EVERYONE makes mistakes. The difference is how you respond to them. The problem is you expect a scientist to say "this is the truth". That's not the way science works. A scientist will say instead, "it is our current understanding, based on the observations and facts that we have gathered that X is true. However, if we develop a more accurate test then the FACTS may change in which case so does our understanding".
A religious person will ignore any number of mistakes (predictions of the end of times as an example) and will instead rely on their faith to ignore or rationalise those mistakes.
AGW supporters do the same BTW!
Oh snap. What a clever retort and insult! Surely you have thwarted me! All you have to do is say I didn't read the post, and provide some amusing narrative image of me acting like a child.
I didn't miss partially explain, in fact. I'm pretty sure I pointed out because it relates to our gaps in our knowledge of physics. But by all means, insult me and ignore what I said.
Congratulations, you've done nothing but repost. You've pointed out problems with the Standard Model, and most theoretical physicists would agree with you that those are the issues for the Standard Model. I even pointed out it also didn't account for dark matter/energy. No one is going to defend that it's the most perfect theory ever, but rather the best one we have currently.
It's also still has valid parts which are backed up by empirical evidence and observations. That was the point of don't throw the baby out with the bathwater comment.
Please reread my post, and actually respond besides simply acting like I didn't read anything you said.
Then grow thicker skin and stop acting like a victim.
It wasn't. You just reposted criticisms of the Standard Model.
Oh. Look. More insults, the only new parts of your reply.
1. You are free to pretend that the argument is not proven, i.e., that science, physics, cosmology, does not use the same mechanisms that theologians use, that would be faith and belief, same has been documented throughout the thread.
EVERYONE makes mistakes. The difference is how you respond to them. The problem is you expect a scientist to say "this is the truth". That's not the way science works. A scientist will say instead, "it is our current understanding, based on the observations and facts that we have gathered that X is true. However, if we develop a more accurate test then the FACTS may change in which case so does our understanding".
A religious person will ignore any number of mistakes (predictions of the end of times as an example) and will instead rely on their faith to ignore or rationalise those mistakes.
AGW supporters do the same BTW!
I have to respectfully disagree with you about your view of creationist.
I don't expect what you say, but I do expect when someone on your side makes a claim they should be able present evidence to support said claim. Don't draw on a vivid imagination. I admit a large part of my views come from the word of God. Some of my views from the bible I can't prove but I don't have a problem admitting that I believe in some things out of faith. Your Side can't seem to admit believing something on faith.
Saying humans are related to apes there is zero evidence to supoort such claim and this has never been observed. Similarity proves nothing as a matter of fact creationist predict that living organisms should show similarity because we were designed by the same creator. But the similarity is not because we are related as your side claims.
Look at some of the creationist predictions and evidence that supports it.
Creationist Predictions
EVERYONE makes mistakes. The difference is how you respond to them. The problem is you expect a scientist to say "this is the truth". That's not the way science works. A scientist will say instead, "it is our current understanding, based on the observations and facts that we have gathered that X is true. However, if we develop a more accurate test then the FACTS may change in which case so does our understanding".
A religious person will ignore any number of mistakes (predictions of the end of times as an example) and will instead rely on their faith to ignore or rationalise those mistakes.
AGW supporters do the same BTW!
I have to respectfully disagree with you about your view of creationist.
I don't expect what you say, but I do expect when someone on your side makes a claim they should be able present evidence to support said claim. Don't draw on a vivid imagination. I admit a large part of my views come from the word of God. Some of my views from the bible I can't prove but I don't have a problem admitting that I believe in some things out of faith. Your Side can't seem to admit believing something on faith.
Saying humans are related to apes there is zero evidence to supoort such claim and this has never been observed. Similarity proves nothing as a matter of fact creationist predict that living organisms should show similarity because we were designed by the same creator. But the similarity is not because we are related as your side claims.
Look at some of the creationist predictions and evidence that supports it.
Creationist Predictions
I don't see a single prediction in the link you provided. I see a religious person rationalising scientific discoveries and explaining how they don't negate creationism.
For your information I have no views on creationism or creationists. I've worked with quite a few and they were wonderful people to work with.
The ones I worked with in the earth sciences were fond of saying "how long is one of Gods days? A billion years?" They had no problem reconciling what we knew of geologic history and creationism, they just weren't tied down to the dogma that Bishop Usher had promulgated where the Earth was a mere 6,000 years old. As they stated, he was a nice man but had no idea of the scientific discoveries that would come along and push back into the distant history the creation of the universe.
You contend that man is not evolved from apes yet the DNA evidence says we are 98% similar. That has been "proven" to the best degree possible but once again, a new technique may come along that disproves that. We don't know. That's why we are allways seeking.
EVERYONE makes mistakes. The difference is how you respond to them. The problem is you expect a scientist to say "this is the truth". That's not the way science works. A scientist will say instead, "it is our current understanding, based on the observations and facts that we have gathered that X is true. However, if we develop a more accurate test then the FACTS may change in which case so does our understanding".
A religious person will ignore any number of mistakes (predictions of the end of times as an example) and will instead rely on their faith to ignore or rationalise those mistakes.
AGW supporters do the same BTW!
I have to respectfully disagree with you about your view of creationist.
I don't expect what you say, but I do expect when someone on your side makes a claim they should be able present evidence to support said claim. Don't draw on a vivid imagination. I admit a large part of my views come from the word of God. Some of my views from the bible I can't prove but I don't have a problem admitting that I believe in some things out of faith. Your Side can't seem to admit believing something on faith.
Saying humans are related to apes there is zero evidence to supoort such claim and this has never been observed. Similarity proves nothing as a matter of fact creationist predict that living organisms should show similarity because we were designed by the same creator. But the similarity is not because we are related as your side claims.
Look at some of the creationist predictions and evidence that supports it.
Creationist Predictions
I don't see a single prediction in the link you provided. I see a religious person rationalising scientific discoveries and explaining how they don't negate creationism.
For your information I have no views on creationism or creationists. I've worked with quite a few and they were wonderful people to work with.
The ones I worked with in the earth sciences were fond of saying "how long is one of Gods days? A billion years?" They had no problem reconciling what we knew of geologic history and creationism, they just weren't tied down to the dogma that Bishop Usher had promulgated where the Earth was a mere 6,000 years old. As they stated, he was a nice man but had no idea of the scientific discoveries that would come along and push back into the distant history the creation of the universe.
You contend that man is not evolved from apes yet the DNA evidence says we are 98% similar. That has been "proven" to the best degree possible but once again, a new technique may come along that disproves that. We don't know. That's why we are allways seeking.
EVERYONE makes mistakes. The difference is how you respond to them. The problem is you expect a scientist to say "this is the truth". That's not the way science works. A scientist will say instead, "it is our current understanding, based on the observations and facts that we have gathered that X is true. However, if we develop a more accurate test then the FACTS may change in which case so does our understanding".
A religious person will ignore any number of mistakes (predictions of the end of times as an example) and will instead rely on their faith to ignore or rationalise those mistakes.
AGW supporters do the same BTW!
I have to respectfully disagree with you about your view of creationist.
I don't expect what you say, but I do expect when someone on your side makes a claim they should be able present evidence to support said claim. Don't draw on a vivid imagination. I admit a large part of my views come from the word of God. Some of my views from the bible I can't prove but I don't have a problem admitting that I believe in some things out of faith. Your Side can't seem to admit believing something on faith.
Saying humans are related to apes there is zero evidence to supoort such claim and this has never been observed. Similarity proves nothing as a matter of fact creationist predict that living organisms should show similarity because we were designed by the same creator. But the similarity is not because we are related as your side claims.
Look at some of the creationist predictions and evidence that supports it.
Creationist Predictions
I don't see a single prediction in the link you provided. I see a religious person rationalising scientific discoveries and explaining how they don't negate creationism.
For your information I have no views on creationism or creationists. I've worked with quite a few and they were wonderful people to work with.
The ones I worked with in the earth sciences were fond of saying "how long is one of Gods days? A billion years?" They had no problem reconciling what we knew of geologic history and creationism, they just weren't tied down to the dogma that Bishop Usher had promulgated where the Earth was a mere 6,000 years old. As they stated, he was a nice man but had no idea of the scientific discoveries that would come along and push back into the distant history the creation of the universe.
You contend that man is not evolved from apes yet the DNA evidence says we are 98% similar. That has been "proven" to the best degree possible but once again, a new technique may come along that disproves that. We don't know. That's why we are allways seeking.
