That would require her to develop and discuss her opinions with integrity. This is not the normal way of doing things for a creationist.


-------



The truth of human evolution doesn't depend on the opinions of any one person.

If we compromised, it would be nice. If we agreed, it would be a miracle.

Scientists are just men. And men have been known to be wrong...

How much of this comment was intended as a joke? Surely you know that the truth is not subject to mere popular opinion? You and he cannot decide what is true and what is not true by compromising with each other.

Now I have no integrity? Because I don't agree with you? THAT is sooo like a liberal....lol

This is why you should not take the claims of men at face value, and investigate it yourself. For example, if people in your religious community claimed that the bible is the word of god, do you take this as truth, or do you investigate it yourself?

Fortunately, the mistakes that scientists have made tend to get exposed and addressed by the work of other people.

Our understanding of evolution has improved much through this process.

You are picking and choosing your "truth". Don't you see that?

Neither does the truth of Intelligent Design...

Now I have no integrity? Because I don't agree with you? THAT is sooo like a liberal....lol

You jump to conclusions without reading carefully. That is so like a liberal.


I made no statement about *your* integrity. I made statements about what would be required of you, and what is the norm for creationists. Do you have that integrity? Are you a 'typical' creationist? Or do you value honesty and truth - and honest thought processes, and the application of reason?

Just like our understanding of global warming is MUCH improved?...lol..Who are you trying to kid here?.....

If you have studied scientific theories surrounding global warming over the past forty years, you would know that that human's understanding of this topic has, in fact, been much improved.

This has been aided a tremendous amount by the development of computers.

What exactly is your point? Why do you change the topic to global warming? Do you think that your disagreement with scientists in one area therefore invalidates the notion that scientists generally function by improving their understanding of a topic over time?

I DO value honesty and truth.


Do you have even the minimal integrity to acknowledge that you jumped to a wrong conclusion about my meaning, without carefully reading my words?

If you value honesty and truth, then you know that it matters whether a word is being used in a consistent way. The word theory in one context means something different than the word theory in another. If you want to communicate honestly, you will be open about this fact, and not hide it, and not abuse it to make a dishonest argument. You made such a dishonest argument earlier in this thread. If you value honesty and truth, you will look at this.



As a stranger sharing an online space, my opinion ought to mean nothing to you, that's fine. But what about your reason? Do you still employ it? MetalWing posted good material, which I've reposted. Did you read it? Did you think about it?

Individual opinions may not be important, but aspiring to quality reasoning is important to people who really
value honesty and truth.

Has it ever occurred to you that you choose the material that you choose to believe? Has it ever occurred to you that you MIGHT be wrong?

My point is that scientists are not all-knowing.

A degree in science does not prove that you are right about everything.

There are your scientists on both sides of evolution and global warming.

And guess what? They don't agree. Can you wrap your head around that?

Yes, of course not.



Having known a handful or idiots with science degrees, I can't help laughing about this understatement. Yes. Scientists can be wrong.




Truth is not determined by 'popularity among scientists', but its worth addressing this misleading statement, anyway.

There are precious few actual scientists who would disagree with the basic tenets of evolution. Every so called scientist I've heard of who questions the basic tenets of evolution has shown that they are also deeply invested in religiosity, and most have been shown to not actually be scientists. Getting a PhD and then becoming a preacher doesn't make you a 'scientist'.




Maybe you'd like to offer a more specific claim? I'm aware of the dishonest tactics that creationists use - of promoting creationists who happen to also have PhDs as if they were actually scientists. It was hard to wrap my head around such scummy behaviour, but I've come to learn to people will stoop quite low to justify clinging to false beliefs.

Has it ever occurred to you that you MIGHT be wrong?

Has it ever occurred to you that you choose the material that you choose to believe? Has it ever occurred to you that you MIGHT be wrong?

Now who's making false and misleading statements? Wow, I can't believe you believe the things you are saying. Now, you are picking and choosing who is a real scientist to fit in with what you believe. Do you even realize what you are saying?

Oh, absolutely. Thinking that I might be wrong about something is core to how my mind words, and has been since I was a child.

That doesn't diminish the overwhelming body of evidence supporting the view that humans have descended from non-human primates, nor a large body of personal experience suggesting that creationism is sustained in the public's mind largely through dishonest practices like extreme cherry picking, abuses of logic, and outright lies.




Earlier in my life, I read everything I could get my hands on. The primary criteria was that it had to be 'new' to me. I intentionally chose materials which challenged what I already thought I knew.

I've read the gospels end to end a half dozen times.

I've read dozens and dozens of books attacking the theory of evolution.

I don't especially *want* to believe in the theory of evolution, I *want* simply to not lie to myself.

I could invent a dozen fanciful stories of human origins that I'd much rather believe, but they would be inventions.

No, again you are making assumptions about my thought process that fit your preference.

I am choosing scientists based on whether or not they actually continue to practice science over the course of their lifetime.

It just so happens that the 'scientists' who disagree with the basic tenets of evolution are usually not scientists, by this definition. I'm not discounting them 'as a real scientist' because of their belief, I'm discounting them because of their failure to remain engaged in the practice of science after getting a degree.