"I'm not an expert, BUT......."

[Split Rock]

We see creationists here claiming to know that the experts are all wrong... even when the creationists themselves are admittedly ignorant of the subject matter. It seems that if you read the bible and have "common sense," that you can critique the experts on stuff you know nothing about. How exactly, does this work?

Here are some examples for those who will claim I am making this up. These are only examples and I am not trying to single anyone out:

Jazer is not an expert on genetics, but he has the ability to "know bull when he sees it" when it comes to genetics. It doesn't matter that he doesn't even know what a gene or a mutation is.

Dad is not an expert on either atronomy, cosmology, or geology, but he knows when what the experts say is an "in the fish bowl, anti-god lie." He sees what others do not when it comes to everything from the distance to the nearest stars to the center of the earth. Not that any of it provides a shred of practical data, of course, but that doesn't matter.

AVET and his pastor are not experts on geology, but they know the earth was created 6,100 years ago with billions of years of "embedded age." It doesn't matter that neither one can tell us what "embedded age" is or how God embedded age, or why he bothered to embed age in the first place.

The list goes on and on. My question is this. If creationists insist that they can critique experts on stuff they know nothing about, then why should we take anything they say about any subject, including the bible, seriously?

 

[ivebeenshown]

If creationists insist that they can critique experts on stuff they know nothing about, then why should we take anything they say about any subject, including the bible, seriously?

It would be fallacious to condemn their every statement based on one or more poor statements.

Six-day-creationist Joe may know jack about physical science, but he could know a LOT about home repair, landscaping, and gardening.

 

[Nostromo]

True, but this isn't the landscaping forum.

 

[Jazer]

We see creationists here claiming to know that the experts are all wrong...

So called experts in science have been proven wrong all the time. Shall we look at how often Science has been wrong in the last 3500 years. Yet the Bible continues to be true.

 

[Split Rock]

So called experts in science have been proven wrong all the time. Shall we look at how often Science has been wrong in the last 3500 years. Yet the Bible continues to be true.

So, tell us who the "so-called" experts are? Are they the ones who read the bible without any context and them claim to know the will of God? Or are they the people who study, learn and carry out real experiments and do science for a living?

 

[AV1611VET]

Or are they the people who study, learn and carry out real experiments and do science for a living?

They are the people who study, learn and carry out real experiments, only to have the next generation who study, learn and carry out real experiments correct them, only to have the next generation who study, learn and carry out real experiments correct them...

Tombaugh's Folly, eh?

 

[Nostromo]

This thread was just begging for you to turn up, AV.

 

[Jazer]

So, tell us who the "so-called" experts are?

In most careers, being wrong too often is grounds for dismissal. False prophets in ancient kingdoms were stoned or shamed out of town. Only in science, it seems, can experts consistently get it wrong, and not only keep their jobs, but be highly esteemed as experts.

Shall we name a few at random?

Mercury was once the most popular medicinal metal a famed cure for syphilis, indigestion, old age and almost everything else,

If the brain wasn't working right, why not just take part of it out? That was kind of the logic behind lobotomies, a practice that came of age in the middle of the 20th century. Doctors claimed the "ice-pick-to-the-freaking-eye" method of lobotomy would be as quick and easy as a trip to the dentist.

Before the government stepped in science sold soothing syrups for children that contained morphine, codeine, heroin, opium and even cannabis.

Shall we go into the electrical cure science gave us for impotance? Or how about Electroconvulsive therapy for depression.

What did George Washington die from?

Close friends Dr. James Craik and personal secretary Tobias Lear V had the medical practices they followed in that day. So the President was given calomel aka mercury chloride - whose toxicity wasn't known at the time - as a disinfectant and a laxative. He was losing body liquids when he needed them most. In addition, he was subjected to bloodletting by leeches. So the President also was losing blood when he needed it most. ​

Shall we go into diet cures or the cure for female hysteria? Maybe we do not want to see what science has offered us in those areas.​

Did I mention that The inventor of the lobotomy was given a Nobel Prize for it in 1949. Some 70,000 people were lobotomized before somebody figured out that driving a spike into the brain probably was not the answer to all of life's problems.​

 

[AV1611VET]

This thread was just begging for you to turn up, AV.

Actually, I wasn't going to reply to the OP, since it would be only to correct him (my pastor is not embedded age, he is YEC; I have given a very precise definition of embedded age as: maturity without history; and explained why God did it [anthropic principle, food availability, marriage, have children, etc.]) -- so I just used THREAD TOOLS to subscribe to this thread for read-only purposes; but his second post just begged a response from me.

 

[Jazer]

Jazer is not an expert on genetics,

You look long and hard to try and find something and you come up with nothing.
Everyone will be held accountable to the truth if they want to try to hide from it or not.

 

[Nostromo]

Only in science, it seems, can experts consistently get it wrong, and not only keep their jobs, but be highly esteemed as experts.

Shall we name a few at random?

... yet you go on to name some instances where the medical profession has failed. The widespread acceptance of evidence based medicine has been a great help.

 

[Jazer]

... yet you go on to name some instances where the medical profession has failed. The widespread acceptance of evidence based medicine has been a great help.

"some" I barely scratched the surface.

 

[hasone]

"some" I barely scratched the surface.

And for every example of evidence based medicine hurting people you provide I could probably provide ten examples of it directly saving someone's life , and if you allowed a little statistical reasoning many many more (I'm talking about vaccines), and if you allowed just helping people even more than that.

Let me put it simply: without evidence based medicine there's a good chance you'd be dead. If I knew your life story (and I don't want to) I could probably compute your chances of being alive today without evidence-based medicine, and they could be very, very, low.

I, for one, would be be dead without it. Thrice over, as my parents would've died before I was conceived. That's three examples of evidence based medicine saving someone's life, and I've thought of two more while typing this sentence.

 

[Skavau]

They are the people who study, learn and carry out real experiments, only to have the next generation who study, learn and carry out real experiments correct them, only to have the next generation who study, learn and carry out real experiments correct them...

Tombaugh's Folly, eh?

The experimentation and observation that would refute the previous generation would never have been possible without them. The quest for knowledge is always a work in process and only the most arrogant anti-intellectuals sneer at it and think it folly.

Just remember that the next time you use any product that has gone through trial and error.

 

[Skavau]

In most careers, being wrong too often is grounds for dismissal. False prophets in ancient kingdoms were stoned or shamed out of town. Only in science, it seems, can experts consistently get it wrong, and not only keep their jobs, but be highly esteemed as experts.

Shall we name a few at random?

Mercury was once the most popular medicinal metal a famed cure for syphilis, indigestion, old age and almost everything else,

If the brain wasn't working right, why not just take part of it out? That was kind of the logic behind lobotomies, a practice that came of age in the middle of the 20th century. Doctors claimed the "ice-pick-to-the-freaking-eye" method of lobotomy would be as quick and easy as a trip to the dentist.

Before the government stepped in science sold soothing syrups for children that contained morphine, codeine, heroin, opium and even cannabis.

Shall we go into the electrical cure science gave us for impotance? Or how about Electroconvulsive therapy for depression.

What did George Washington die from?

Close friends Dr. James Craik and personal secretary Tobias Lear V had the medical practices they followed in that day. So the President was given calomel aka mercury chloride - whose toxicity wasn't known at the time - as a disinfectant and a laxative. He was losing body liquids when he needed them most. In addition, he was subjected to bloodletting by leeches. So the President also was losing blood when he needed it most. ​

Shall we go into diet cures or the cure for female hysteria? Maybe we do not want to see what science has offered us in those areas.​

Did I mention that The inventor of the lobotomy was given a Nobel Prize for it in 1949. Some 70,000 people were lobotomized before somebody figured out that driving a spike into the brain probably was not the answer to all of life's problems.​

Just out of interest, how is it that we can know anything wrong if not through experimentation, observation? You can talk about all of the errors and problems that science has given us but were we all assuming ourselves to be perfectly correct all of the time we would never even know when we were wrong.

 

[Skavau]

To further add more the attitude of people like Jazer and AV actually complete enrage me and disturb me. They see the idea of gaining knowledge through observation and experimentation as folly because of the possibility of mistake. They value their own pride of not being considered or considering themselves incorrect over learning through discovery and making a real difference. Were those two in any position of power in a historical sense they would have completely staltified their regions knowledge and potentially caused the death of millions over a long period through the promotion of permanent self-righteous ignorance.

It completely amazes me that either of these can sit on a computer, a product that has been through a lot of trial and error and preach these evils.

 

[ivebeenshown]

True, but this isn't the landscaping forum.

True, but sir, I will show you again the question that was originally asked:

why should we take anything they say about any subject [...] seriously?

 

[juvenissun]

We see creationists here claiming to know that the experts are all wrong... even when the creationists themselves are admittedly ignorant of the subject matter. It seems that if you read the bible and have "common sense," that you can critique the experts on stuff you know nothing about. How exactly, does this work?

Here are some examples for those who will claim I am making this up. These are only examples and I am not trying to single anyone out:

Jazer is not an expert on genetics, but he has the ability to "know bull when he sees it" when it comes to genetics. It doesn't matter that he doesn't even know what a gene or a mutation is.

Dad is not an expert on either atronomy, cosmology, or geology, but he knows when what the experts say is an "in the fish bowl, anti-god lie." He sees what others do not when it comes to everything from the distance to the nearest stars to the center of the earth. Not that any of it provides a shred of practical data, of course, but that doesn't matter.

AVET and his pastor are not experts on geology, but they know the earth was created 6,100 years ago with billions of years of "embedded age." It doesn't matter that neither one can tell us what "embedded age" is or how God embedded age, or why he bothered to embed age in the first place.

The list goes on and on. My question is this. If creationists insist that they can critique experts on stuff they know nothing about, then why should we take anything they say about any subject, including the bible, seriously?

You don't have to. You can ignore them.

But if you want to argue with them, then you need to argue on "their" logic, not on your logic. Their argument may not be professional, but it is a legitimate argument. If you don't argue in their frame, then don't argue at all.

Don't look down the argument made by lay people. A Ph.D. may not be able to answer a question given by a 10-year-old. If he argued that the earth is 10,000 years old, then I should ask him the reason, but not just say he is wrong because he knows little.

So, if I said the earth is 6000 years old. Then you should argue within my frame rather than thrown out radiometric dating and say I am not an expert. (I know how to argue against the 6000 years age without using geological knowledge at all).

 

[Skavau]

You don't have to. You can ignore them.

But if you want to argue with them, then you need to argue on "their" logic, not on your logic. Their argument may not be professional, but it is a legitimate argument. If you don't argue in their frame, then don't argue at all.

Don't look down the argument made by lay people. A Ph.D. may not be able to answer a question given by a 10-year-old. If he argued that the earth is 10,000 years old, then I should ask him the reason, but not just say he is wrong because he knows little.

So, if I said the earth is 6000 years old. Then you should argue within my frame rather than thrown out radiometric dating and say I am not an expert. (I know how to argue against the 6000 years age without using geological knowledge at all).

But, as you admit you're not an expert compared to a geologist then how would you be able to label yourself as more knowledgable than him on the subject? How would you be able to trust your own conclusion over his when by your own admission, you don't know anything about it?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

You don't have to. You can ignore them.

But if you want to argue with them, then you need to argue on "their" logic, not on your logic. Their argument may not be professional, but it is a legitimate argument. If you don't argue in their frame, then don't argue at all.

Don't look down the argument made by lay people. A Ph.D. may not be able to answer a question given by a 10-year-old. If he argued that the earth is 10,000 years old, then I should ask him the reason, but not just say he is wrong because he knows little.

So, if I said the earth is 6000 years old. Then you should argue within my frame rather than thrown out radiometric dating and say I am not an expert. (I know how to argue against the 6000 years age without using geological knowledge at all).

This is literally the dumbest thing in this thread. Dumber than all the tripe Jazer wrote, and dumber even than the nonsensical mumblings that AV trots out on this thread like in any other. Because it is the most egregious appeal to popularity that I have ever seen. Just because many people think an argument is "legitimate" does not mean that it is logically sound. And in case you are wondering, logic is not subjective.