Dishonesty in the scientific community?

[nebula]

So much for trying to understand....

[artsylady]

but I am asking you what dishonesty you are accusing the scientific community of with regard to 'Lucy'.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/apewoman.asp

[artsylady]

You folks in the scientific community kinda go out make up a discipline based on your own intellect and pretty much demand the rest of us to just bow down and worship your great minds and reject everything else that has been taught to us just because it doesn't fit in to your self made discipline.

I agree with this completely.

And the nonscientist athiests gobble up all of the information and restate it all as fact while calling themselves 'freethinkers'. Meanwhile, the fact remains that although there are many scientists who believe in evolution, there is still much debate among them as to exactly how it happened. I am sure there is debate even among evolutionists as to where or how Lucy fits in, yet what they peddle to the media to give to us as truth is that Lucy was a missing link.

[artsylady]

If it is a complete fraud or is so way off the mark it will be found out eventually, and if this turns out to be the case then the scientists involved in Ida will struggle to get funding for anything ever again which is another deterrent to others to making false or badly researched claims.

Eventually is the key word here. It doesn't take long for a discovery to be claimed as proof for evolution, then handed to the media for mass announcement. If you ever get the chance, find some old science textbooks and see how they've changed. In fact, is there any evidence used in the scopes trial that would still be valid evidence for evolution today? My understanding is that it has all since been tossed.

[Fez]

If it is a complete fraud or is so way off the mark it will be found out eventually, and if this turns out to be the case then the scientists involved in Ida will struggle to get funding for anything ever again which is another deterrent to others to making false or badly researched claims.

Eventually is the key word here. It doesn't take long for a discovery to be claimed as proof for evolution, then handed to the media for mass announcement. If you ever get the chance, find some old science textbooks and see how they've changed. In fact, is there any evidence used in the scopes trial that would still be valid evidence for evolution today? My understanding is that it has all since been tossed.

Well the Bible also changed when the New Testament was added. Besides, I'm glad that old science textbooks differ from new ones. That means we're getting better. With new technology comes new discoveries (that also may undermine old discoveries). Our world continues to evolve and without new science coming through, we couldn't progress.

No actually, the good news of the Bible was added to when the world changed at the coming of Jesus. And it does not have to change, as does science as new theories appear or old ones are proven wrong, because it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[artsylady]

Well the Bible also changed when the New Testament was added.

But the old testament is 1/4 prophesy, concerning the messiah. So it wasn't like the old testament prophets didn't realize things would change. They did and they wrote it down. It may have changed some things but some have stayed the same.

A lot of laws have changed due to time. For example, it used to be the law in Canada ( I think) that you would have to carry a lantern on the back of your car - before there were tail lights. Don't quote me on that, but my point is that the old laws were valid for the time period, just as the Bible's laws were valid for the time period.

However, when it comes to evolution, how do you think the scopes trial went? Well, here is the evidence that proves evolution, so evolution should certainly be taught. We know all of this evidence will eventually be tossed out, but for today it sure does look like evidence....?

Besides, I'm glad that old science textbooks differ from new ones. That means we're getting better. With new technology comes new discoveries (that also may undermine old discoveries). Our world continues to evolve and without new science coming through, we couldn't progress.

It means they had wrong information. Knowing this, how can one logically know that the so called evidence of today will not be later thrown out? This is what has been happening since the onset, but one must have faith that today, it is finally correct.

[artsylady]

Not necessarily. A new theory overthrowing an old theory might not make the old one wrong, just outdated.

Hmmm. Can you give me an example?

Besides, without scienctific discoveries, we might still be relying on faith healers to cure our sicknesses or continuing to belive the earth is at the centre instead of the sun.

I do believe that the scientists of that day, as much as the 'holy' rc church, believed the earth is at the centre of the sun. Hey, you spell centre like I do? Canadian?

I believe in science because it doesn't claim to know the answers, it can only give us insight into our world. We are not forced to believe what they say and reason is pervasive in what they do.

I tend to think that there are some very prominent scientists who indeed feel they have the truth, preach it as an absolute, and will refuse to look at any other options. Dawkins is a prime example.