why we do not believe secular scientists

[USincognito]

it must be nice to build theories from very incomplete evidence but then again, piltdown man was based upon 1 tooth.

one wonders if any of these people can be honest...

I'll ask again, what is it like to be born without a sense of irony?

First off, you're conflating Piltdown and Nebraska Man. Second, I doubt you even know enough about either, much less both to understand what really happened in those cases.

<staff edit>

 

[archaeologist]

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/piltdown.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

i may have got a detail wrong but it certainly didn't warrant the following:

First off, you're conflating Piltdown and Nebraska Man. Second, I doubt you even know enough about either, much less both to understand what really happened in those cases.

<staff edit>

Why is an "incomplete" skeleton not evidence?

because information is missing which could change the conclusion. even the fact of finding a skeleton cannot be construed as complete evidence for their is all sorts of mitigating data which needs to be factored in.

the 'fish' in its present form does not prove it actually walked or that it had what those scientists contend. to much detail is missing to be sure.

plus, the dating of the fossil is exaggerated and cannot be proven to be accurate nor can it be verified so that cannot be included in the analysis.

plus one must consider the effects of Noah's flood and so on. automatically assuming what those scientists did, just shows that they are not interested in the truth but in continuing a theory that has no basis in reality.

 

[archaeologist]

i didn't reverse, i corrected an oversight.
<staff edit>

 

[USincognito]

i didn't reverse, i corrected an oversight.

You didn't get a detail wrong, you conflated to entirely different subjects and demonstrated that you knew nothing about either by citing them, nor why they are irrelavent to this particular thread.
<staff edit>

 

[gwynedd1]

here is the latest article about a discovery which reminds me very much like the biblical account, only the words and dates are changed to fit their comfortable beliefs.

i have said this before, not here, that secular scientists discover much evidence to prove the Bible true but they attribute their discoveries to something else.

that aloneis reason not to accept their thinking as they do not lead to God but away from Him:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience...loodcreatedgreatdividebetweenbritainandfrance

why not justcome out and say it---it was the result of Noah's flood.

Hello archaeologist,

I don't believe any scientists. I have seen enough logical systems work interlarded with useless logic(welcome to computers). The results are the same(just a little slower). It means there is truth in it but I never trust where they pin point it without due process. I try to reason it myself. It does not mean they are of no value but I get heartburn whenever "scientists" pretend they are not dominated by politics and assumptions.
I probably would not call it Noah's flood either but I would certainly bring up flood myths. I have my doubts that such a myth would last 450,000 years so it would certainly seem to conflict with anthropology or its a different flood. I also think humanity could have been quite localized during the time of the flood and may have been the relative world.


Here is one too close for chance and nowhere near the Middle East. There is clearly a record of a flood that impacted a common human ancestry. All of them seem to suggest a start of the human race and the raven and Noah's doves are just too close to ignore.

An Algonquin Legend

The god Michabo was hunting with his pack of trained wolves one day when he saw the strangest sight, the wolves entered a lake and disappeared. He followed them into the water to fetch them and as he did so, the entire world flooded.
Michabo then sent forth a raven to find some soil with which to make a new earth, but the bird returned unsuccessful in its quest.
Then Michabo sent an otter to do the same thing, but again to no avail.
Finally he sent the muskrat and she brought him back enough earth to begin the reconstruction of the world. The trees had lost their branches in the flood, so Michabo shot magic arrows at them that immediately became new branches covered with leaves.
Then Michabo married the muskrat and they became the parents of the human race.

 

[Dannager]

I don't believe any scientists.

Yes, you do.

Unfortunately, intellectual honesty seems to be an anathema to you. You believe scientists where it is convenient for you and deny their findings (even those equally well-supported as anything else you accept!) when you don't like them.

You're using a computer. Right now. As you're reading this. Scientists made that computer. You trusted them to do so. You trust that your computer is, right now, not putting out harmful radiation that with encourage cancer. You trust that your computer will not overheat, spark and light a fire in your house while you're away one day. You trust thousands of other aspects of your life that scientists worked to make possible for you. And you insult them by pretending that in this one area their results are somehow sub-par. What a petty viewpoint to take. Have some respect for the scientific community.

 

[archaeologist]

You didn't get a detail wrong, you conflated to entirely different subjects and demonstrated that you knew nothing about either by citing them, nor why they are irrelavent to this particular thread

this whole post has nothing todo with the topic. if i was sowrong why didn't you post links to demonstrate how wrong i was.

one good thing about God, at least when we make a mistake, we can correct it without being banished permenently to hell.

but this is a typical response by alternative believers to take the focus off the point being made and the fact that science is gullible, error prone, works without facts and evidence to build theories best left to the Brothers Grimm or Hans Christian Anderson.

You trusted them to do so. You trust that your computer is, right now, not putting out harmful radiation that with encourage cancer

you got it wrong, i and others do not trust the scientists, the secular mechanics, dentists and so on; we believe in and trust God that no harm will come to us and at the times we have to depend on the secular world, we trust God is making sure all is done right.

at no time do we put our faith in a secular person or persons.

 

[Dannager]

you got it wrong, i and others do not trust the scientists, the secular mechanics, dentists and so on; we believe in and trust God that no harm will come to us and at the times we have to depend on the secular world, we trust God is making sure all is done right.

at no time do we put our faith in a secular person or persons.

Oh. Okay. So clearly you'd buy your computer from the cheapest source. After all, you trust God to make it work properly. You don't need good manufacturers, just God. It's not like you own a Dell, HP, Compaq, IBM or other name-brand computer. Nah, I'm sure you have some no-name barebones box assembled by a teenager with a screwdriver and a garage. After all, you don't need to trust scientists, just God!

<staff edit> The amount of nonsense you'll try to push on others in order to make it look like your beliefs are coherent is astounding. "No, we don't trust scientists! Ignore the security system in my home! Don't look in my garage at my car, with its airbag deployment system and anti-lock brakes! God will protect me, because I trust God!"

 

[gwynedd1]

Yes, you do.

Unfortunately, intellectual honesty seems to be an anathema to you. You believe scientists where it is convenient for you and deny their findings (even those equally well-supported as anything else you accept!) when you don't like them.

I believe in the results of good engineering. I don't believe in scientists. Hello "I am a scientist so you gotta believe me now".

You're using a computer. Right now. As you're reading this. Scientists made that computer.

You are abusing context. One does not have to believe scientists to believe existential realities created by scientists.

You trusted them to do so. You trust that your computer is, right now, not putting out harmful radiation that with encourage cancer.
You trust that your computer will not overheat, spark and light a fire in your house while you're away one day.

Are you kidding ? Look at what (some) scientist have done to our food supply? Trans fats anyone? I was told that margarine was good because it was made of corn oil. Since I knew butter was supposed to be "bad" because it was hydrogenated and they went ahead an hydrogenated corn oil I knew they were full of it. I stopped margarine consumption in the 80's. I don't trust them.

I told my boss it was stupid to buy E10Ks because very few of them were in service and the hardware problems would be discovered by us. All Microsoft software is considered alpha code by me. Along came the memory issues. I believe in existential realities. If lab tops exploded I would not use them. When scientists make assumptions with no evidence I do not believe them.

You trust thousands of other aspects of your life that scientists worked to make possible for you. And you insult them by pretending that in this one area their results are somehow sub-par. What a petty viewpoint to take. Have some respect for the scientific community.

You must have me confused with a test pilot. There are many sub par almost idiot level scientists. I do not know which one I am dealing with so I look for existential realities. I like Tesla but he produced useful things unlike many other scientists.

 

[Dannager]

I believe in the results of good engineering. I don't believe in scientists. Hello "I am a scientist so you gotta believe me now".

No, don't pull the false dichotomy out.

You believe in scientists' claims when it suits you. You believe a scientist when he tells you "This microchip will not overheat, causing your computer to erupt in sparks and light your house on fire," because that's the reasonable thing to do. Trusting the experts is what every sane person does, because no one person is capable of being an expert in every field. You don't believe a scientist when he tells you "This fossil is millions of years old and is the ancestor species of this other species," because you don't like that idea. Or so it is with most creationists. Your other thread leaves me somewhat confused as to what your particular position is.

You are abusing context. One does not have to believe scientists to believe existential realities created by scientists.

You believe a scientist's conclusions 99.9% of the time, simply because you trust experts. That 00.1% that you don't is not for any rational reason, but simply because of an arbitrary, religiously-motivated belief.

Are you kidding ? Look at what (some) scientist have done to our food supply? Trans fats anyone? I was told that margarine was good because it was made of corn oil. Since I knew butter was supposed to be "bad" because it was hydrogenated and they went ahead an hydrogenated corn oil I knew they were full of it. I stopped margarine consumption in the 80's. I don't trust them.

Yes, you do. You just selectively discard portions of your life where you've been wronged by what you perceive as the scientific community in the past (ignoring the incredibly beneficial impact it's had on your life).

I told my boss it was stupid to buy E10Ks because very few of them were in service and the hardware problems would be discovered by us. All Microsoft software is considered alpha code by me. Along came the memory issues. I believe in existential realities. If lab tops exploded I would not use them. When scientists make assumptions with no evidence I do not believe them.

Scientists never make conclusions without evidence. Evidence for evolution exists. In ridiculous quantity. There is more evidence for evolution than you could possibly hope to fully understand in a lifetime. In the past week there have been two articles on new discoveries in evolutionary biology on the front page of CNN.com. The evidence is clear and mammoth in scope. For whatever reason, though, you deny it.

You must have me confused with a test pilot. There are many sub par almost idiot level scientists. I do not know which one I am dealing with so I look for existential realities. I like Tesla but he produced useful things unlike many other scientists.

No, you just think that's how you make your decisions, but that's because you haven't actually paid attention to your life. Take a day, and every time you use something created by a scientist or founded on a principal that scientists discovered, make a little mental tally. You trust scientists, because you're a sane individual. You arbitrarily discard a small handful of areas of scientific discovery because you're human.

 

[Assyrian]

Are you kidding ? Look at what (some) scientist have done to our food supply? Trans fats anyone? I was told that margarine was good because it was made of corn oil. Since I knew butter was supposed to be "bad" because it was hydrogenated and they went ahead an hydrogenated corn oil I knew they were full of it. I stopped margarine consumption in the 80's. I don't trust them.

And you know hydrogenated vegetable oil is bad how?

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Archie, I have to ask again: what is secular science?

What do you intend us to understand by it?

 

[gwynedd1]

No, don't pull the false dichotomy out.

What false dichotomy? Have you no concept of a hard and soft science? Hard science can produce empirical evidence. When the plane flies thats the proof. I believe that. There are plenty of opinions added to conclusions especially in soft sciences and in many cases they don't tell you this. You are the one setting up the false notion that trusting or taking risks is tantamount to trusting scientists . Since most cars don't blow up I view that as trust worthy over the word of a scientist. In other words performance in the field s by far the most trustworthy. I trust the empirical evidence not scientists.

You believe in scientists' claims when it suits you. You believe a scientist when he tells you "This microchip will not overheat, causing your computer to erupt in sparks and light your house on fire," because that's the reasonable thing to do.

I make concessions. When my house is on fire I trust a fireman as a concession and I choose to take that risk.

Trusting the experts is what every sane person does, because no one person is capable of being an expert in every field. You don't believe a scientist when he tells you "This fossil is millions of years old and is the ancestor species of this other species," because you don't like that idea. Or so it is with most creationists. Your other thread leaves me somewhat confused as to what your particular position is.

Speak for yourself. I research every medication I take. I look at the food I eat and I research reviews by consumers on what I buy. No, I am not entirely convinced we can age things properly. No one was there and I tend to be on the existentialist empiricist side of things. This is especially true in these softer fields of science that do not need to produce hard evidence.

You believe a scientist's conclusions 99.9% of the time, simply because you trust experts. That 00.1% that you don't is not for any rational reason, but simply because of an arbitrary, religiously-motivated belief.

In the case where I must rely on the word of a scientist with no hard evidence you bet I doubt their conclusions.

I tend not to buy the latest thing and look at consumer reports and end user reactions on things I buy. I use common sense and even review research on many things. If you go to a doctor and let them do whatever without understanding what they do thats your choice. The most convincing evidence is what is in the field. The experts said vitamin supplements are good . I said they will find something else not in food that they missed and now its the anti-oxidant craze. The experts said formula was just as good as breast milk.

Use common sense for crying out loud and do not worship scientists as anything other than human beings that do some things well but in those fields that do not produce hard results I assure you it is a hive of deceit and politics. Engineers have a harder time faking it when the plane does not fly. Most things proposed by science are flaming wrecks. Good thing we can test many of them. On the ones we can't, its probably a flaming wrecks worth of opinion.

Yes, you do. You just selectively discard portions of your life where you've been wronged by what you perceive as the scientific community in the past (ignoring the incredibly beneficial impact it's had on your life).

Scientists never make conclusions without evidence.

You are killing me....

Evidence for evolution exists. In ridiculous quantity. There is more evidence for evolution than you could possibly hope to fully understand in a lifetime. In the past week there have been two articles on new discoveries in evolutionary biology on the front page of CNN.com. The evidence is clear and mammoth in scope. For whatever reason, though, you deny it.

Deny what? Evolution? Did I do that somewhere? Evolution is rife with inconstancy and politics this is true. However there are compelling arguments for evolution. However I will reason it for myself.

No, you just think that's how you make your decisions, but that's because you haven't actually paid attention to your life. Take a day, and every time you use something created by a scientist or founded on a principal that scientists discovered, make a little mental tally. You trust scientists, because you're a sane individual. You arbitrarily discard a small handful of areas of scientific discovery because you're human.

I don't trust scientists. I trust individuals , common sense, and the results experienced by the general public. You want to trust anyone who calls themselves a scientist in the age of junk science, be my guest.

 

[Melethiel]

Everyone, behave. Stop making things personal.

 

[gwynedd1]

And you know hydrogenated vegetable oil is bad how?

Hello Assyrian,

I assumed olive oil and other such things we eat preferable because we have been eating them for thousands of years. That is why I did not trust margarine. I did not trust the reasoning behind margarine. I was told corn oil is good because it was not solid at room temperature. However they then hydrogenated it and put it on par with butter while attributing to it the benefits of corn oil. Common sense and it turns out I was right.
We don't trusts scientists. We trust the results .Do you trust an aeronautical engineer without evidence? No. You see the plane fly and then you trust him. When a science has no hard evidence , I am sorry, I am a little skeptical. There is a huge difference between a hard science like flight and geological aging. Nobody was there. Look at dietary science for crying out loud....Using common sense I also considered sugar to be quite bad. Why? Common sense. The moment is enters your mouth it rots away your teeth. So I figured(at the age of 16) it could mean the rest of my body chemistry could be unprepared for this stuff. Cutting sugar did wonders for health from my personal experience. The formula vs Breast milk should have been painfully obvious but the scientists said....
Have a look at artificial sweeteners also note a natural non caloric sweetener called Stevia. That no one has had ill effects in Japan for 30 years is compelling real world evidence of safety.


There is a mixture of money, politics and science all wrapped up into this one. Science has to some extent followed the money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia

 

[archaeologist]

Oh. Okay. So clearly you'd buy your computer from the cheapest source. After all, you trust God to make it work properly. You don't need good manufacturers, just God. It's not like you own a Dell, HP, Compaq, IBM or other name-brand computer. Nah, I'm sure you have some no-name barebones box assembled by a teenager with a screwdriver and a garage. After all, you don't need to trust scientists, just God!

The amount of nonsense you'll try to push on others in order to make it look like your beliefs are coherent is astounding. "No, we don't trust scientists! Ignore the security system in my home! Don't look in my garage at my car, with its airbag deployment system and anti-lock brakes! God will protect me, because I trust God!"

isay that i have faith in God and trust Him so why wouldn't i extend that to what i purchase or have repaired? i am not always in control of who gets to work on my things so it only makes sense to follow God's leading to buy the right items that are safe.

my computer is cheap as i like to be a good steward of my money (a biblical attribute) my car is old so i do not have all the stuff you mention nor gps, an on board computer etc.

i know that people make mistakes so i do not trust them but God which is a biblical thing to do.

what is your problem?

 

[archaeologist]

here is a twist:

why do we not believe or trust secular scientists especially when it comes to creation, the flood and other biblical accounts they wish to investigate.

1. they are not of God nor do they believe in Him
2. they do not believe in Jesus or the Holy Spirit
3. they do not seek to prove the Bible true
4. they think they are the ones who have the authority
to determine what took place when or How God did
what when.

secular scientists and science itself is actually trespassors into a field they do not belong. they do not have the comprehension, the tools, the mindset with which to investigate the Biblcal world or its events. why?

1. they were not there to record or observe what took place.

2. there are very few ancient records which speak on certain events and none for those prior to the flood save the Bible.

3. they are looking at our present to determine the past

4. they do not realize that the past is gone, trampled down by myriads of succeeding events.

5. they do not realize that their 'evidence' is compromised, corrupted, misplaced, out of context, and the reasons for such artifacts being found where they have been, have long died with their previous owners.

6. they do not have the correct tools to measure or investigate that which is gone.

7. it is a theological issue not a scientific one and science is way over its head in investigating biblical events given its present structure and leaders and given God's criteria for understanding those events.

8. they do not look to God for the directions they need to take.

9. they rely on assumptions, conjecture, inferrences, hypothesis everything but the truth.

i could go on but it is very simple, science has intruded into a realm that is not within its authority and has usurped the proper rulers and has run roughshod over its members.

it needs to humble itself and go back to its rightful place and remove itself from issues it was not meant to determine the outcome.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

here is a twist:

.... i could go on but it is very simple, science has intruded into a realm that is not within its authority and has usurped the proper rulers and has run roughshod over its members.
...

Who are the "proper rulers" usurped and who the roughshoddily treated members?

 

[Assyrian]

However they then hydrogenated it and put it on par with butter while attributing to it the benefits of corn oil. Common sense and it turns out I was right.

How do you know?

 

[Dannager]

1. they are not of God nor do they believe in Him

Most Christian scientists have reached the same conclusion. In fact, the first group to tackle and disprove the global flood was a group of Christian scientists. Nice try, though.

2. they do not believe in Jesus or the Holy Spirit

See above.

3. they do not seek to prove the Bible true

Why does it matter what they seek. As long as they seek to discover what is true, they'll reach the same conclusion, right? I mean, the Bible is true, isn't it? And scientists do search for truth.

4. they think they are the ones who have the authority
to determine what took place when or How God did
what when.

Well, yeah. I mean, they do.

secular scientists and science itself is actually trespassors into a field they do not belong.

How is a scientist investigating science trespassing on anything?

they do not have the comprehension, the tools, the mindset with which to investigate the Biblcal world or its events.

Sure they do. You just don't want to acknowledge that, because that would give them credibility in your mind, and that's an uncomfortable prospect.

why?

1. they were not there to record or observe what took place.

You don't need to be present at the event to understand the event. We can study the past and reach the same conclusions as if we were witness to the event first-hand.

2. there are very few ancient records which speak on certain events and none for those prior to the flood save the Bible.

On the contrary, we have lots of ancient writings dated to well over 6,000 years ago. Heck, I read recently about a discovery in China of some precursor symbols to the Chinese alphabet dated to about 8,000 years ago.

3. they are looking at our present to determine the past

No, they're looking at the past to determine the past. This is only a problem in your head.

4. they do not realize that the past is gone, trampled down by myriads of succeeding events.

The past is always there, waiting to be uncovered. And that's what science does. In fact, science has gotten very very good at it.

5. they do not realize that their 'evidence' is compromised, corrupted, misplaced, out of context, and the reasons for such artifacts being found where they have been, have long died with their previous owners.

Science is also very good at dealing with imperfect evidence by collecting more evidence to fill in the missing spaces in our understanding.

6. they do not have the correct tools to measure or investigate that which is gone.

It's not gone. The evidence is still there. You just don't want to admit it.

By the way, creationist double standard #12:

- According to creationists, evolutionists cannot study the past because the evidence is gone or corrupted.
- According to creationists, there is lots of evidence for a global flood occurring in the past.

7. it is a theological issue not a scientific one and science is way over its head in investigating biblical events given its present structure and leaders and given God's criteria for understanding those events.

Nope, it's scientific. Evolution is utterly scientific, in fact.

8. they do not look to God for the directions they need to take.

Now you're just repeating yourself. You already used this one.

9. they rely on assumptions, conjecture, inferrences, hypothesis everything but the truth.

Nah, that's just what you keep trying to get everyone to believe. We're not idiots, archaeologist.

i could go on

No you couldn't, not without repeating yourself. Heck, you already have.

but it is very simple, science has intruded into a realm that is not within its authority and has usurped the proper rulers and has run roughshod over its members.

The proper "rulers" of the scientific realm are scientists. Stop trying to deflect criticism. Defend your position as best you can or leave it.

it needs to humble itself and go back to its rightful place and remove itself from issues it was not meant to determine the outcome.

Remember, creationists, archaeologist says study and thought is bad. Don't study. Don't think. Just blindly follow. Willful ignorance is bliss, right?