Believing scientists you've never met...

[good brother]

Many evolutionists denounce any form of creationism because it's premise is found in a book that is thousands of years old and nobody knew or could question the individual author's integrity on the subject matter in which they wrote. That book is the Bible. It has been handed down through different languages for thousands of years, yet the message has remained the same. Some people believe it with their whole hearts, and some believe parts of it, while others dismiss it entirely. Those who would dismiss it entirely do so based upon their own presupposition that science has disproven the need for a divine being. This presupposition did not come about of their own volition, no. It came about by reading what other people have said on the matter. Below I will try to best explain this phenomenon.

Let's say we have book "X" by Dr. Smith. Book "X" dismisses the Bible without exception in favor of evolution. Mr. John Doe picks up this book at the local bookstore and his mind is changed to be in concert with Smith. Doe has never met Smith, yet his mind has been changed by him. Doe has never done any of the work to find these things to be true or false, but he has committed to following the ways of Dr. Smith. Is this not similar to people believing the Bible? But wait, there's more.

Years before Smith was Dr. Smith, he was simply Smith. He went to a college to learn about the Earth around him that he loves so much. While at college Smith is taught by Professor Smartman. Smartman teaches Smith all about the Earth according to him. Smartman teaches Smith that rocks with M fossil are Y years old, and rocks that are Y years old should have M fossils in it. Smartman demonstrates that this fact of M fossils being found only in Y rock was first discoverd by Dr Seymour Diplomas in 18xx. Though Smartman never met Diploma, Smartman tells Smith that he has studied Diploma's work and has written several books on the subject. Smith reads books by Smartman. Smith believed what Smartman had to say about the matter because Smartman's book had been peer reviewed by people who also looked favorably on Diploma's work though they had never met Diploma personally. Is this not like Bible believers? But wait, there's more.

Smartman first learned about Diploma's work back when he himself was in grade school and Teacher Knowsalot introduced Diploma's work to a bunch of children. Teacher Knowsalot believed Diploma because he had learned about him as a student under someone how agreed with Diploma's work. Diploma had been influenced by a disillusioned seminary student of earlier in the 19th century whom he had never met who had discovered that different birds have different beaks. Diploma believed the "bird" man because he had read books by him. Isn't this just like Bible believers believing the Bible though they haven't met the sources? But wait, there's more.

And on and on and on....

So, what's the difference? I believe the Bible. Was I influenced by what my parents and grandparents believed? Absolutely. Evolutionists believe what they believe because of whom they trust on the matter.

I have chosen to believe as I do because I have honestly looked at both sides of the argument and have come to believe whole heartedly that the Bible is correct and that evolution is a fraud. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that nothing was packed so tight that it erupted into everything we see. I cannot think that non life sprouted life. If that were the case we should still see life sprouting from non life even now. I cannot believe that blind chance and reckless abandon brought about the level of organization we see today. I find it impossible to believe that hope and laughter are just by products of happenstance. I find it impossible to say that God must be a construct of the mind when every single person on this planet is searching for, perhaps they have not labeled it as God, the ultimate reason behind it all. Some call the reason God, some call the reason "string theory", while some simply call it "the theory for everything". Yet everyone is searching for the truth.


What say you?

In Christ, GB

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Many evolutionists denounce any form of creationism because it's premise is found in a book that is thousands of years old and nobody knew or could question the individual author's integrity on the subject matter in which they wrote. *That book is the Bible. It has been handed down through different languages for thousands of years, yet the message has remained the same. Some people believe it with their whole hearts, and some believe parts of it, while others dismiss it entirely. Those who would dismiss it entirely do so based upon their own presupposition that science has disproven the need for a divine being. This presupposition did not come about of their own volition, no. It came about by reading what other people have said on the matter. Below I will try to best explain this phenomenon.

Let's say we have book "X" by Dr. Smith. Book "X" dismisses the Bible without exception in favor of evolution. Mr. John Doe picks up this book at the local bookstore and his mind is changed to be in concert with Smith. Doe has never met Smith, yet his mind has been changed by him. Doe has never done any of the work to find these things to be true or false, but he has committed to following the ways of Dr. Smith. Is this not similar to people believing the Bible? But wait, there's more.

Years before Smith was Dr. Smith, he was simply Smith. He went to a college to learn about the Earth around him that he loves so much. While at college Smith is taught by Professor Smartman. Smartman teaches Smith all about the Earth according to him. Smartman teaches Smith that rocks with M fossil are Y years old, and rocks that are Y years old should have M fossils in it. Smartman demonstrates that this fact of M fossils being found only in Y rock was first discoverd by Dr Seymour Diplomas in 18xx. Though Smartman never met Diploma, Smartman tells Smith that he has studied Diploma's work and has written several books on the subject. Smith reads books by Smartman. Smith believed what Smartman had to say about the matter because Smartman's book had been peer reviewed by people who also looked favorably on Diploma's work though they had never met Diploma personally. Is this not like Bible believers? But wait, there's more.

Smartman first learned about Diploma's work back when he himself was in grade school and Teacher Knowsalot introduced Diploma's work to a bunch of children. Teacher Knowsalot believed Diploma because he had learned about him as a student under someone how agreed with Diploma's work. Diploma had been influenced by a disillusioned seminary student of earlier in the 19th century whom he had never met who had discovered that different birds have different beaks. Diploma believed the "bird" man because he had read books by him. Isn't this just like Bible believers believing the Bible though they haven't met the sources? But wait, there's more.

And on and on and on....

So, what's the difference? I believe the Bible. Was I influenced by what my parents and grandparents believed? Absolutely. Evolutionists believe what they believe because of whom they trust on the matter.

I have chosen to believe as I do because I have honestly looked at both sides of the argument and have come to believe whole heartedly that the Bible is correct and that evolution is a fraud. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that nothing was packed so tight that it erupted into everything we see. I cannot think that non life sprouted life. If that were the case we should still see life sprouting from non life even now. I cannot believe that blind chance and reckless abandon brought about the level of organization we see today. I find it impossible to believe that hope and laughter are just by products of happenstance. I find it impossible to say that God must be a construct of the mind when every single person on this planet is searching for, perhaps they have not labeled it as God, the ultimate reason behind it all. Some call the reason God, some call the reason "string theory", while some simply call it "the theory for everything". Yet everyone is searching for the truth.


What say you?

In Christ, GB

Sweet strawman bro'.

*emphasis mine

 

[hollyda]

Many evolutionists denounce any form of creationism because it's premise is found in a book that is thousands of years old and nobody knew or could question the individual author's integrity on the subject matter in which they wrote.

Just curious, where did you get "many"? I've never once heard that argument, and I tend to think I hang out with more evolutionists than you.

 

[Phred]

Many <snip> truth.

What say you?

This is a common mistake. Nobody dismisses the creationism because it's based upon the Bible. I dismiss creationism because it isn't supported by the evidence. In fact, it's blatantly disproved by the evidence. On the other hand, the various scientific theories that make up current consensus to rival creationism such as Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution and the like are indeed not only supported by the evidence but are created from the evidence.

You're trying to say that the rival camps, religion and science are equal because they both are based upon believing what other humans have to say. That's cute but false.

One side, religion, requires that you believe what other humans have to say about things that are amazing! Talking snakes and global floods, rainbows that appear only after a tragic event. And you have to believe all of this with only one place to go and confirm it. The Bible.

The other side, science, offers you their theories on how things work and lets you examine all the evidence for yourself. No outlandish claims are made. Everything is verifiable. Granted, some things require a greater understanding of mathematics or biology or other pursuits... but nothing needs to be taken on faith.

You say the two sides are equal. I say that's nonsense. They never have been and never will be.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

This is a common mistake. Nobody dismisses the creationism because it's based upon the Bible. I dismiss creationism because it isn't supported by the evidence. In fact, it's blatantly disproved by the evidence. On the other hand, the various scientific theories that make up current consensus to rival creationism such as Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution and the like are indeed not only supported by the evidence but are created from the evidence.

You're trying to say that the rival camps, religion and science are equal because they both are based upon believing what other humans have to say. That's cute but false.

One side, religion, requires that you believe what other humans have to say about things that are amazing! Talking snakes and global floods, rainbows that appear only after a tragic event. And you have to believe all of this with only one place to go and confirm it. The Bible.

The other side, science, offers you their theories on how things work and lets you examine all the evidence for yourself. No outlandish claims are made. Everything is verifiable. Granted, some things require a greater understanding of mathematics or biology or other pursuits... but nothing needs to be taken on faith.

You say the two sides are equal. I say that's nonsense. They never have been and never will be.

Darn it all to heck Pred! Too soon, too soon.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

One side, religion, requires that you believe what other humans have to say about things that are amazing! Talking snakes and global floods, rainbows that appear only after a tragic event. And you have to believe all of this with only one place to go and confirm it. The Bible.

I don't quite agree. The Bible is believed only if it is really convenient. If not, there surely is some apologist you can go to.

 

[Jazer]

Sweet strawman bro'.

*emphasis mine

Did you really read all of that? You must not have a short attention span.

 

[Jazer]

The Bible is believed only if it is really convenient.

Actually that could be. All the evos I have accused of rejecting science. I wonder how many so called christians pick and choose what to believe and follow in the Bible. I did talk about John Wesley and the Holiness movement. Even in Wesley's day when he was still alive people were getting luke warm and comfortable in their churchosity and getting away from the Holiness that Wesley use to preach.

 

[keith99]

Every week I trust sportswriters I've never met. Why? Because they are accountable. I guess the whole sports establishment could be lying to me, but there is an issue there as I have gone to games in several sports and have friends who have gone to far more. Sportswriters may say things I disagree with, things regarding which team is better. But I have not caught one instance yet where they had the winner wrong. I know sushc happens, results can get mispublished, and when they do they get corrected.

My Undergraduate degree was in Geophysics, but I was also considering dentistry. That means I had the intro courses (Majors, not non-majors) in Physics, Chemistry, Geology and Biology. And these all had labs where we actually tested and verified some of the basics.

I trust scientists I've never met because what they say matches what I saw when I did things myself, and fits with what people I have met who went on in hte sciences say they have seen and done.

I trust scientists for the same reason I trust sportswriters and in much the same way. Their facts are very apt to be right, and if not they will get called on it as there are plenty of people who would be quite pleased to point out eny errors. When it comes to conclusions I'll check the reasoning of either and see if it fits.

 

[Loudmouth]

Many evolutionists denounce any form of creationism because it's premise is found in a book that is thousands of years old and nobody knew or could question the individual author's integrity on the subject matter in which they wrote.

As Phred mentions, we reject creationism because it is contradicted by the evidence. We are not rejecting something because it comes from the Bible, or from any religious text for that matter.

Those who would dismiss it entirely do so based upon their own presupposition that science has disproven the need for a divine being.

I personally dismiss the existence of a deity because no one has presented evidence that said deity exists. Or to paraphrase Stephen Roberts, when you understand why you do not believe in the existence of those thousands of gods you don't believe in you will understand why I do not believe in your god.

Let's say we have book "X" by Dr. Smith. Book "X" dismisses the Bible without exception in favor of evolution. Mr. John Doe picks up this book at the local bookstore and his mind is changed to be in concert with Smith. Doe has never met Smith, yet his mind has been changed by him. Doe has never done any of the work to find these things to be true or false, but he has committed to following the ways of Dr. Smith. Is this not similar to people believing the Bible?

Science is based on experimental results that can be repeated and continually tested. Not so with creationism. In fact, creationists reject empiricism entirely, at least from what I have seen. What makes scientific findings different than creationism is that scientific findings are testable and falsifiable, and have been tested.

As a footnoote, I would suggest that people rely more on the primary literature than on books. Anyone can write a book. However, not everyone can write a research paper and have it pass peer review. As you will notice, ID/creationists are fond of writing books, but stay away from submitting original research papers for peer review. This is quite telling.

So, what's the difference? I believe the Bible. Was I influenced by what my parents and grandparents believed? Absolutely. Evolutionists believe what they believe because of whom they trust on the matter.

I accept evolution because it is supported by the evidence. I have actually looked at the evidence independent of anyone other scientist's opinion. It is there for you to look at as well.

We don't have to believe that germs cause disease because Dr. Koch says so. Instead, we can repeat his experiments with Anthrax and arrive at the same results he arrived at. We can also compare the genomes of chimps and humans and find the same shared genetic features that can only be explained by shared ancestry. We can look at the same fossils and see the same mixture of human and chimp features. We can organize animals by shared characteristics and observe the same nested hiearchy that evidences evolution. This is the power of science. This is what you are ignoring. None of these things are true because So-and-so says so. These things are true because they are observed and demonstrated to be true independent of anyone's opinion.

I cannot think that non life sprouted life.

Then you are not a creationist because this is what creationists believe in.

I cannot believe that blind chance and reckless abandon brought about the level of organization we see today.

Neither can I. Good thing that evolution is not random.

I find it impossible to say that God must be a construct of the mind when every single person on this planet is searching for, perhaps they have not labeled it as God, the ultimate reason behind it all.

People could not believe that the Earth was moving about the Sun, and not the other way around. Your point? Reality does not conform itself to what you or I are willing or not willing to believe. Instead, we need to conform our beliefs to what reality is. That is what science does. It starts with reality and builds its models from that observed reality. Creationism does just the opposite. It takes beliefs and requires reality to bend to those beliefs. Doesn't work that way.

Some call the reason God, some call the reason "string theory", while some simply call it "the theory for everything". Yet everyone is searching for the truth.

Creationists stopped that search some time ago. They are always threatened by new scientific research, always threatened by new transitional fossils, new genomic comparisons, and almost every new scientific finding. This is because Creationism requires us to stop asking questions and accept their answer no matter what.

 

[Split Rock]

Many evolutionists denounce any form of creationism because it's premise is found in a book that is thousands of years old and nobody knew or could question the individual author's integrity on the subject matter in which they wrote. That book is the Bible.

We denounce creationism because it was falsified back in the 19th century. We denounce creationism because it is based on intimidation, lies and misinformation.

So, what's the difference? I believe the Bible. Was I influenced by what my parents and grandparents believed? Absolutely. Evolutionists believe what they believe because of whom they trust on the matter.

We believe what we believe because that is what the physical evidence infers.

I have chosen to believe as I do because I have honestly looked at both sides of the argument and have come to believe whole heartedly that the Bible is correct and that evolution is a fraud.

Really? Please provide the evidence that evolution is a fraud. You do know what a "fraud" is... right?

I simply cannot bring myself to believe that nothing was packed so tight that it erupted into everything we see.

Neither can I. we are in agreement on something.

I cannot think that non life sprouted life. If that were the case we should still see life sprouting from non life even now.

No, the conditions that life came into being in the past are different than the conditions we live in now.

I cannot believe that blind chance and reckless abandon brought about the level of organization we see today.

Wow, we agree again!

I find it impossible to say that God must be a construct of the mind when every single person on this planet is searching for, perhaps they have not labeled it as God, the ultimate reason behind it all.

So, every other god ever constructed by man is what? Just as good as your god?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I wonder how many so called christians pick and choose what to believe and follow in the Bible.

Hmmmm ...

 

[USincognito]

What say you?

I think that you, like virtually every other Creationist, erect and beat up straw men, argue with analogies rather address the facts at hand and generally prefer to make stuff up.

 

[Blayz]

Pretty funny rant though.

 

[martinlb]

There's a lot of dissent, disrespect, and sometimes downright hatred that gets generated from what I believe is a mistaken understanding of what the Bible says about creation.

I don't believe there is any support for the idea that the Bible was written as a scientific document. A saying I've picked up from someone I can't remember says science tells us what; the Bible tells us why. There can't be a conflict between science and theology if both are being done "right". I've never seen an example of a Biblical proclamation that conflicts with science. I've seen way too many examples of misunderstood Biblical proclamations being used to discredit science.

One thing, though, is that scientists can also get things wrong. Reality is not limited to our ability to measure and understand it.

 

[RickG]

Addressing the OP:

There is no "one" easy answer for this. It's not a matter of trusting someone I've never met, it is a matter of the quality of their work. If their work is scholarly, published in peer review literature that specializes in the area(s) being published and is corroborated and supported by scientific consensus, yes. However, there can also be mitigating circumstances that can raise flags. There are cases where a scientists has produced quality work for many years, then for some reason a bias may appear in their work that causes them to be somewhat selective in their data ignoring the full scope of data.

One such person is high profile geologist Ian Plimer. He knows his stuff, or at least used to know his stuff. In his book, "Heaven and Earth", he makes a number of contradicting statements that are quite puzzling. For instance, on one page he states that both water vapor and CO2 kept Earth warm millions of years ago when the sun was dimmer that it presently is. The scientific evidence supports that statement and it is well accepted by the scientific community. Not too many pages from that he states that CO2 has nothing to do with temperature. The problem there is that both paleo and instrumental data show that to be wrong, not to mention the well known physics that supports the former and not the later statement. One might think that is just an isolated mistake or printing error. Unfortunately it is not, the book is riddled with many such contradictions and errors.

The bottom line is "yes", trust the scientific consensus, but always be skeptical and look for verification.

 

[CabVet]

I wonder how many so called christians pick and choose what to believe and follow in the Bible.

All of them, I have never met a Christian that follows the Bible 100%. The only religious people I know that seem to follow their book close to 100% are Muslims living under Sharia Law.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Many evolutionists denounce any form of creationism because it's premise is found in a book that is thousands of years old and nobody knew or could question the individual author's integrity on the subject matter in which they wrote. That book is the Bible. It has been handed down through different languages for thousands of years, yet the message has remained the same. Some people believe it with their whole hearts, and some believe parts of it, while others dismiss it entirely. Those who would dismiss it entirely do so based upon their own presupposition that science has disproven the need for a divine being. This presupposition did not come about of their own volition, no. It came about by reading what other people have said on the matter. Below I will try to best explain this phenomenon.

Let's say we have book "X" by Dr. Smith. Book "X" dismisses the Bible without exception in favor of evolution. Mr. John Doe picks up this book at the local bookstore and his mind is changed to be in concert with Smith. Doe has never met Smith, yet his mind has been changed by him. Doe has never done any of the work to find these things to be true or false, but he has committed to following the ways of Dr. Smith. Is this not similar to people believing the Bible? But wait, there's more.

Years before Smith was Dr. Smith, he was simply Smith. He went to a college to learn about the Earth around him that he loves so much. While at college Smith is taught by Professor Smartman. Smartman teaches Smith all about the Earth according to him. Smartman teaches Smith that rocks with M fossil are Y years old, and rocks that are Y years old should have M fossils in it. Smartman demonstrates that this fact of M fossils being found only in Y rock was first discoverd by Dr Seymour Diplomas in 18xx. Though Smartman never met Diploma, Smartman tells Smith that he has studied Diploma's work and has written several books on the subject. Smith reads books by Smartman. Smith believed what Smartman had to say about the matter because Smartman's book had been peer reviewed by people who also looked favorably on Diploma's work though they had never met Diploma personally. Is this not like Bible believers? But wait, there's more.

Smartman first learned about Diploma's work back when he himself was in grade school and Teacher Knowsalot introduced Diploma's work to a bunch of children. Teacher Knowsalot believed Diploma because he had learned about him as a student under someone how agreed with Diploma's work. Diploma had been influenced by a disillusioned seminary student of earlier in the 19th century whom he had never met who had discovered that different birds have different beaks. Diploma believed the "bird" man because he had read books by him. Isn't this just like Bible believers believing the Bible though they haven't met the sources? But wait, there's more.

And on and on and on....

So, what's the difference? I believe the Bible. Was I influenced by what my parents and grandparents believed? Absolutely. Evolutionists believe what they believe because of whom they trust on the matter.

I have chosen to believe as I do because I have honestly looked at both sides of the argument and have come to believe whole heartedly that the Bible is correct and that evolution is a fraud. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that nothing was packed so tight that it erupted into everything we see. I cannot think that non life sprouted life. If that were the case we should still see life sprouting from non life even now. I cannot believe that blind chance and reckless abandon brought about the level of organization we see today. I find it impossible to believe that hope and laughter are just by products of happenstance. I find it impossible to say that God must be a construct of the mind when every single person on this planet is searching for, perhaps they have not labeled it as God, the ultimate reason behind it all. Some call the reason God, some call the reason "string theory", while some simply call it "the theory for everything". Yet everyone is searching for the truth.


What say you?

In Christ, GB

Agreed... people would be amazed how many scientists of the past have been creationists, because any scientist has to be looking for cause and effect and the laws behind such events and hence use the logic that there has to be design, and then they find that design called a law.

SEE FamousChristianScientists

 

[Mike Elphick]

With great respect, good brother, I don't think you have studied "both sides of the argument" as you put it. It is my experience that the objections you raise have come from biased creationist writings that don't correspond to the real world. For example, you think that people who accept evolution are influenced by books written by people who never worked in the subject area, or who are persuaded by the peer-review process .

You then go on the describe the co-called circular reasoning process that creationists assume geologists and evolutionary biologists are guilty of in dating rocks — namely index fossils. If you look the subject up you'll see that the circular argument is nonsense! Index fossils are used to date rocks in order to locate oil, where they work very well.

Then you say:-

I simply cannot bring myself to believe that nothing was packed so tight that it erupted into everything we see.

The Big Bang has nothing whatever to do with biological evolution and the theory does not state that the universe came "from nothing"; the two are simply linked to make both appear ridiculous.

Then you say:-

I cannot think that non life sprouted life. If that were the case we should still see life sprouting from non life even now.

No it would not. Existing life prevents the formation of "new life" (abiogenesis) due to its ability to consume the resources needed for "new life" to get started and, being well established, will outcompete it.

You need to get a more balanced view of evolution. Many people look upon it as a creative design process put in place by God.

Why not?

 

[RickG]

You then go on the describe the co-called circular reasoning process that creationists assume geologists and evolutionary biologists are guilty of in dating rocks — namely index fossils. If you look the subject up you'll see that the circular argument is nonsense! Index fossils are used to date rocks in order to locate oil, where they work very well.

Hmmm, let me step in here a moment. That is true but I think it needs a bit of clarification. The index fossils are unique to specific ages of strata, they don't date it. Geologic strata is dated radiometrically by constitutents within that strata that can be dated radiometrically.