Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 10:04 ambrunumb wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 2:55 amYou admit to having no idea yet have no problem attacking the science involved.
A phrase I see thrown around here rather a lot, directed at those who regard the bible as inspired, is "attacking science" or the equally emotive "denying science". But disagreeing with some person's
interpretation of science is not to attack science but to attack the interpretation or the underlying assumptions.
That's not what's happening in this conversation, to "those who regard the Bible as inspired" or anyone else. This is the comment being called an attack on science:
Eloi wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 3:10 pmNor do I have the slightest idea what criteria will be followed by those in charge to decide how to call the owner of a piece of skull or other bone that is buried somewhere... Aren't they calling "species" what it is only a normal
race of human beings, like the ones that exist today? All races are nothing more than genetic variations of the same species. Dividing ancient humans into species is like making believe that human races differ in evolutionary status.
That's not a disagreement with any particular "interpretation" because the commenter hasn't "the slightest idea" what that interpretation is.
Eloi wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 10:23 am1) Science IS NOT evolutionist. Some scientists are, but others are not. It is not the same to refute an evolutionist in some matter, than to "attack science".
Then what specifically about the process of identifying remains do you think is wrong and can be refuted?
Eloi wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 10:23 am2) Scientists disagree with each other many more times than is thought.
Thought by whom and how much more?
Every single paper is a scientist disagreeing with somebody. I certainly know that. Who are you claiming
doesn't know that?
Eloi wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 10:23 amThis occurs not only between believers and non-believers, but also between non-believers and between some evolutionists and other evolutionists. Contradicting an evolutionist IS NOT "attacking science" because no single evolutionist or group of evolutionists represents the entire body of scientists in the world.
You haven't contradicted an evolutionist or group of evolutionists. You've said that even though you don't know anything about paleontology, conclusions by paleontologists are wrong.
Eloi wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 10:23 amTo accuse someone of "attacking science" they would first have to clearly define what the word SCIENCE actually implies.
Paleontology is a branch of science. I'm pretty sure that definition is generally agreed upon.
Eloi wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 10:23 am"Scientific" frauds are not true science, just false science.
You mentioned one unnamed scientist from a third-hand source at least thirty years ago about something that happened twenty years before that. Neither you nor your source offered enough information to track down the original source, the scientist involved, or even what form the original fraud took. With that in mind, yes, that guy was a bad person and I hope he lost his job. Is there more to your argument than "this one time there was a dishonest scientist?"
Eloi wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 10:23 amPiltdown Man was believed in the scientific community for about 50 years; for 20 years the Indian fraud on the Himalayan man remained undisclosed... Do the math: how many more frauds and for how long.
So far, your math adds up to two.
Eloi wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 10:23 amObviously, many of the "evolutionist" conclusions are supported by frauds that are not yet discovered and others that arise.
How does one fraud in 1912 and another sometime around 1970 make it "obvious" that "many conclusions are supported by frauds that are not yet discovered?"
Eloi wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 10:23 amThere are many interests involved. What is the purpose of science today? Discover the truth? To look for more money to continue "discovering truths"?
How about you actully tell us what you think these shadowy interests are and how they're subverting the process of science to get their hands on that filthy science lucre.
Eloi wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 10:23 amAs a sensible and smart person that I consider myself to be, I would not change my faith in the Scriptures, which have been shown to be true, to put it on a certain group of scientists (which is not the same as SCIENCE), who want me to believe that something has been proven, when the truth is that these conclusions are supported by fallible and non-absolute methods, frauds (discovered or yet to be discovered), and interests that have nothing to do with discovering the truth.
That seems sensible, yes.