I can see your point. We need to be respectful though honest with our opinion.
But also, one must be careful not to jump onto every statement and put words in people's mouths either and become unnecessary defensive, thereby provoking another. Remember this is a debate forum. It's in place for people to question/challenge/refute and give another side. And there is another side. The creation side too in regards to biology/science etc. Not all scientists are automatically evolutionists. Though we know there is a majority rules in the science arena and it's exactly what the public is fed.
Let's not forget an interview posted on this forum with an evolutionist biologist giving some very uncomfortable and sobering admissions regarding evolution and the science arena. He knows there is the other side, but for his position and finance, he has to present only one (evolution). No, that is not an honest way to continue but he felt that due to the other factual science and many good discoveries, somehow he must have justified the other in his own mind (or tried to).
So, if I give an opinion based upon the creation side and an evolutionist says "this is not true" "this is not based upon evidence" etc......then surely I can just as easily jump on the defense and say "so you're calling them all liars"?
It is not a crime to question/challenge/refute an evolutionist scientist. It's not a crime to do the same with the medical/dental industry (ANY industry) and it appears it's necessary when there are always possibilities of discrepancies, cover ups, misinformation, wrong information, outdated information, misinterpretation, hoaxes, financial motivations, indoctrinations etc etc.
We have to respect that there is more side to an issue and this is why a debate forum is in place. There is NO obligation to accept one side of an issue because the opposition decides if we don't, we're calling them all liars. Especially when there is the opposition giving another side to presenting evidence. Tell me, are all dentists deliberate poisoners? Or are some of them misinformed/naive about some of the evidences that prove mercury from amalgams is indeed toxic/accummulative? Some dentists believe it's been proven to be safe...are they interested/willing to view the other side? And if not....why? If so, would they be willing to accept the possibility of evidence that may prove that they maybe mistaken? even though they have been through dental school and the likes of me has not?
Am I calling such people liars if I do not agree with their idea of the safety of amalgam? I cannot possibly know for certain whether a person has an agenda, or whether they are genuinely uninformed/misinformed about other possibilities of opposing evidences or not. And it's the same with the evolutionists. Just because we give another side and question/challenge, does not mean we are calling them all liars, or dumbies. It may mean that they are not the ONLY voice of science and there is indeed another side.
We recognise Linear that we are laypeople and what is fed to us, may not always be ABSOLUTE in regards to "science" or at least interpretations of findings. There is indeed a strong oppositional voice, however quieted/silenced it maybe in mainstream science/media/public - it's not going away anytime soon and is in fact growing.
I believe as a Christian, that Christ is coming soon to silence all such debates. In the meantime, we'll endure more of the same. Let us try to remember that when we are addressing another person, we are addressing someone whom God Himself considers more precious than gold - so much so, He sent His own son to die on a cross for each individual.....cause for much reflection. Eachtime we treat another human being in an insulting/offhand manner, we do the same to Christ. Since it was He who told us:
Matthew 25:41
Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
OUCH!. I believe by this, that it does not mean we cannot point out, correct, and defend (at least from what we believe is true - even if we might be mistaken), nor does it mean we won't experience feelings of anger/injustice, (Christ felt anger) - but how we treat a person whilst doing so. Is it with insult/contempt? Hmmmmm, makes me feel nervous when I consider this.
Seriously, I think most of here have cause for shame (myself included). It's a rare time when I become suddenly and acutely aware of such a reality and I'd like to remember this more often and wish I would live accordingly.
