For theists who believe in evolution

LG.

I did not expect any empirical evidence. You in fact are the one who offered the link. In which the writer is claiming that there is evidence to support the idea of us being more advanced at various times in the past, IE cyclical instead of linear. ”

the link was offered more as a general introduction to the notion of cyclic time ... as opposed to an introduction to a variety of arguments supporting the evidence for it
Click to expand...

I understand. But there is nothing wrong with me researching some of the examples claimed as evidence in the link.

“ However, with your claim, we can look for evidence that supports or does not support the position. Which is what the link has provided and which I am finding flaws with. I will keep researching to see if I find something that is of intrique. ”

cremo's work tends to suggest that archeological science is one of the most institutionalized - ie if findings don't fit in with pre-existing models, it can be dangerous for one's career. The example that comes most easily to mind is that of the young american (I think?) who was effectively ousted from the discipline due to being involved in finding something that radically stood outside of current models of human history (from what I remember, the only counter offered on pro-evolution/atheist hate-sites being that she wasn't the one who should be really credited for the find or there were some delays in the posting of her report or something (in an attempt to paint her up as some career thirsty ladder climber or something) ... and nothing about why the claims were never followed up (or even published in journals, which would arguably be the means to have something followed up)
I''ll try find the link later
Click to expand...

Not science. Scientists.

I understood that the claims about her losing her job etc were exageratted even by her. This is the issue I am having.

We can't just say that these are examples of evidence to refute the current model without scrutinizing them. If they are valid and supported then we should move with the truth.

But we should also not accept them as evidence without doing the proper research and what has been found so far refutes the claim. Which basically were claimed prematurely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top