Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

No scientist speaking within their field will say either Leprechauns or God dont exist. They will tell you on the balance of available evidence it is unlikely

 

Yeah, remember the Paluxy Tracks?...The Ark discovery by Ron Wyatt...or any of his other scams???

Tell me, who exposed Piltdown man as a fraud?

 

That wasn't my question. Does he believe Leprechauns exist? If not, what is his reasoning and how is that reasoning different when applied to a belief in a supernatural being.

It's very simple....there is a lesson here to be learned.

 

Particularly researchers in the US were pretty convinced it was a fake right from the start. As early as 1915 it was being described as an anomalous find of uncertain origin

 

Basically. The entire reason creationists keep coming back to Piltdown is because there hasn't been a significant fraud of that nature in the last 60 years. Not since we improved our dating mechanisms and similar tests.

 

A very good book on the subject is Ronald Millar's Piltdown Men. He goes into great detail about how much those defending the find must have known there were issues. Specifically the geology of where the fossil was found was all wrong

 

So an MD who didn't believe in naturalistic evolution can't work in that field?

 

Correct...and the point being, "science" exposed Piltdown man. Not godbots of bible-babblers...but, people who do the science. The system/process works.

 

I've never heard of Ron Wyatt, did he speak for all Christians?

- - - Updated - - -

What 'gaff', quoting an embarrassing thought by an evolutionist in a moment of honesty?

 

So, listing Piltdown man as a fraud wasn't an attempt to portray "Science" as a dishonest process/group of people?

Just making it clear here.

 

faith

1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.


The dictionary certainly makes a distinction between "faith" like faith in god, and "faith" like
that the car will start.

Sorry you took it that way. it was not intended for you, nor as an insult, nor to get around rules.
Im not stupid and Im not losing an argument, either so Im not sure why you put that in.

Now, on the point here, we see from the dictionary that faith in the car starting, or faith in some bit of science is NOT the same as faith in God.

I trust there is no disagreement there, and that we can speak again without either insult nor
misapprehension of same.

 

If we started talking religious hoaxes, we could do all religions but the one True one.
As for Xtianity, start with the "resurrection" hoax, and go thru the selling of indulgences,
the shroud of turin, pieces of the true cross, etc etc etc...

 

I don't like to throw around the 'dishonest' label as atheists here do, Piltdown does show science can be very wrong, an idea that when presented on this forum gets you called all kinds of names.

 

Not a hoax.

A hoax.

Not a hoax.

Some were fake, some were probably not. The historian Cornelius Tacitus confirms there was such a cross.

 

He didn't say "evolved from" though, he said "turned into". It may sound like a minor detail but the phrasing of his statement had all the hallmarks of deliberate misrepresentation designed to reduce the entire system of evolution to an absurd soundbite.

 

And some are dreadfully gullible.

- - - Updated - - -

The deeper reason is that they simply do not have a single blessed thing to present against ToE
that in any way shows that ToE may be false.

 

Actually, no it doesn't and that's a disingenuous claim to make. What it shows is, people are people and that people, can be dishonest.

 

Regarding "dishonest", you are saying that all atheists say it?
I say it when it applies.
What would you suggest as a proper word to use when someone is being dishonest?
Would "false" do ok?

Everyone here knows that science can be wrong.
Nobody will call names if that is said.
Your statement to the contrary is false; you cannot present any example

Did you say that as a way to try to smear people?

 

More insults, thanks for proving my point. To the true believers here, questioning = smearing.

 

Prove the resurrection did in fact happen?

Shroud of Turin?...really??? Tell me, how can you get an accurate 2d image from a 3D image?

 

Does that include Cornelius Tacitus, called Rome's greatest historian?

 

Lets see, you make a false statement, and are unable to back it up. That proves your point; I think I can agree with that, tho the point made may not be the one you thought.

 

All you do is question because you have no evidence to prove your beliefs. If you did, you would have presented it...questions do not equal evidence.