Why should evolution be accepted on authority?

Firstly there is a difference between accepting the word of a single scientist over accepting the consensus of the scientific community.Individuals may be dishonest, but systematic dishonesty among so many scientists, with so many differing points of view and all the conflicts and hostilities within the community is not even plausible.The consensus view may be mistaken on many things but it is still likely closer to the truth than any particular maverick (sometimes mavericks turn out to be right - but more often they are wrong).So, if you are going to accept an answer on authority then the scientific consensus is one of the safest bets going.And of couse it is possible to check out some of the evidence - I've seen the Archaeopteryx fossil kept in London and other "dino-birds".And don't forget that many scientists are religious - Kenneth Miller for instance. If a creationist tries the line that religious bias is a significant factor then he's either ignorant or lying.

Oh here we go again with another case of Mike refusing to read.I was directly answering an point made in the first post. So my remark is neither a diversion, nor off-topic.If you want experiments providing support for macroevolution that I can makke suggestions - the evidence from genetics is a clear example. You can't do it in your own house - but then you can't do experiemnts in high energy physics in your house either. I don't see you rejecting the existence of quarks just becaue you can't test them at home.Nor have you got a home test for relativity - and you even accept the success of Einstein's predictions on authority. You've got a clear double-standard there.And don't pretend that you're trusting God. You're trusting a human interpetation of a human writing. Or moe likely you're just worshipping yourself. You don't have to read much creationsit stuff to see what a high regard creationsits have for their own opinions - so great that they can't be bothered to even take a basic look at the real facts. Just as you did with the start of your post. And if you follow your usual form you'll refuse to admit that you could be wrong even though it all comes down to your refusal to properly read the statements you're attacking.

Like I said your point is that we should all censor ourselves in case you manage to misread something and take offence. I'm tired of dealing with this sort of crap from you Mike especially when you lack the integrity to acxtaully accept correctionRobin suggestes that a creationist might use a particular argument and I responed by pointing out that it didn't work. That is not a strawman.And in fact it is an argument that some creationists HAVE used. As I am sure you know. So there is no way that it could be a strawman.And yes, Mike your logic is apparently so bad that you don't understand the word "if". Even if no creationist had done what Robin suggested there would still be nothing wrong with what either of us said.

quote:

---

Ermm - no, you both imply this invisible creationist MIGHT say something or IF he says something...And I'm telling you that this doesn't mean that a creationist has done something.

---

Which is exactly how it was meant to be read. It DOESN'T claim that creationists have said anything - only that they might.

quote:

---

If they do this then they are guilty.

​

They are not guilty = they haven't done it. - and so far, you haven't provded they do do it.

​

I actually mention it - because it's how bullsh** starts pertaining to creationists.

---

For which YOU have presented no evidence. And even if you had even ONE example there would still be nothing wrong with what is said.You're just trying to pick a fight over quite innocuous statements.

Yes there is a difference between accepting the word of a single Christian over the consensus of the Christian community. For a start themany single Christianais are not aware of the distinction between the doctrines of their sect and the doctrines of Christianity. If you want to know about Christian beleif a single Christian could easily give incomplete or wrong answers to your questions.The difference between Christianity and science is that science has a reliable menas of discovering information about the natural world. Christianity cannot demonstrate that it has an equally reliable sorce of knowledge (and in fact we can be sure that it does not in areas we can check).