Shelly:
It wasn't, dear Abaddon (peace to you and welcome back!). It was not about evolution at all. It was about [changing] "facts"... and the associated hypocrisy.
Yes, that is like saying in a statement where you cast doubt on a the Bible's accuracy you are not attacking its version of events.
You also say "... several scientist/anthropologist/paleontologist admissions that there is actually very little known about... and in evidence to support... evolution."
No. I did NOT say that. I QUOTED that from the article... and said that I was SURPRISED to even read that
Get your facts straight or learn how to attribute correctly; from your first post:
Hubby and I happened to catch an episode of "Nova" last night. Fascinating stuff. Seems there's a bit of a threat to the "concrete" theories of evolution, man's origination in Africa, and hominid species. What was most interesting is several scientist/anthropologist/paleontologist admissions that there is actually very little known about... and in evidence to support... evolution. That was surprising.
The words in question are NOT given as a quote. They are your summary of a programme, not verbatum expressions of other people's opinion. BIG difference, especially given your proven inability/disinclination to understand scientific argument. I don;t think you are being intentionally deceptive here, I just think you have indistinct recall and tend to regards your (poor, ill-informed) summary of a programme as the objective factual content of the programme even when the two are different
No. You and others addressed the difference between scientific evidence and spiritual evidence (based on faith).
There is no such thing a spiritual evidence; there is only spiritual hear-say. You have no idea what 'evidence' is, in any meaningful context. To you, you THINKING something is evidence.
The ISSUE is one camp decrying the changes in statements of "fact" of another, while they themselves change "fact."
This was explained to your dear, you either don't understand or deliberately ignored it.
Religious theory (as regarding what god wants) has no facts or evidence to support if. Thus when it changes, it is for reasons other than facts or evidence.
Scientific theory is based on facts and evidence. New facts and evidence can be found, requiring theories to change.
Two different things. It's simple, and I don't think you're so stupid that you cannot understand it, which leaves option 'b'..
One example would be my son's grave illness in his youth. The doctors said, "Ma'am, it IS either this... or this... and THIS is what we MUST do." They based that on the "evidence" (i.e., multitude of tests, blood work, GI series, ultrasound, CT scan, etc). NO ONE said, "We really don't KNOW." For myself, I HEARD... as they were telling me... that they were in error... that it was NOT what they were diagnosing... not even close... and so did not let them do the particularly surgery they intended to do. I HEARD that they would get a court order (and they did), but not to worry because they weren't going to be allowed to do their surgery. I HEARD... NOT to worry... but to be patient and my son would be fully taken care of and fine. And that is exactly what occurred.
Yes dear, I'm sure this is your correct recollection of the events. See above for why this may be a problem; if you can't remember a thread's begining when it is there to check, lord knows what your recall years later is like. What we shall never know is:
- Whether you had conducted a thorough reading of all relevent medical literature and had a sound basis for your misgivings (as if!)
- How much sicker and nearer death he may have been because of your refusal to allow treatment before a recovery
- Whether the medical professionals would have realised what you portray as an error and administered the right therapy and your son would have recovered, without you making him into an Isaac for your beliefs
- How often parents with no medical understanding refuse their child treatment because of their beliefs and that child dies unnecessarily.
Maybe your son got lucky and lived DESPITE you? Maybe 80% of the time when a parent does what you did, the kid DIES? Maybe god had NOTHING to do with it but your EGO did? Just because you were in the lucky 20% who don't kill their kid you think god was with you; and the other 80% Shelly?
As far as I can see you are so convinced the Universe revolves around you and your beliefs you are conceited enough to believe god loves you enough to save your son, but apparently not enough to save the millions of other parents children who die young. Are you that special? If you don't realise this is what your beiefs imply then, well, maybe my above observation about your intelligence is in error. I can't believe you tell a story about you gambling with your child's life due to some sort of 'voice in your head' like it is a good thing. What hubris.
"There is NO EVIDENCE that directly links human evolution. None."
This is true. There is only evidence that SUGGESTS (to some, reasonably), human evolution.
You have no idea what evidence is Shelly, as previously shown. The evidence for human evolution is just as good as that for horse, duck or donkey evolution. I'd LOVE for you to disprove that fact; but you don't know enough about evolution to either form an informed opinion let alone refute anothers argument.
It would be like me claiming x painting was not by Rembrant but by the school of Rembrant based not on one moment of scholarly study or research, but just some stuff I had read online and seen on TV that most experts disagreed with. An opinion not worth a damn, as it is not an informed one.
But go on, you make the claim; please show through phenetic, phylogenic, evolutionary taxonomic or paleontologic differentiation why the evidence for the evolution of H.sapiens is not as good as for Anas platyrhyncho, Equus africanus asinus or Equus ferus caballus.
"In the same vein, there IS evidence of a fairly global, if not fully global flood."
This, too, is true. At least, according to some archeologists...
Again, you don't know what evidence is. And yes some so-called archaeologists think that, just like some think aliens built the pyramids, just like some parents refuse their chld medical treatment and as a result that child dies, because they are neither compotent as doctors or parents.
But that sort of so-called archaeologist is not the sort the majority of archaeologists agree with, because they have unsound methods and cannot prove their arguments to the expected standard. If archaeologists were people to which you you could lend money, the flood-supporting ones would be the ones whose financial claims regarding their ability to repay were unsound and would most likely default. Yeah, good idea, put your money on them. And all so silly, as you can believe in any god you like AND evolution, and in a way, to think that god could not use evolution to create man is limiting the power of god - you blasphemer you. And of course, no response to my point that you talk peace and give none. Typical. You take others to task but you, you're Teflon baby