As I've repeatedly stated: This is true if you're actually speaking about science, but much of what is touted today as science is not but is based on a political agenda.
You're shifting gears here completely Russ. We're discussing evolution. I fail to see any political agenda there; scientists all over the world accept it. If there were better empirical evidence to the contrary they would revise their views. I've seen you claim a few times that science is a giant conspiracy but I would need to see some extraordinarily convincing evidence in order to believe this. If you think you've got it then do tell me.
evolution is not scientific and is purely a politically-based myth that make a small group of people wealthy.
How is evolution unscientific? It is evidence-based. Which evidence for evolution do you take issue with?
Who is getting wealthy from the theory of evolution?
Dismissing all of the evidence for evolution whoesale, and telling me I am naive, is not engaging with the issue.
As a Christian I can tell you that my relationship with God is evidence-based. Without the evidence that God provided me, I would not be a Christian.
Anecdotal evidence which you accept. That's fine, that's how religion works for many people. However, stating that you have a relationship with God is not going to be accepted by anyone other than fellow creationists as proof for creation.
The Bible is very clearly support for religion. So are all the other holy books. I'm not talking about religion here though. I'm not criticising anyone for what religion they belong to. What I'm debating about is the pseudoscience of creationism. The Bible is not evidence for special creation, and even many Christians think this. Scientists do not look to the Bible for scientific explanations. if they did we would still be stuck in the dark ages and none of us would be using these computers to communicate with each other.
Evolution is "accepted" by some, but if you did your homework, you would learn that this myth has been decreasing in credibility (for decades) the more it has been looked at by honest scientists.
Russ, the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution. Find me a biologist or a geophysicist who doesn't accept evolution. There is no decrease in credibility in the scientific community. By "respectable scientists" whom are you referring to exactly? "Dr." Hovind? Duane Gish? Henry Morris? If you are repeating what you have read or heard them saying then it explains a lot. Specialists in scientific fields have explained time and time again where the pseudoscience on AiG is wrong. It has not been changed. People with little scientific knowledge are still able to go there, read something with a scientific veneer, and be convinced.
Do you have evidence you can present for your own alternate ideas? What are they exactly?
In previous posts, I've given you ample opportunities to read and view them. Why haven't you?
I was addressing this comment to Demi. Specifically I am talking about creationism here. I have read your statements about creationism and responded to them elsewhere in this area of the forum. If you want to carry on discussing that's fine with me.
Why do these numbers keep changing year-by-year in the textbooks?
Is this something you've noticed personally? Can you give examples? The estimates get refined, but they do not get changed by a billion years here or there.
Do you honestly expect me to watch another Hovind vid? I already paid the courtesy of sitting through one. And it would take me hours of note-taking to refute everything the vid says. Besides, someone's already done it for me:
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html However, if you want to bring up one or two points of his for discussion at a time, I'm fine with that. You are presumably aware that he's currently in prison for defrauding the US government of a great deal of money? He's been engaged in some interesting activities. I can detail them if you like. He's also so confident in his ability to deflect criticism that he's had YouTube pull a number of anti-Hovind vids, claiming they breached copyright -- even though he says on his own vids that the material is not copyrighted because he wants it to be distributed. It will be interesting to see how that pans out.
the textbook teaching of evolution is based on "science" that has been proven completely wrong.
By whom?
Evolution is not based in science.
And creationism is? Please explain.
People who know nothing about the Bible and what it really says and how it has foretold the future and how it has been confirmed time-after-time by archeology
I haven't yet seen any empirical evidence that any of this is the case. Can you provide some examples?
