Then you do admit that the science programs are a fraud and the science they talk about is also a fraud. Evolution is also a fraud. I have worked on some of these science programs, I am an artist and animator. The scientists and makers of these programs, want things as accurate as they can make them and are pretty careful in what goes into it.
Why does evolution select against atheists?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
You clearly have comprehension problems.
That is not what I said, or implied.
Wrong.
Correct - and regardless of how much work YOU do and how devoted to getting things right the science advisers are, what ACTUALLY makes the final cut is up to the producers etc.
My experience is that science programs , are mostly designed to try and get what they are trying say correct. Scientist feel that other scientists will watch it also, or anyone for that matter and are careful in what actually goes on the air. They may use the most dramatic parts but they still are careful, about what is shown. There are science programs that are out dated in a few years because, they are so interested i9n the new theory , but in a few years you never hear about it again, because it was discarded or forgotten about.
Notice the words "mostly designed to try and..."?
It's up to the TV people what actually gets shown. There have been numerous cases where scientists have been interviewed and filmed and then discovered that their contributions have been chopped about so much they appear to be saying the exact opposite of what they meant at the time.
It's dependant upon the integrity of the TV people and the time/ budget constraints. Even on an hour-long documentary much of the background work leading up to a conclusion must be glossed over or left out altogether just so that the programme fits the scheduling.
Regardless: any documentary is only as good as what is shown - background reading never hurts and can deepen knowledge and let you see which bits have been "skimped" (or misrepresented).
NEVER take a TV programme at face value.
Example - the History Channel did a 10-week series on WWII fighter aircraft. They covered, among others, the Spitfire, FW 190, P-51 Mustang and Me (Bf) 109. At the end of EACH those episodes the final words were "And it was for these reasons that the [insert name of current programme's subject] was truly the finest fighter of WWII."
Huh? ALL four of them were THE finest?
This talking about the scientists. One problem I did notice was they don't even consider other alternatives to evolution. This is a failing on the scientists part. A true scientists would not be like that. They should at least be open to ideas. Especially when they don't have all the facts.
Ignorance in action: any other explanation doesn't have evidence to support it. Evolution came from the available evidence. It wasn't a case of "Let's have a theory of evolution and find stuff that makes it look right", it was "We've got all of this information, how does it fit together?".
Wrong.
The only failure here is your "understanding" of how science works.
What I think happened is that Darwin came at the right time with something different than religion or a believe in a God. I think that science jumped on this without thinking all of it through. And with the detailed study of things, lost site of the fact that all the life we see has great amount of design.
If scientists make a robot to work and look like man, scientists will say that took a lot of intelligence to do. But with the real man they say it took none.
If scientists wanted to build a biological man, would you say that would take a lot of intelligence to do?
Note the words "I think". In other words you've no evidence.
No it doesn't.
Strawman. Again.
Who designed the designer?
That must have taken more intelligence, neh?
In other words you're assuming that religion is correct.
What if the bible got it wrong and Jesus's name wasn't Jesus but Phil, and he didn't do miracles, he was just a carpenter that people made up stories about?
You're the one failing to look at other possible answers, not science.
And you also ignored this:
There is much evidence that the bible as you mentioned is correct, and can be trusted.
I didn't ignore it , I missed it.
This is the same for science. A creator has to have been, always there. There is no other way. Because the question always it what was there before.
For science where did the universe come from , if it was energy where did that energy come from. It's like asking where is the beginning of space before any physical universe was there.
So this question really means that with creation or a big bang you have to accept that something was always there.
Now, I don't understand no beginning, I can understand no end.
But this is the same for science and religion. You just have to accept it.
I really think that this is a limitation in mans thinking.
Really?
Provide some.
There's a huge amount of evidence that it's incorrect and can't be trusted.
Nope.
Ah I see. You stop thinking once you've got to "god".
That's why science asks the questions, instead of just reaching an answer and giving up.
Um, no.
Science doesn't assume that there was always something there.
Wrong again. It isn't the same for science and religion. Where do you get the assumption of "no end".
Well there's definitely a limitation in your thinking.
Last edited:
I never have any one explain to me no beginning.
Scientist have all said they can't get this either. I do think this is a limitation.
As for no end I can understand once something has started, and if replenished perfectly, could last for ever. Though we don't see this now.
The limitation is yours (again).
Science is actually trying to find out, rather than just accepting goddidit.
Edit: when you say "Scientist have all said they can't get this either." what do you mean? That they can't grasp the concept or that they don't know how?
In either case the phrase "all said" is incorrect.
In other words "no end" isn't necessarily the case.
Ah I see, somehow you consider that "the scientists you have talked to" (unspecified branches of science I note: how many were biologists for example?) is equivalent to "ALL"...
Science admits freely that it doesn't have all the answers. That's why science is an ongoing process, learning every day.
And you take this "we don't currently know" (or to be more specific "I don't currently know") to actually be "We'll never know".
But of course you can't actually name any.
There's a huge difference between "we may never get the answer" and "we will probably never get the answer".
But of course you can't support that assertion.
Nor that one.
Well there are so many ways. Scientists are learning a lot about chemicals and biology . Scientists say life is just a matter of mixing the right chemicals together. This because they have learned much about the chemical make up of life. They now know about DNA, and can research even the smallest elements, and even take a part single cells. The interpretation from scientists is that life could have happened without intelligence to make it happen. That is an interpretation of the science they have discovered. They have never seen it happen, and they have to a against the evidence that life comes from life. Even in evolution science has not seen on type of animal evolve into another type. So scientists have to go against the evidence that we know, and interpret , there findings as they evolved rather than they were created.
They even have to go against the fact that the life we see has incredible design to it. ( it's not just a mush of biomass)
Also scientists say things like we evolved our musical abilities or or talents , rather than saying the instructions we have in our DNA allows us to pursue, these talents. We have been given the ability to understand our own existence, we explore not for food but just for the enjoyment of discovery. Why would anything like evolution do that? But a creator, could build us with that.
The evidence is for creation, there is no evidence for evolution.