Will you oppose to scientific conclusions if they'll lead to theology?

Using abuses by other religions as an analogy to defend evolution proves my point that it is one.

It's dangerous to get your science from the popular press. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong.Professor Protsch does appear to have comitted fraud. Far from being hidden by "evolutionists", his fraud was revealed and spread by "evolutionists".The fossil in question was never thought to be a "missing link' between modern humans and neandertals; it was and is an anatomically modern human. Protsch's results were always suspect and not widely accepted; many people couldn't see how anatomically modern humans and neandertals could have coexisted in the same ecological niche for so long without one or the other dying out or moving away because of the competition for the same resources. The new dating of the fossil makes the issue much less severe by reducing the overlap of neandertals and moderen humans in the area.So, one misguided person appears to have commited a fraud. His results were never widely accepted. The fraud was exposed and publicized by "evolutionists". Doesn't support your claim.

Very little crap the Creationist put out sees the light of day. The recent problems with the Smithsonian show that clearly.
If you are right everything the Creationist know -about origins not science in general - is wrong.
If they are right the same applies to you.
If as I am told ad nauseaum that science cannot prove the existence of God it must also be true it can't prove the non-existence of Him either.
It would seem foolish not to encourage both sides and hope one of them is right. Otherwise all your eggs are in one basket.
Foolish is the status quo.

Not at all. Your conclusion is fallacious. Analogies are just that; analogies, and no more. An analogy is "similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition). Sharing some features in a valid analogy does not necessarily mean that the theory of evolution and religions share any other features. If you want to argue that the ToE is a religion, go into one of the many topics on that already such as A puzzling thing about traditional religion or Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion. and discuss it there.BTW, this is your first mention of the tired ol' "evolution is a religion" lie in this thread. Are you trying to set some sort of record for number of blindly parroted and unsupported assertions? If that's your aim, you're going to have to try much harder; I've seen much better parrots than you.I notice you have not addressed any substantive issues that various people have brought up. More evidence about your knowledge and abilities.

Of course. That is why almost every Christian and non-Christian church accepts teaching the TOE and opposes teaching Creationism. The Theory of Evolution has NOTHING to do with either the existence or non-existence of GOD. What does that have to do with the topic? Of course. However there is ample evidence to support both Evolution and the TOE while there is NO evidence to support Creationism.The Topic is "Will you oppose to scientific conclusions if they'll lead to theology?"I believe that ALL scientists and anyone who follows the scientific method would accept scientific evidence that led to theological conclusions. I also believe it is very unlikely we will ever see any such evidence.The above can easily be tested. Simply ask those who you think would not accept such conclusions, Atheists for example, "If faced with irrefutable evidence that GOD exists, would you abandon the scientific method and deny GOD's existence or accept the evidence?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html
The International Flat Earth Society is a joke. Evolution failed to bestow a sense of humor on it's followers-my observation.
The only possible place in the Bible one could possibly interpret a flat earth is rev 7 vs 1 -The four corners of the Earth. In old English and in Greek it's meaning is quadrants-a nautical term.
On the contrary the Bible says just the opposite. The Bible is not a science book but its references to scientific fact are thousands of years ahead of it's time.
The flat earth was invented by scientist -just like scientist pressured the church to shut down Galileo. It is not biblical.
To insinuate that any Christians believe to this day in a flat earth is propaganda. The disclaimer does not change that.
Do you believe in Haekel's speechless apes? or his cell?
I could claim that all meteorologists believe the sun revolves around the earth as well as every news organization in America.
We all know the sun doesn't rise but not those idiots!
I have more on them but that is enough.

"Very little crap the Creationist put out...", hum? Is that intentional or a Freudian slip?The crap the creationists put out doesn't see the light of day because it's crap. The Smithsonian story isn't all known yet, but there's little if any evidence for suppression; the allegations by Klinghoffer were (like all of yours) offered without evidence. The evidence gathered thus far indicates that Klinghoffer was wrong, and Sternberg has not been punished or inconvenienced in any way for his views. From A Second Dimension to "Sternberg vs. Smithsonian":

quote:

---

Although I do not wish to debate the merits of intelligent design, this forum seems an apt place to correct several factual inaccuracies in the Wall Street Journal’s Op Ed article by David Klinghoffer, The Branding of a Heretic (Jan. 28, 2005). Because Dr. von Sternberg has filed an official complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, I cannot comment as fully as I would wish.
1. Dr. von Sternberg is still a Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History, and continues to have the usual rights and privileges, including space, keys, and 24/7 access. At no time did anyone deny him space, keys or access.
2. He is not an employee of the Smithsonian Institution. His title, Research Associate, means that for a three year, potentially renewable period he has permission to visit the Museum for the purpose of studying and working with our collections without the staff oversight visitors usually receive.
3. I am, and continue to be, his only supervisor, although we use the term sponsor for Research Associates to avoid personnel/employee connotations. He has had no other since Feb. 1, 2004, nor was he ever assigned to or under the oversight of anyone else.
4. Well prior to the publication of the Meyer article and my awareness of it, I asked him and another Research Associate to move as part of a larger and unavoidable reorganization of space involving 17 people and 20 offices. He agreed.
5. I offered both individuals new, identical, standard Research Associate work spaces. The other accepted, but Dr. von Sternberg declined and instead requested space in an entirely different part of the Museum, which I provided, and which he currently occupies.
6. As for prejudice on the basis of beliefs or opinions, I repeatedly and consistently emphasized to staff (and to Dr. von Sternberg personally), verbally or in writing, that private beliefs and/or controversial editorial decisions were irrelevant in the workplace, that we would continue to provide full Research Associate benefits to Dr. von Sternberg, that he was an established and respected scientist, and that he would at all times be treated as such.
On behalf of all National Museum of Natural History staff, I would like to assert that we hold the freedoms of religion and belief as dearly as any one. The right to heterodox opinion is particularly important to scientists. Why Dr. von Sternberg chose to represent his interactions with me as he did is mystifying. I can’t speak to his interactions with anyone else.

​

Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Coddington

---

(which as been verified to have actually been written by Dr. Coddington). The Smithsonian Office of Public Affairs wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal:

quote:

---

To set the record straight:

​

It should be noted that Richard Sternberg is not a Smithsonian employee. He is a staff member of the National Center of Biotechnology Information at the National Institutes of Health. As a research associate he has permission to study collections at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History for a three-year term.

​

Dr. Sternberg’s characterization of his work conditions and treatment at the Smithsonian is incorrect. He was never denied office space, keys or access to the collections. More importantly, the private religious beliefs of employees and research associates are respected by the museum, and have no bearing on their professional standing within the museum.

​

Randall Kremer
Director of Public Affairs
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington

---

Yup. The evidence clearly indicates which side is correct; I notice you still haven't posted any evidence.Note that I am not saying that Christianity or the Bible is wrong; just your peculiar interpretation of the Bible is obviously, ludicrously, horrendously wrong. As I like to say, God wrote the rocks; Man wrote the Bible. I believe what God wrote. Absolutely. So what? That's Pascal's wager, and is wrong on its face. It would seem foolish to practice only one religion, and not even the largest religion. Otherwise all your eggs are in one basket. Better start worshipping Baal and Thor and Mithras and Krishna and Zeus and ...

The late Mr. Johnson said it wasn't. Let's see your evidence that it's a joke. No, it really isn't. If you want to establish that talkorigins.org is not a reliable source, you're going to have to come up with much more than that. Take a look back at the number of links that I've posted and the amount of discussion that I've written on the inaccuracy of your sources, and that's just off the top of my head without really trying. You're making a claim about talkorigins.org, it's up to you to provide sufficient evidence for that claim.

You couldn't even get your own bible stuff correctly. This is getting old.Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: This message has been edited by Resurrected Hector, 02-27-2005 14:43 AM

---

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.

When, in my post, did I bring up radiometric dating?Could you address the points I raised in my post, please? You don't appear to have done so.

No, it's a real society whose founder really believes in a flat Earth.But people join it as a joke; a friend of mine started a local chapter of it in college to scam refreshment funds.

Right! Time for you to start answering some questions and providing some evidence.You are implying that the ID article was condemned because it was simply 'anti-evolution'. This is blatantly not true: the strong response to the article was because it was unscientific. If you don't think this is the case please point to a paragraph in the article that is a reference to a testable and falsifiable hypothesis (and therefore is worthy of a place in a scientific 'review' article).Stop Trolling around and start to back up your assertions!

Believed. He died in 2001. Obituary: Flat Earth Society head, Charles K. Johnson, bites the dust (mine).

I don't get my science from the popular press.
The question you should be asking is where does the popular press get their science.
With a religious fervor usually reserved for snake charmers the press defends your faith.
The question you should ask yourself is why? Why does the press -like National Geographic promote fraud? Increased circulation doesn't explain promoting a fraud that was revealed to them beforehand.
If evolution is a science why does it discriminate -name calling and suppression of opposing ideas shows an agenda.
Why do the textbook to this day deceive children with Haeckel's embryo drawings that were denounced as fakes over 100 years ago?
No self-respecting biologist approves of this-evolutionist or no-but there they sit.
Not only are they there but also groups like the N.C.S.E. mindlessly defend them with name calling etc. etc. They call themselves Nat. Center for Scientific Ed. but promote only evolution. If evolution can stand on it's feet why does it have to defend itself with intimidation? Why this total lack of integrity?
On one hand they promote ideas no self-respecting scientist would endorse and on the other ridicule creationist as insane people?
Something is very wrong here.
Why did Time magazine promote Haeckel's ideas in a fairly recent article? Like you said these were debunked by evolutionist long ago. Why do some evolutionist defend this? Think past your presuppositions and this should disturb you.
Over and over I see these childish tactics like saying people of faith are stupid because they believe the earth is flat etc.
There is nothing in the bible that indicates anything but the earth is round. It is not a scientific book but it knew many scientific facts such as what caused the wind 3500 years ago.
Some people believed the earth was flat in the past-it was not an idea from the Church or from the Hebrews-it was from science.
No one believes it now. Louis Pasteur proved life only springs from life more than 100 years ago yet many evolutionists still believe we descended from a rock. It is still in the textbooks.
I could ridicule meteorologist for believing the sun revolves around the earth and have a much better case. After all they claim to know what time the sun rises. Hell I knew better than that when I was three.
When these tactics are necessary to prove your point you need to look at yourself instead of attacking others.Fraud in evolution is not a rare occurrence. It is only rare that is gets any press.This message has been edited by peddler, 02-28-2005 10:06 AM

Believe what you like. No one believes it -the joke is to convince everyone they do. It is called tongue and cheek humor-some people just don’t get it.
It may be some there are cases of an atheist-pretending to be creationist- that claims to believe in it just to discredit creationist. But I think it is a big joke.
There is nothing Biblical about a flat earth and to use it to discredit creationist shows ones true character.
To say meteorologist believe the sun revolves around the earth would make more sense.
Check your paper-the sun doesn't rise-or does it?
Could N.A.S.A. have lied about the absence of green cheese on the moon?
We may never know.