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.
Majority rules but what the majority agrees with can be changed with evidence, just like in every other field of science.
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).
I don't remember the post, could you point out where it is?
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"?
Opinions are just opinions and a request for evidence supporting that opinion is not "calling them 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it's necessary when there are always possibilities of discrepancies, cover ups, misinformation, wrong information, outdated information, misinterpretation, hoaxes, financial motivations, indoctrinations etc etc.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?
Evidence showing causality would have to be provided to show that they are mistaken, wouldn't you say?
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.
Not all opinions are valid, nor are all challenges. The real question is what is provided in that challenge to make it a worthy challenge. Evidence, weak or strong, provides the support for an opinion.
Having a difference of opinion or providing evidence to support your opinion, is not "calling them all liars or dumbies". How would you interpret the following statement from Russ, though?
From
this thread in post #45379.
So, sometimes (more often than you'd like to believe), people in those fields lie or even more often, ignore the corruption going on around. Why? Because they want to keep their jobs.
NutraSweet is on the market today because of a series of orchestrated lies. One scientist was paid $30,000 to lie on reports made during a phenylalanine study.
In other cases, people don't really know what they are doing. In the case of dentists and amalgam, they were taught that amalgam was safe in school, so they believe it. Unfortunately, there was corruption at a higher level that fabricated the lie (ADA holds amalgam patents).
So, you see, in some cases, it is corruption. In other cases, it is incompetence. In many cases, it's some combination of both that cause corruption in scientific fields.
How would you interpreted "corruption" to mean anything other than "liars". How would you interpret "incompetence" to mean anything other than "dumbies" in their chosen field of study. We're not talking about biology students giving their opinion. Russ is claiming that the real writers of the research, PHD's in biology, geology, physics and paleontology are either corrupt or incompetent. You'll pardon me if I don't swallow the sinker along with the lure.
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.
Accepted as truth. I certainly should try to take that to heart.
