Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 8:17:00 AM (view original):
Tec - if one makes the argument in point 1, then they have to apply it with both sides. You don't think science/tests/experiments are created and conducted by people with agendas? One group "creates a story" to explain how we got here, the other "creates science" to explain how we got here.
That's been the point this entire thread. No one here knows the scientists that conducted these studies (most probably can't even understand the studies themselves). No one knows with certainty that results weren't created to "prove" a certain viewpoint. One can't say the Bible was created after the fact to support the Christian/Creationist view, and then act like it's impossible that certain scientific "evidence" could not possibly also have been created after the fact to support the Evolutionist viewpoint.
Of course some "scientists" have agendas, and like to selectively present and interpret "evidence" in the way that best fits their agendas. The whole debate going on today around global warming / climate change is the perfect example of that.
But a lot of science stands on it's own and is generally accepted as "truth", or at least as close to truth as we can get. Unless and until a better, more accurate "truth" is discovered. One doesn't have to fully understand the how's and why's at the sub-particle level behind gravity to accept the idea that if I throw a baseball up in the air, it's eventually going to come back down to the ground because of gravity.
As to your point about creationsim, and how scientific evidence could have been created after the fact . . . well, that all comes down to an individuals ability to think critically. Assuming that one believes that there is a supreme, all powerful being who made the heavens and the earth in seven days, and all this happened approximately 10,000 years ago, one might want to question why all this assumingly "false" evidence which points to an older earth is out there . . . why does "God" want to trick us? Is it to test one's faith? Is that the "God" you believe in?
So in the end, it all comes down to the ability to think critically, see all sides of the argument, and make a decision as to what makes the most sense.
Of course, people like bistiza believes he is the only person in these forums capable of critical thinking, and that anybody else whose decision comes down with the majority is just a brainless sheep incapable of independent thought. And I think that way of thinking says a lot more about people like him than it does about anybody else.