Changes

Thank you  for your informative responses. I  very much value challenging my view points. After all if you can’t challenging them and still believe them you shouldn,t hold them (this we probably agree on, but just come up on the side of opposing views).

Thank you  for your informative responses. I  very much value challenging my view points. After all if you can’t challenging them and still believe them you shouldn,t hold them (this we probably agree on, but just come up on the side of opposing views).

My main points perhaps need to be clarified

My main points perhaps need to be clarified

 

1) I think the assumption we can trust our senses, is a lesser assumption than we have all the answers in the bible (history , how and when the world was created etc.).

1) I think the assumption we can trust our senses, is a lesser assumption than we have all the answers in the bible (history , how and when the world was created etc.).

- if the bible was correct our senses would lead us to this conclusion eventually anyways

- if the bible was correct our senses would lead us to this conclusion eventually anyways

2)“In evolution, all data must be fitted to that view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out”  

2)“In evolution, all data must be fitted to that view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out”  

‘Many scientists  have a good counter argument to data and do not simply throw it out. If not how do you account for most scientists not excepting this data, and most of the creation science work not being published in secular science journals. That is without resorting to a mass conspiracy as an answer, as it would no longer be a few individuals it would be a large majority of people going to conferences, writing text books, reviewing journals--your everyday go to work scientist who is sent the article to review.

Many scientists  have a good counter argument to data and do not simply throw it out. If not how do you account for most scientists not excepting this data, and most of the creation science work not being published in secular science journals. That is without resorting to a mass conspiracy as an answer, as it would no longer be a few individuals it would be a large majority of people going to conferences, writing text books, reviewing journals--your everyday go to work scientist who is sent the article to review.

 

Note that I'm still not claiming "scientific conspiracy", just individuals prepared to bend the truth to discredit Christianity, and gullible followers who swallow that.”  

Note that I'm still not claiming "scientific conspiracy", just individuals prepared to bend the truth to discredit Christianity, and gullible followers who swallow that.”  

“and gullible followers who swallow that.” - I think you underestimate how much , interpreting data, critique and debate  is done at any conference or when a peer review is done.

“and gullible followers who swallow that.” - I think you underestimate how much , interpreting data, critique and debate  is done at any conference or when a peer review is done.

3) As for my use of science vs. scientist I suppose I should be more careful. Let me clarify:

3) As for my use of science vs. scientist I suppose I should be more careful. Let me clarify:

      I agree scientific merthods are not biased, and that scientists can be. However so many scientists come from so many different back grounds and different biases, I can’t imagine getting  all these scientists to agree to publish something that isn’t  convincing data or at least a good starting point . The method of a rigorous peer review will eliminate  a lot of this bias (of coarse not all), as the biases will be different (various culture, religions, etc.)- this leads me to belive that in general the literature is heading towards the correct answers in most fileds including evolution, (with some hick ups along the way). And that it isn’t fundamentally flawed in regards to the majority of what gets published in this field. - I guess we disagree

I agree scientific merthods are not biased, and that scientists can be. However so many scientists come from so many different back grounds and different biases, I can’t imagine getting  all these scientists to agree to publish something that isn’t  convincing data or at least a good starting point . The method of a rigorous peer review will eliminate  a lot of this bias(of coarse not all), as the biases will be different (various culture, religions, etc.)- this leads me to belive that in general the literature is heading towards the correct answers in most fileds including evolution, (with some hick ups along the way). And that it isn’t fundamentally flawed in regards to the majority of what gets published in this field. - I guess we disagree

4) “…and evolution has contributed little to science, so it barely qualifies as a "main theory".

4) “…and evolution has contributed little to science, so it barely qualifies as a "main theory".