I think not! Now..as I said I am not BLAMING evolution...but this does have a role to play in his ideas. Evolution teaches..that organisms evolve...and change..and that we evolved from lesser life forms into more complex ones (so you don't get too upset..I know that isn't the "definition", but it is part). Well...can you see how that leads to someone such as Hitler..who DID believe in evolution and was a supporter of Darwin showing that Germans were a superior race...better than the Jews and blacks, and handicaps etc? I mean..can you see the connection? How can Christianity be a backing for it? Shouldn't all the handicapped people be weeded out because they are unable to survive etc? Whether that is true or not, evolution was a basis for their twisted beliefs. Stalin had the same ideals, and Mao from China. It is NOT about BLAMING the idea of evolution for those atrocities, because there are plenty of people who believe in evolution and wouldn't do anything like that, and disagree with it as much as I do. But had the idea of evolution not existed it wouldn't have been a backing for those things. No one stated that the the actual theory was immoral, it is what ideas come from it, what can be applied, etc. Can you take gravity and apply it with new ideas that lead to it supporting something like the holocaust? Not at all, but you can with evolution. Gravity, physics, and chemistry CANNOT be blamed because they are merely workings. No ideas can come from them off which those acts could be based. Those attackers didn't say "Well, see gravity shows that things are pulled toward the center of the Earth..and chemistry shows blah blah blah" and then use that to support and justify their attacks. However Hitler DID use evolution and its conclusions and ideas to support his acts.
I can make a very long list of all the great things religion in general has done for the world and people. Can you name one positive thing that the idea of evolution has backed or done for us?
All I see is that many dictators supported it,and many bad ideas (even here in the US like the sterilization of people etc), as well as the idea of genocide supported by it. I see it ensuring that no man must answer to a higher power..and thus there is no reason to uphold those moral values.
~Kiva