why we do not believe secular scientists

[Deamiter]

I can't believe I'm doing this, but here goes - in amongst the rambling archaeologist has a point. If you as a religious type can dismiss part of your holy text as clearly invlaid, whether it's the grand creation myth, or Noah's flood, or the exodus from Egypt, why do you accept the equally unproven and implausible bits referring to the virgin birth, the resurrection, Mary's assumption into heaven, heaven and hell? Baffles the dickens out of me.

You're making the same mistake as many creationists -- namely suggesting that the Bible must be written in a modernist newspaper-reporting style or any truth it contains is "invalid." The ancient near east didn't value details or factual accuracy as evidenced by (among other things) their wide use of symbolic rather than factual ages. For more details, see the Assyrian Kings list, Egyptian records in general and the Biblical genaeologies. Myth is not factual but it is not pure fiction and to treat it as such would be a very poor application of modernist, enlightened values onto texts written in the ancient near east.

Of course on the other hand it does strike me that archaeologist is fighting against the tide, and one has to at least admire his fortitude to deny the obvious screaming at him from the real world.
To address one small point - science can be proven true. It can be tested and retested using the same set of conditions to prove a hypothesis. Your claims about god, heaven, hell etc. cannot be proven true, and therein lies your faith, for right or for wrong. Science doesn't need faith, it needs diligence, and the truth will out itself.

"Proven true?" You're using a colloquial definition of "proven" to mean "evidenced" here but in science, nothing can ever be proven because it is impossible to rule out every possibility with 100% certainty. When talking about science, we should stick to the definition that is used in math.

We can certainly test theories and even disprove them in many cases, but while we can find evidence that fits with our current understanding of the universe, we cannot "prove" that our understanding is accurate.

 

[gwynedd1]

I am not sure computer science is the best model to discuss scientific objectivity. It is not my field, but computer science is like more technology and engineering than physics chemistry of biology. What I mean is, the hard sciences search for a preexisting objective fact, computer science looks for better ways of doing things, but there could be a thousand different ways to do that, all with advantages, disadvantages and compatibility issues that suit one company's products better than another's.

Hello Assyrian,

Computer science is the best test bed for human objectivity. It has been completly invented by us. There is no metaphysical realm the foundation is the bit. If humans cannot have objectivity here then nowhere else. What's faster PHP or Java? Which web server Apache or IIS? Object oriented or structered and on an on. There is politics and bias in even this.

What is truly innovative in computers may be rejected because it renders all existing systems obsolete, is copyrighted to only one company and destroys other companies' market shares.

The truly innovative in science is resisted because it take an awful lot of evidence to overturn existing science. Every new theory faces the same challenge. Only the really good ones make it. That is not bias, it is how they separate the brilliant from the pseudoscience.

I agree but it is often that evidence is not the issue. Its the institutionalization of what is and by those comfortable in that institution. What is better biodeisal? Hybrids? Hydrogen? Why do we not know? Do you think funding will flow to the best idea? If I give $10 for biodeisal and $1 million for ethanol will we really see the best? The scientific community is subject to prostituing itself for dollars and lies are told to get them.

[/quote]

Trusting olive oil instead of margarine [washmymouth][washmymouth] is gut instinct and educated guesswork, the epidemiology is solid science. But correlations are not observations. If you are going to doubt the calculations of radiometric dating on the basis that the age has not been observed, then you should also distrust unobserved statistics.

Where did I ever say I trust gut instinct? Performance in the field has nothing to do with it. Why are you comparring speculation with emprical evidence? What do you mean correlations are not observations? If 9 out of 10 people are sick from eating something I cannot observe a correlation? Huh?

The only reason to trust the maths of statistics but not the maths of radiometric dating is what you talked about before, bias.

The reasons also include, bad data, bad assumptions, fraud, and errors.

You do not want to accept the science because it contradicts your interpretation of the bible. But the science itself is solid, much more solid than statistical correlations.

You do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I know because you are talking about me. With the exception of archeology, please cite my post where I said anything related to the Bible and science.
I also do not know what you mean by science is more solid than statistical correlations? Most studies use inferential statistics. Now I still do not know how such a thing can compete with experience. I trust drinking rain water will not kill me because it generally has not killed anyone. I will take that bet over alpha levels of .00001%. but then the conversation was about scientists and not science.

There are plenty of other techniques available too:
www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 half life: 106 billion years
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 half life: 48.8 billion
Rhenium-187 Osmium-187 half life: 42 billion
Lutetium-176 Hafnium-176 half life: 38 billion
Thorium-232 Lead-208 half life: 14 billion
Uranium-238 Lead-206 half life: 4.5 billion
Potassium-40 Argon-40 half life: 1.26 billion
Uranium-235 Lead-207 half life: 0.7 billion
Beryllium-10 Boron-10 half life: 1.52 million
Chlorine-36 Argon-36 half life: 300,000
Uranium-234 Thorium-230 half life: 248,000
Thorium-230 Radium-226 half life: 75,400

Great stuff. How may I emprically verify the billions? Also not useful everywhere. It seems to be a good estimate for the age of rocks. Now how does this apply to when a flood occured? What are you trying to dispute exactly?

In 1997 a variation on Potassium Argon called Argon Argon dating was used test the age of pumice from Pompeii. It gave an estimated age of 1,925±94 years. The pumice from the Vesuvius eruption was actually 1,918 year old. This stuff works.

OK. I know we have a good idea on how to age rocks. Not everything has these in the right quantities. It is very effective against young earth arguments as are many others.

 

[GooberJIL]

WOW!! those writings dates vary by up to 22,000 years.

Saturday, May 19, 2007
http://granitestudio.blogspot.com/2007/05/xinhua-cliff-carvings-may-rewrite.html

China Daily January 8, 2005: http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/117261.htm



Here's a good laugh!

http://uktv.co.uk/history/news/aid/588441
yet, every article I've linked to were published earlier than the 22nd and this is a history news source. (Newsies- the other secular source we should trust for factually accurate information)

I could find no information on what scientific method was used for the 2005 or the 2007 dating of these carvings cited by the articles. Maybe those PhDs I was warned about could post something. I'll be waiting....

Day four and I'm still waiting... another day and another page...

Have the PhD's gone dumb after asserting a speculation as a "scientific fact"?

 

[Hnefi]

Computer science is the best test bed for human objectivity. It has been completly invented by us. There is no metaphysical realm the foundation is the bit. If humans cannot have objectivity here then nowhere else. What's faster PHP or Java? Which web server Apache or IIS? Object oriented or structered and on an on. There is politics and bias in even this.

That's not computer science. It's tools of technology, nothing else. Welding is not a science either, you know.

Computer science is a subset of mathematics when talking software and physics (electronics) when talking hardware. CS is about stuff such as algorithm complexity analysis, finding heuristics and the like. Choosing between languages is like choosing between car manufacturers; the choice is a matter of personal taste and when/where you'll use the car, not a matter of science.

Please don't try to tell people that setting up webservers is computer science. It's an insult to computer scientists.

I agree but it is often that evidence is not the issue. Its the institutionalization of what is and by those comfortable in that institution. What is better biodeisal? Hybrids? Hydrogen? Why do we not know? Do you think funding will flow to the best idea? If I give $10 for biodeisal and $1 million for ethanol will we really see the best? The scientific community is subject to prostituing itself for dollars and lies are told to get them.

We do not have a clear, unified answer to the question of whether hybrids, biodiesel or hydrogen is the better choice simply because there is no one answer that is always correct. It depends on how much value one puts on economics, availability and ecological impact. Science can tell us the properties of each fuel system in each area, but how much weight is put in each area is a matter of subjective preference, not science.

 

[Hnefi]

Day four and I'm still waiting... another day and another page...

Have the PhD's gone dumb after asserting a speculation as a "scientific fact"?

Perhaps you should try actually reading the thread. Gluadys replied to your faulty argument in this post: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36991034&postcount=134

 

[theIdi0t]

The scientific community is subject to prostituing itself for dollars and lies are told to get them.

I'm curious to know if you feel this way about the creation science community as well?

If I was a dishonest scientist looking to make a quick buck, I'd become a creation scientist. Dr. Dino hit it rich with a degree from the diploma mill, while secular scientist like Richard Dawkins needs a degree from Oxford to make his big bucks. There is gold to be struck in the creation sciences, and when dollars bags float above your head, there is bound to be corruption.

Do you think that creation science community prostitutes itself for dollars, and lies to you to get them? Everyone wants to say that someone else is being deceived, no one wants to say they are the ones that bought the lie, and the cheap hooker.

 

[KerrMetric]

Great stuff. How may I emprically verify the billions?.

By Geiger counter or some other such device. Purchase some lab standards of the above isotopes. Count the decays over a fixed time period. Plot the data on a log abcissa versus ordinate time - measure the slope and VOILA - you have a half life measurement empirically determined in your own basement or garage.

 

[archaeologist]

You're making the same mistake as many creationists -- namely suggesting that the Bible must be written in a modernist newspaper-reporting style or any truth it contains is "invalid." The ancient near east didn't value details or factual accuracy as evidenced by (among other things) their wide use of symbolic rather than factual ages

your mistake is transposing the secular cultural habits and beliefs onto a nation that was set apart by God and who gave them commands, instructions to be moral, honest, and so on.

this you cannot do, that is like saying chritsians lie because evolutionists lie. you are also saying that God had no control over what was written in His word and that the people He chose had editorial rights, which does not happen with God.

when you do anyting for God you have to do it acccording to His instructions or it fails. this was proven many times throughout the old and new testament.

To address one small point - science can be proven true

that is dependent on what youare studying. if you are studying what God did,then yes but if you are studying evolution, then no.

You're using a colloquial definition of "proven" to mean "evidenced" here but in science, nothing can ever be proven because it is impossible to rule out every possibility with 100% certainty

that i would disagree with as reproduction is proven true, gravity is proven to be true---see immediately above.

We can certainly test theories and even disprove them in many cases, but while we can find evidence that fits with our current understanding of the universe, we cannot "prove" that our understanding is accurate.

this is what puts creation outside the scope of secular science and scientists. they are pursuing theories which have no basis inGod thus their efforts are fruitless. creation was a one time act, which again puts it outside the main rules of science.

here is a one time act with no witnesses and after everything is said and done lesser beings come and lookat it, invoking the impossibility factor and construct an investigative arm, not to prove the act true but to find alternatives ways it could be done so the lesser beings can feel comfortable with.

when faced with a power and act beyond comprehension, coupled with unbelief, the workings of the devil and other factors, the lesser beings find it easier to believe the deception than act on what God asks and use faith.

Baffles the dickens out of me.

this is why when you say you believe God and the Bible, you stay with God and the Bible or you cause confusion and confusion is not of God.

 

[random_guy]

To address one small point - science can be proven true. It can be tested and retested using the same set of conditions to prove a hypothesis. Your claims about god, heaven, hell etc. cannot be proven true, and therein lies your faith, for right or for wrong. Science doesn't need faith, it needs diligence, and the truth will out itself.

No, it can't. Like others have said, proofs is for math and alcohol. Remember Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation? It's a law, it's been evidenced and retested over and over, right? It was still not correct for all situations and had to be updated with Einstein's General Relativity. You're falling into the same mistakes that Creationists fall into, thinking that proofs exist in science. When they say, "you can't prove evolution", that's technically correct, but then again, you can't prove gravity, either.

Nothing in the real world can be proven true because we will never have complete information. Science doesn't deal with "truths", it deals with the best current theory at the time. That theory may very well be found out to be wrong later.

 

[Dannager]

No, it can't. Like others have said, proofs is for math and alcohol. Remember Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation? It's a law, it's been evidenced and retested over and over, right? It was still not correct for all situations and had to be updated with Einstein's General Relativity. You're falling into the same mistakes that Creationists fall into, thinking that proofs exist in science. When they say, "you can't prove evolution", that's technically correct, but then again, you can't prove gravity, either.

Nothing in the real world can be proven true because we will never have complete information. Science doesn't deal with "truths", it deals with the best current theory at the time. That theory may very well be found out to be wrong later.

random_guy is correct. Proving things is not what science does. It can be more accurately said that science deals with disproving things.

 

[archaeologist]

i disagree. we can prove gravity exists and works and that is shown everyday and we can show that there are limits to that force, as evidenced by the rockets that go off into space, with enough enrgy one can escape its hold.

so the real world is provable, it is just those who can't accept it who don't believe it. or those who can't comprehend the structure and workings of gravity say they can't prove it.

all this goes to show is that creation is outside the scope of secular science and to say the real world can't be proven is a deception and a lie.

 

[gwynedd1]

That's not computer science. It's tools of technology, nothing else. Welding is not a science either, you know.

Hello Hnefi,

So computer science has nothing to do with computers then never mind the field is called computer science.

Computer science is a subset of mathematics when talking software and physics (electronics) when talking hardware. CS is about stuff such as algorithm complexity analysis, finding heuristics and the like. Choosing between languages is like choosing between car manufacturers; the choice is a matter of personal taste and when/where you'll use the car, not a matter of science.

Sorry its not merely a matter of taste. That we even have this debate proves the point. If you think an interpreted language fitting into the same role as complied low level languages is a matter of taste then you don't know. I did no compare tastes, I compared performance metrics.

Please don't try to tell people that setting up webservers is computer science. It's an insult to computer scientists.

Where did I do that? I cited testes in web server metrics.

We do not have a clear, unified answer to the question of whether hybrids, biodiesel or hydrogen is the better choice simply because there is no one answer that is always correct. It depends on how much value one puts on economics, availability and ecological impact. Science can tell us the properties of each fuel system in each area, but how much weight is put in each area is a matter of subjective preference, not science.

I beg to differ. You would think that hydrogen would be advertised as a transport system vs a primary source.

 

[random_guy]

i disagree. we can prove gravity exists and works and that is shown everyday and we can show that there are limits to that force, as evidenced by the rockets that go off into space, with enough enrgy one can escape its hold.

so the real world is provable, it is just those who can't accept it who don't believe it. or those who can't comprehend the structure and workings of gravity say they can't prove it.

all this goes to show is that creation is outside the scope of secular science and to say the real world can't be proven is a deception and a lie.

How can you prove gravity exists? Have you ever "seen" gravity? Found the existence of a graviton or the bending of space time? Also, how can you prove your forces are correct? Remember the Law of Universal Gravitation was found to be incorrect, who's to say the new equations we've developed won't also be shown to be wrong later on?

When we send rockets to into space, we use the best current theories available to make the calculations. Just because it works, doesn't "prove" that the theories are correct. Again, if you drop an apple off a 100 foot ledge, you'll say it falls with the equation:

x(t) = 1/2*a*t^2 + 100.

You might get a plot very similar, but not exact. That's because you don't take into account general relativity (although the effects will be insignificant in this experiment), friction, and a whole host of other unknowns. Add on top to this, we still don't know exactly how gravity works so there may be other terms/factors we're not aware of.

I think that most evolutionists are well aware of the limits of science. It's strange to see Creationists accuse us of worshiping science when we know that it isn't perfect. It seems only Creationists worship science why they say it's provable.

 

[gwynedd1]

I'm curious to know if you feel this way about the creation science community as well?

Logically, one would conclude in a thread that said" why we distrust secular scientists " where my reponse that was "I do not trust any scientists" that it would only differ in the inclusion of creation science ego I do not trust them . However logic does not dominate this forum.

If I was a dishonest scientist looking to make a quick buck, I'd become a creation scientist. Dr. Dino hit it rich with a degree from the diploma mill, while secular scientist like Richard Dawkins needs a degree from Oxford to make his big bucks. There is gold to be struck in the creation sciences, and when dollars bags float above your head, there is bound to be corruption.

Do you think that creation science community prostitutes itself for dollars, and lies to you to get them? Everyone wants to say that someone else is being deceived, no one wants to say they are the ones that bought the lie, and the cheap hooker.

Not only will some prostitute themselves they will also delude themselves.

 

[Dannager]

i disagree. we can prove gravity exists and works and that is shown everyday and we can show that there are limits to that force, as evidenced by the rockets that go off into space, with enough enrgy one can escape its hold.

so the real world is provable, it is just those who can't accept it who don't believe it. or those who can't comprehend the structure and workings of gravity say they can't prove it.

all this goes to show is that creation is outside the scope of secular science and to say the real world can't be proven is a deception and a lie.

And once again, archaeologist demonstrates that he is not a scientist, and does not understand the basic premises of science.

 

[theFijian]

i disagree. we can prove gravity exists and works and that is shown everyday and we can show that there are limits to that force, as evidenced by the rockets that go off into space, with enough enrgy one can escape its hold.

So, can you explain to us what gravity actually is, since it has been 'proved'?

 

[KerrMetric]

archeologist,

please derive the inverse square law of gravity from the field equations of General Relativity for us - since, after all, you can follow technical arguments (cough cough) and it has been "proven" according to you as well.

 

[Assyrian]

Hello Assyrian,

Computer science is the best test bed for human objectivity. It has been completly invented by us. There is no metaphysical realm the foundation is the bit. If humans cannot have objectivity here then nowhere else. What's faster PHP or Java? Which web server Apache or IIS? Object oriented or structered and on an on. There is politics and bias in even this.

The problem with computer science as a model of objectivity is that unlike other sciences, there is no objective reality it is studying. There is no absolute test
for 'faster' because it depends on context, processing what, on what system. So they set up benchmarks that test in a range of different settings. But benchmarks are not objective, and companies know their systems preform better under some conditions than others and will want the ones they perform well on to be incorporated into tests.

Where as, the age of a rock or the molecular structure of a compound are objective realities.

I agree but it is often that evidence is not the issue. Its the institutionalization of what is and by those comfortable in that institution. What is better biodeisal? Hybrids? Hydrogen? Why do we not know? Do you think funding will flow to the best idea? If I give $10 for biodeisal and $1 million for ethanol will we really see the best? The scientific community is subject to prostituing itself for dollars and lies are told to get them.

Again you are talking technology here, there is no absolute reality of best, but different technologies with different advantages and disadvantages biodiesel would be great if it did not involve cutting down rainforest to plant soy. How do you get the hydrogen? From renewable energy, or from more fossil fuels and what happens the carbon?

Where did I ever say I trust gut instinct? Performance in the field has nothing to do with it. Why are you comparring speculation with emprical evidence? What do you mean correlations are not observations? If 9 out of 10 people are sick from eating something I cannot observe a correlation? Huh?

Ask the tobacco companies.

You distrusted hydrogenation because of the long history of olive oil and because you hypothesised that trans fats in margarine would be bad. Call it common sense, call it gut instinct, you were right. But it was only non observable statistical correlation that showed you were right. But you don't like science that can't be observed directly like geology.

The reasons also include, bad data, bad assumptions, fraud, and errors.

Just as easy in epidemiology as in radiometric dating. In fact easier in epidemiology cause humans is more complex than rocks. That is why results are confirmed with lots of different studies using lots of different techniques

You do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I know because you are talking about me. With the exception of archeology, please cite my post where I said anything related to the Bible and science.
I also do not know what you mean by science is more solid than statistical correlations? Most studies use inferential statistics. Now I still do not know how such a thing can compete with experience. I trust drinking rain water will not kill me because it generally has not killed anyone. I will take that bet over alpha levels of .00001%. but then the conversation was about scientists and not science.

You doubt geological ages because 'nobody was there' but nobody has seen trans fat cause a heart attach either. Why the inconsistency?

But you are right I don't know you and we have only just started chatting. More on this further down.

Great stuff. How may I emprically verify the billions?

All you need is a small sample of the element of known purity, sit back and count the decays.
Even a very small amount of a radioactive material will be set a geiger counter crackling. all you need is to measure the rate per minute of a know mass of the isotope and you can calculate the half life. You don't need to wait for half of it to decay.

Also not useful everywhere. It seems to be a good estimate for the age of rocks. Now how does this apply to when a flood occured? What are you trying to dispute exactly?

This is a good question. You joined in the debate, welcome by the way, on the side claiming the English channel flood was Noah's, and you claim geological aging is unreliable because no one was there. At the same time you do not think this was Noah's flood, so you don't fully buy into that either. So basically I have been trying to answer your science scepticism. You have been debating on a side where science scepticism comes from the bias because the science does not agree with their biblical interpretation. Of course that may not be the case with you and we are only just getting to know you here.

OK. I know we have a good idea on how to age rocks. Not everything has these in the right quantities. It is very effective against young earth arguments as are many others.

So where do you sit in the debate? You don't say in your profile?

 

[gwynedd1]

The problem with computer science as a model of objectivity is that unlike other sciences, there is no objective reality it is studying. There is no absolute test
for 'faster' because it depends on context, processing what, on what system. So they set up benchmarks that test in a range of different settings. But benchmarks are not objective, and companies know their systems preform better under some conditions than others and will want the ones they perform well on to be incorporated into tests.

Assyrian,

You and I will differ on this. Computers are a perfect model of science. The fundamentals are absolutely defined. The is no conjecture on the fundamentals.
As to the second point you are correct there is a context involved. That the bench marks are not objective is not volunteered but those with a stake in it.

Where as, the age of a rock or the molecular structure of a compound are objective realities.

Again you are talking technology here, there is no absolute reality of best, but different technologies with different advantages and disadvantages biodiesel would be great if it did not involve cutting down rainforest to plant soy. How do you get the hydrogen? From renewable energy, or from more fossil fuels and what happens the carbon?

Considering corn uses petroleum based fertilizers and is one of the most nitrogen intensive feed stocks, I see a good deal of politics in renewable energy. How can I look at what is going on and see science driving it? Anyway algae seems to have the most promise.

Ask the tobacco companies.

You distrusted hydrogenation because of the long history of olive oil and because you hypothesised that trans fats in margarine would be bad. Call it common sense, call it gut instinct, you were right. But it was only non observable statistical correlation that showed you were right. But you don't like science that can't be observed directly like geology.

The tangible results of dietary science have been rather poor. This has allowed much in the way of junk science. As to geology it is also more vulnerable than other sciences. I will be glad to consider the evidence.

Just as easy in epidemiology as in radiometric dating. In fact easier in epidemiology cause humans is more complex than rocks. That is why results are confirmed with lots of different studies using lots of different techniques

You doubt geological ages because 'nobody was there' but nobody has seen trans fat cause a heart attach either. Why the inconsistency?

I never said I doubt geological ages. I doubt how they will be applied and interpreted. In general there is little to oppose the view of an old earth.

But you are right I don't know you and we have only just started chatting. More on this further down.

All you need is a small sample of the element of known purity, sit back and count the decays.
Even a very small amount of a radioactive material will be set a geiger counter crackling. all you need is to measure the rate per minute of a know mass of the isotope and you can calculate the half life. You don't need to wait for half of it to decay.

I do not dispute hard facts. I however will not accept anything on the word of a scientist if I do not understand the method. If its important to me then I will do the research.

This is a good question. You joined in the debate, welcome by the way, on the side claiming the English channel flood was Noah's, and you claim geological aging is unreliable because no one was there. At the same time you do not think this was Noah's flood, so you don't fully buy into that either. So basically I have been trying to answer your science scepticism.

I said it is either wrong or its not Noah's flood. I believe in the anthropological evidence more than a geologist.

You have been debating on a side where science scepticism comes from the bias because the science does not agree with their biblical interpretation. Of course that may not be the case with you and we are only just getting to know you here.

I never said I anything about the biblical interpretation I remember bring up anthropology.

So where do you sit in the debate? You don't say in your profile?

I think evolution has good evidence but it is extremely immature. It still has many fundamental difficulties. I think the lack of transition organisms is rather difficult to explain, for example. The fossil record is a straw man. We have plenty of living examples and the only "transition" examples are rightly called fully functioning chimera organisms. Great theories need great explanations.
Creationism does some good in exposing these flaws however the young earth crowd is rather an embarrassment.
I would say the lead and momentum is with evolution but we may hit a road block along the way. Component evolution is easy to understand. System evolution is rather difficult. Evolution is certainly a compelling and highly logical system and life appears dynamic enough to live within this system.
My origins position is probably somewhat neutral but I understand the momentum is clearly with evolution.

 

[Hnefi]

Hello Hnefi,

So computer science has nothing to do with computers then never mind the field is called computer science. Adress my argument, not a strawman thereof.

Of course it does. I even said so - don't misrepresent my position. It's a very obvious form of lying.

Sorry its not merely a matter of taste. That we even have this debate proves the point. If you think an interpreted language fitting into the same role as complied low level languages is a matter of taste then you don't know. I did no compare tastes, I compared performance metrics.

Again, that's not what I said. I specifically made it a point to note that which tool is best depends on the situtation AND personal preference. Sometimes speed is paramount. Other times its a particular set of features. Some languages run more efficiently on certain machines (like the Lisp machines of old).

The choice of, say, Java vs C# has very little to do with science, just like the choice of Ferrari vs Porsche.

Where did I do that? I cited testes in web server metrics.

You cited nothing. There weren't any quotes or links in your post. You talked about choices regarding Apache as if it were science, when in actuality it's no more science than installing a new lamp in your house.

I beg to differ. You would think that hydrogen would be advertised as a transport system vs a primary source.

You can beg to differ all you like, but you'd be wrong. Hydrogen generally isn't marketed as a primary source by scientists (except when they express themselves in a sloppy manner - they ARE human, you know). When reading primary sources on the subject, there is no doubt that hydrogen is a method of energy storage, not generation. Of course, that doesn't decrease the amount of hype, because it's not generating energy that is the problem today, storing it is.

But anyway, my point is, don't confuse the application of developed technology with science. After all, welding, logging, farming or driving aren't sciences either - it's just application of technology.