reply to post by Krazysh0t
Thank you for the reply, I enjoyed reading the information, some of which I have not seen. I understand what you are saying perfectly but I get the
feeling you are somehow "annoyed" with those that don't believe in evolution. The term "creationist" in the way you use it seems........
Derogatory to me in a way. Labels painted on people for their beliefs even when you don't feel those beliefs are qualified in your opinion can be
harsh sometimes but I understand the impulse to do just that, I have been guilty of it myself.
I know it may be hard for you to believe but I am not one of those people who seek to promote agenda pushing half truths, spread lies or promote
falsehoods about my ideas and beliefs, just merely discuss them in a rational and productive fashion, I have a great deal of respect for science even
though I am not personally in agreement with all the aspects of some of the mainstream theories regarding evolution.
I understand exactly how science works, I know the process and the logic behind it and it is sound most of the time. Science however, much like
religion is dominated by tight circles of influence and it is rare that alternate theories about hot topic major issues are brought forward from
within. This is because people that do so are generally branded a "heretic" and in many cases lose the ability to be taken seriously within the
circle of their profession.
There are many professionals within science that dissent on the idea of evolution but they do not garner much attention because despite solid
arguments, they are chastised and ostracized by peers. This however, is not the issue at hand and to be honest is the same exact thing that happens
within the religious community, try giving a sermon from the book of Enoch at the 11:00 Sunday and I think you will run into the same thing.
My personal problems with evolution lie within many specific arguments that make up the theory. I take the most issue with the fossil record, it does
not support evolution, it conflicts it at every turn and I have come to see a similarity between this discrepancy and that of dark matter. Sometimes,
such as the two above mentioned cases, it would appear that science is occasionally willing to slide things into an awkward grey area to maintain
status quo with the "accepted" current theory.
Now, claiming that you believe in a higher power, a God or a creator is a giant leap off a cliff as far as science is concerned and I understand this,
it is in essence an affront to what true people of science claim to hold most dear and that is rational, evidenced logic and while that is completely
understandable, I don't honestly see the difference between that and some of the ideas and theories I see postulated by some members of mainstream
The big bang, best guess. String theory, best guess. Dark matter, best guess. The list goes on and on but I understand that your argument will be that
science can't explain everything at any given time, it can only take the data it has and make the most logical path to the solution to form the
accepted theory and I get it and that's fine. The thing is though, sometimes those accepted theories are no more a leap of faith than that of most
I have read countless articles, some of them very mainstream and sometimes from very prominent people within science about the true nature of our
reality and have heard claims from computer simulation to existence and everything in our visible universe being a two dimensional reality spinning on
the wrong end of a black hole. I know that most true people of science can not accept a God but the point is that there is a middle ground between the
two sides, not everyone who believes one or the other is ignorant or misinformed or even must be converted. It's about communication, debate and
challenging each other to progress our understanding of what we know.