Are scientists dumb?

[Pete Harcoff]

After perusing various articles at AIG and ICR, it struck me: if the problems with evolutionary mechanisms, radiometric dating, modern geology, genetic complexity, etc, are that obvious, why do the majority of scientists agree on things like evolution, a 4.5 billion year old Earth, etc? If radiometric dating is so easily flawed, why is it considered (among people that actually use it) to be a tried-tested-and-true method of dating the Earth and its components? If the evidence for a 4000 year old flood is so apparent, why did I never hear a peep about it in school (regardless of the fact that it was written in the Bible)? I mean, really, are scientists that bloody ignorant about all this stuff? Are they arbitrarily discarding mountains of evidence just because it doesn't fit in with their pre-existing beliefs about the world in which we live (whatever those may be)?

And lastly, why is it that almost every argument against evolution comes from someone with an obvious religious bias (and a Judeo-Christian bias, at that)?

 

[ocean]

So true......

 

[secularfuture]

Pete Harcoff
"why do the majority of scientists agree on things like evolution, a 4.5 billion year old Earth, etc?"

Because they have good reason to believe that. They don't randomly pull out numbers and say - "This is how it goes!" Years of research has been put into every theory.

"If radiometric dating is so easily flawed, why is it considered (among people that actually use it) to be a tried-tested-and-true method of dating the Earth and its components?"

What makes you think that its "so easily flawed"? Are you a scientist? How much carbon dating have you done?

"If the evidence for a 4000 year old flood is so apparent, why did I never hear a peep about it in school (regardless of the fact that it was written in the Bible)?"

There is NO evidence for a flood. Should I post the reasons why?

"I mean, really, are scientists that bloody ignorant about all this stuff?"

Oh my goodness.... No comment.

Creationists - Please check out my post. You have far too many misconceptions about evolution.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/24002.html

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
After perusing various articles at AIG and ICR, it stuck me: if the problems with evolutionary mechanisms, radiometric dating, modern geology, genetic complexity, etc, are that obvious, why do the majority of scientists agree on things like evolution, a 4.5 billion year old Earth, etc? If radiometric dating is so easily flawed, why is it considered (among people that actually use it) to be a tried-tested-and-true method of dating the Earth and its components? If the evidence for a 4000 year old flood is so apparent, why did I never hear a peep about it in school (regardless of the fact that it was written in the Bible)? I mean, really, are scientists that bloody ignorant about all this stuff? Are they arbitrarily discarding mountains of evidence just because it doesn't fit in with their pre-existing beliefs about the world in which we live (whatever those may be)?

And lastly, why is it that almost every argument against evolution comes from someone with an obvious religious bias (and a Judeo-Christian bias, at that)?

By and large, the reason that I've heard is something along the lines of them being blinded by Satan. I would suspect, however, that there exist a variety of theories on why laymen constantly 'outdo' Ph.D. scientists in scientific debates.

-jon

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by secularfuture
Pete Harcoff
"why do the majority of scientists agree on things like evolution, a 4.5 billion year old Earth, etc?"

Because they have good reason to believe that. They don't randomly pull out numbers and say - "This is how it goes!" Years of research has been put into every theory.

"If radiometric dating is so easily flawed, why is it considered (among people that actually use it) to be a tried-tested-and-true method of dating the Earth and its components?"

What makes you think that its "so easily flawed"? Are you a scientist? How much carbon dating have you done?

"If the evidence for a 4000 year old flood is so apparent, why did I never hear a peep about it in school (regardless of the fact that it was written in the Bible)?"

There is NO evidence for a flood. Should I post the reasons why?

"I mean, really, are scientists that bloody ignorant about all this stuff?"

Oh my goodness.... No comment.

"And lastly, why is it that almost every argument against evolution comes from someone with an obvious religious bias (and a Judeo-Christian bias, at that)?"

Please check out my post. You have far too many misconceptions about evolution.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/24002.html

Uhm, wasn't Pete's post a stinging question against YEC?

-jon

 

[Pete Harcoff]

secularfuture,

You missed the point of my post. Read again, this time with a dash of sarcasm.

 

[secularfuture]

A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.


How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]

 

[secularfuture]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
secularfuture,

You missed the point of my post. Read again, this time with a dash of sarcasm.

I'm sorry - I'll re-read it.

 

[ocean]

Pete is against YEC, not for it.

 

[secularfuture]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
secularfuture,

You missed the point of my post. Read again, this time with a dash of sarcasm.

 

HAHA!! - I'm stupid!! I'm sorry.

I'm just fired up right now. I'm waiting, like an angry lion, for someone to say anything against evolution.

 

[npetreley]

Are scientists dumb? Not at all. But many of them are blind.

 

[secularfuture]

Originally posted by npetreley
Are scientists dumb? Not at all. But many of them are blind.

Please look for my posts in this thread.
There are some comments for you.

 

[jon1101]

Oh, and people also say stuff like 'men get so wrapped up in their own faulty human reasoning that they miss God's truth' or 'they just want to justify their evil behavior with atheism and atheistic science' or the classic 'willful ignorance' agrument.

Now, would an actual YEC mind posting a reason?

-jon

Edit: I see nate replied, so that last part is kind of false.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
You missed the point of my post. Read again, this time with a dash of sarcasm.

You wacky Canadians!

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by ocean
Pete is against YEC, not for it.

Just like every other rational person that has looked at the evidence with an open mind.

Chris

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by npetreley
Are scientists dumb? Not at all. But many of them are blind.

True. But science has error correcting mechanisms. Which is why 99.9997% of Biologists who actually study the evidence (including Christian biologists) believe in evolution.

Of course, there are certain people who never pick up on things like evidence, or never deal with evidence. But a good look at a good biology textbook will begin to show any critical thinking person that evolution has a rational, factual basis.

Creationism lost the day 143 years ago and hasn't recovered since.

Chris

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
You wacky Canadians!

At least Canadians aren't teaching creation science in their public schools.

Chris

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley
Are scientists dumb? Not at all. But many of them are blind.

... said the blind man.

 

[Chris H]

Bladder, have you ever noticed how some people continually make assertions and don't back them with evidence?? I'm not pointing at anyone, just asking a rhetorical question.

Wouldn't this be a bad debating technique??

Chris

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by Chris H
True. But science has error correcting mechanisms. Which is why 99.9997% of Biologists who actually study the evidence (including Christian biologists) believe in evolution.

First let me say that I believe in evolution but I just want to say that the problem with scientists are that they are human.  And as humans they will try and find a way around any system of correction.  So what I am saying is that science is not 100% self correcting because that is the nature of things when dealing with humans.  Does anyone really believe that a scientist who has given his life and career to the theory of evolution would not fight against the start of another theory even if they knew the other one was more correct?  Well maybe some would but the majority would not.  That is just the way things are.  I am just a skeptic when it comes to scientists morality.

Of course, there are certain people who never pick up on things like evidence, or never deal with evidence. But a good look at a good biology textbook will begin to show any critical thinking person that evolution has a rational, factual basis. [/B]

 

This is not a good argument because you are attacking your oponents intelligence and not their beliefs.  I think if you stick to their beliefs and your argument is much stronger.