Why would scientists lie about evolution
Favorites|Homepage
Subscriptions | sitemap
HOME > Biology > Why would scientists lie about evolution

Why would scientists lie about evolution

[From: ] [author: ] [Date: 11-05-07] [Hit: ]
By the way Im not a religious person I just question everything because I dont like to blindly believe anything.The irony is mind blowing. Theres a difference between questioning things and declaring your ignorance of a theory to be proof its wrong.For example:The argument against is why the different nationalities if we all came from the same animalThere is no way to argue against the nonsensical. Why on Earth would all humans having a common ancestor make everyone from the same nation?But what I currently know and have read about (and yes I do read) I am not completely satisfied with the evidence science calls proof to support evolution.......


"Wow I guess it's not ok to challenge the norm. So far the argument for it is that religious people are stupid. The argument against is why the different nationalities if we all came from the same animal? Stop name calling guys and try having a real debate for once. By the way I'm not a religious person I just question everything because I don't like to blindly believe anything."
The irony is mind blowing. There's a difference between questioning things and declaring your ignorance of a theory to be proof it's wrong.
For example:
"The argument against is why the different nationalities if we all came from the same animal"
There is no way to argue against the nonsensical. Why on Earth would all humans having a common ancestor make everyone from the same nation?

"But what I currently know and have read about (and yes I do read) I am not completely satisfied with the evidence science calls proof to support evolution."
Probably because what you've been reading about it isn't up to much. If 'skeleton remains' are what you consider to be the best evidence for evolution then you simply don't know anything about it whatsoever. Whilst extremely persuasive (and very useful for telling us what organisms evolved), they pale in comparison for proof that evolution occurs when compared to the fact it's a logical necessity and observed fact. If we know that something must happen and we've seen it happen, it's safe to conclude that it at least can happen. I think that's at least reasonable, no?


I'm not entirely sure what to say. If you're not satisfied, fine. You can deny it as much as you like, if you're not convinced by proof then there's really not a lot else to talk about. That doesn't make evolution an unsound theory though, it makes you (at the very best) unreasonable.

"Everybody has this idea that science is absolute and thy worship science like the religious worship church."
This is simply nonsense.
"There is evidence that extraterrestrials may hav had a hand in our development as well but science shuns that possibility."
Also nonsense. Yet again, science tries to find the facts. If there was evidence to suggest that that was a serious possibility it would be explored. Despite what you say there isn't any reliable evidence to suggest that, and so the possibility can't be investigated. Simple.


Look - if you really want to learn about evolution ask another question about. As it is, you're throwing out logical fallacies and ignorance and thinking it's a weakness on anyone's part but your own.
keywords: would,about,Why,evolution,scientists,lie,Why would scientists lie about evolution
New
Hot
© 2008-2010 http://www.science-mathematics.com . Program by zplan cms. Theme by wukong .