why we do not believe secular scientists

gwynedd1 · Jul 24, 2007

USincognito said:
Eggs predate chickens by 300 million years or so. And the LCA of all chickens was an egg before it hatched. It's not the cunondrum people would have us believe.

I keep hearing this all the time, but I never see any specifics. Could you site some hypothesized silly things, bad experiments and faulty assumptions?

Hello USincognito,

I gave plenty of example already and you never heard of Piltdown man(faulty assumption)?
How about the archaeologists who hypothesized the Bible was full of mythical places and people? Depending upon the strength of the evidence the conclusion can be abused.
How about president Hoover(not). Only rich people had phones. The poster child of bad random sampling. Most people assume large samples are good where in reality randomness is the key. In most cases, 30 samples in a truely random search will find the population. The only exception is when looking for traces.

BTW. The egg comment was to display correalted material as having common cause not that one was cause.

Assyrian · Jul 24, 2007

GooberJIL · Jul 24, 2007

gluadys said:
Not when you actually read the article.
The very earliest scrapings at the site, known as Damaidi (大麦&#22320, are between 20,000 and 30,000 years old. The most recent carvings date from the Western Xia period (1032-1227 AD) with the majority of the inscriptions and pictographs dating from about 7,000 years ago.
Emphasis added. It doesn't say that the oldest are writing. Even many of those dated 7-8 thousand years ago are pictographs, not characters.

It depends on which article you read. The general point is that the scientists state as a "fact" the oldest age of the carvings in each article and that age varies up to 22,000 years depending on the source. The specific point I would like answered is, "How did they arrive at their age?" None of the articles give us even a hint about this, but we are to take it as a fact just because a scientist said it. Which postulation about their age are we to believe is inerrant? They claim to have been wrong in the past by the fact that they assign a new age to the carvings. There are only thee possible answers:

1. They were wrong then, but are right now.
2. They were right then, but are wrong now.
3. They were wrong both times.

I think it is number three.

GooberJIL · Jul 24, 2007

GooberJIL said:
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....

...and so another day goes by.

archaeologist · Jul 24, 2007

people wonder why i ignore certainposts, posters or parts of posts. assyrians use of the word authority is designed to find a biblical mandate for secular scientists when the word clearly is refering to something else.

yes i spoke to soon about authority but those verses do not give scientist authority as they refer to governing not research and hypothesis.

secular science and scientists have no authority do determine what took place when,and how nor do they have the right to determine what is or isn't science. their own rules are often violated by themselves as they cannot and have not observed one event when a species has split fromthe family tree and evolved into its own distinct line.

even the homo sapien/neanderthal/homo homo, or whatever latin title they have placed upon old skeletons, is based not upon observation of actual transformation but is purely conjectural based upon distorted investigation of long dead people and scant or minute evidence.

such declarations by secular scientists removes any authority they thought they had as they are not proclaiming the truth but what they want to think happened.

there is a big difference in governments having authority and a bunch of wannabe king makers (secular scientists) declaring what 'took place' in the past.

Rudolph Hucker · Jul 24, 2007

archaeologist said:
people wonder why i ignore certainposts, posters or parts of posts. assyrians use of the word authority is designed to find a biblical mandate for secular scientists when the word clearly is refering to something else.

yes i spoke to soon about authority but those verses do not give scientist authority as they refer to governing not research and hypothesis.

secular science and scientists have no authority do determine what took place when,and how nor do they have the right to determine what is or isn't science. their own rules are often violated by themselves as they cannot and have not observed one event when a species has split fromthe family tree and evolved into its own distinct line.

even the homo sapien/neanderthal/homo homo, or whatever latin title they have placed upon old skeletons, is based not upon observation of actual transformation but is purely conjectural based upon distorted investigation of long dead people and scant or minute evidence.

such declarations by secular scientists removes any authority they thought they had as they are not proclaiming the truth but what they want to think happened.

there is a big difference in governments having authority and a bunch of wannabe king makers (secular scientists) declaring what 'took place' in the past.

But what is "secular science" and who is a "secular scientist"?

Without that key information, your post is bereft of meaning.

Rudolph Hucker · Jul 24, 2007

One more time. The thread title is:-

why we do not believe secular scientists

1. Who are "we"?
2. Who or what are secular scientists?

archaeologist · Jul 24, 2007

Reptiles lay eggs. Reptiles came before birds. Therefore, eggs predate birds

And fish predate reptiles. Eggs were around 300 million years before birds, much less chickens.

these are declarations not prove or evidence. please prove this was the case. do you have scientific observations and corroborration for such events?

Archie, I know you're not one for doing your own research, but Google "Amniota" and see what you get.

why do you keep charging me with what you do? you were asked to provide proof, yet again you failed to do so. i am not going to do your work for you. i do my own.

Rudolph Hucker · Jul 24, 2007

archaeologist said:
these are declarations not prove or evidence. please prove this was the case. do you have scientific observations and corroborration for such events?

why do you keep charging me with what you do? you were asked to provide proof, yet again you failed to do so. i am not going to do your work for you. i do my own.

But you don't Archie, do you? Whenever you are asked for links or sources you say something like

"i am not going to do your work for you."

Click to expand...

USincognito · Jul 24, 2007

gwynedd1 said:
I gave plenty of example already and you never heard of Piltdown man(faulty assumption)?

I most have missed them. Could you link back to the post(s) where you did so? (click on the post number in the upper right hand corner, it will open a window to that post and you can cut and paste the URL)

And yes, I'm not only quite familiar with Piltdown, but I engaged in a formal debate on why Creationists should not cite it as they do in the formal debates section of the Crevo subforum. I'll post a link when I have more bandwidth, but the gist is this. The reason the Piltdown "find" held sway for so long was because there was a question about whether a big brain or bipedalism came first. That question was answered by the 1920s.

gwynedd1 said:
How about the archaeologists who hypothesized the Bible was full of mythical places and people?

It is. It's also full of historical references for which we have archeological evidence. Discerning between the two is just a matter of applying the scientific method and "digging (literally) further.

An oft cited example of this is how archeologists though the Hittites were mythical until Hattusas was discovered and excavated. That's all well and good, but if we'd been able to read Egyptian heiroglyphics, we could have read about Ramases war with them and had two source verification. There's even correspondance from the time of the Aechean Greeks that references three great leaders, Pharoah, the Aechean king and the Hittite king.

gwynedd1 said:
Depending upon the strength of the evidence the conclusion can be abused.

Um, yeah. Interesting how YECs abuse the evidence for the age of the Earth in ways utterly counterintuitive to what conclusions said evidence should lead one towards.

gwynedd1 said:
How about president Hoover(not). Only rich people had phones.

One man's opinion is not how the scientific method works.

gwynedd1 said:
The poster child of bad random sampling. Most people assume large samples are good where in reality randomness is the key. In most cases, 30 samples in a truely random search will find the population. The only exception is when looking for traces.

BTW. The egg comment was to display correalted material as having common cause not that one was cause.

The rest of this stuff makes no sense. And I'm not quite sure what you're talking about with the eggs. Eggs predate chickens by 300 million years and the LCA of chickens was an egg before it hatched. That fact is up for denial, but really isn't up for debate and it's not the clever conundrum people think it is.

gwynedd1 · Jul 24, 2007

USincognito said:
I most have missed them. Could you link back to the post(s) where you did so? (click on the post number in the upper right hand corner, it will open a window to that post and you can cut and paste the URL)

And yes, I'm not only quite familiar with Piltdown, but I engaged in a formal debate on why Creationists should not cite it as they do in the formal debates section of the Crevo subforum. I'll post a link when I have more bandwidth, but the gist is this. The reason the Piltdown "find" held sway for so long was because there was a question about whether a big brain or bipedalism came first. That question was answered by the 1920s.

It is. It's also full of historical references for which we have archeological evidence. Discerning between the two is just a matter of applying the scientific method and "digging (literally) further.

An oft cited example of this is how archeologists though the Hittites were mythical until Hattusas was discovered and excavated. That's all well and good, but if we'd been able to read Egyptian heiroglyphics, we could have read about Ramases war with them and had two source verification. There's even correspondance from the time of the Aechean Greeks that references three great leaders, Pharoah, the Aechean king and the Hittite king.

Um, yeah. Interesting how YECs abuse the evidence for the age of the Earth in ways utterly counterintuitive to what conclusions said evidence should lead one towards.

One man's opinion is not how the scientific method works.

The rest of this stuff makes no sense. And I'm not quite sure what you're talking about with the eggs. Eggs predate chickens by 300 million years and the LCA of chickens was an egg before it hatched. That fact is up for denial, but really isn't up for debate and it's not the clever conundrum people think it is.

USincognito,

What are you looking for exactly? All this apparently started when I suggested that I do no believe any scientist. I believe in empirical results. This was a so called false dichotomy. I responded that soft and hard sciences are a reality where the former cannot produce empirical results and are speculative. As such, they are full of bias and politics. Take your pick of Theoretical Physics, Psychology, Economics, Biochemistry , etc. Origins science is full of this. Even interpretations within hard science are up for grabs.

archaeologist · Jul 24, 2007

It is. It's also full of historical references for which we have archeological evidence. Discerning between the two is just a matter of applying the scientific method and "digging (literally) further

it isn't. what this shows is that there are those who cannot or do not follow God's criteria--faith--- and rely on science instead.

if science cannot verify it then it can't be true. yet, science cannot verify the ressurrection, the crucifixion, heaven, hell or salvation but these are believed solely for the fact the person gets something out of it. But when God asks them to use the same faith for creation, the flood and other Biblical places, people, events they refuse appealing to the scientific method.

sorry but you can't have it both ways. either you take it all on faith or you don't. there is no cherry picking with God.

also, as illustrated by the above example, you never know if science has it right or not and it has been dismissing the truth for generations. which is why we trust God not secular science.

'we' = true believers

'secular science' = all science done outside of God, His leading, His word, led by unbelievers, nonscriptural theories (e.g. evolution, natural selection), all conclusions, research, hypothesis, et al that have no foundation in God or His Word and lead away from Him and the truth. And so on.

studying nature does not qualify science as of God as there is more to it than meets the eye.

Rudolph Hucker · Jul 24, 2007

archaeologist said:
....

'we' = true believers

...

Now correct me if I err, but in your view, does "true believer" include any who do not read the OT in your strictly literal way?

(Well, except those bits that don't apply, of course)

theFijian · Jul 25, 2007

archaeologist said:
people wonder why i ignore certainposts, posters or parts of posts.

I've noticed you tend to ignore posts which show you've made false accusations and when called out you refuse to apologise for them. (I suspect this post will also go ignored)

Assyrian · Jul 25, 2007

gwynedd1 said:
Hello Assyrian,

No. I am saying that scientists are flawed human beings. I work in the IT field where computer "scientists" debate standards and create "ojective" standards bodies such as the "open group"(code for Unix vendors losing out to Sun). Much of it is political hacks posing as pure science but there is no separation. What do I even hypothesize? Is it not what I seek and attempt to prove? Its bias from the beginning.

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.

Why do you think that which is truely innovative is opposed even by the scientific community? You can suggest a change in the color of the curtains but do not dare change the foundations.

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 find correlation coefficients useful. I generated many a Pearson r. Find the valuse and speculate all you want on cause. Taking an aspirin a day is a form of benign gambling. Its perfomance in the field. As I explained, I trust olive oil over magerine because of its solid history. Do I need a scientist in that case? It is those who insist upon cause without evidence that I take issue with.

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.

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

Repeating and creating formulas do not imply understanding. Radiometric dating is not repeatable on that scale. I can drink a glass of water. I can repeat that event but not forever. Carbon dating is good for about 40,000 years last I heard even assuming such.

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

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.

archaeologist · Jul 25, 2007

I've noticed you tend to ignore posts which show you've made false accusations and when called out you refuse to apologise for them. (I suspect this post will also go ignored)

no, some i just don't get to but i see a lot of my material ignored because it forces people to deal with the reality of what they are syaing and they do not want to change their lives.

take for example my post about God waiting till darwin to tell the world the truth and letting all those civilizations die in vain.

not one serious word was addressed towards it because it lays it all out and removes evolution from Christian teachings. don't ask me which thread, i do not remember and i would have to search like the rest of you

theFijian · Jul 25, 2007

archaeologist said:
no, some i just don't get to but i see a lot of my material ignored because it forces people to deal with the reality of what they are syaing and they do not want to change their lives.

No, you just conveniently ignored it when I pointed out that I had not mirepresented or lied about you. I laid out the requisite posts in context to show that I had neither misrepresented you nor lied about you. At first you simply stated that I had then without anything to back this up, then when shown the evidence demostrating your fault you simply ignored it. I can point you in the right direction if needs be then the honest thing to do would be to apologise.

take for example my post about God waiting till darwin to tell the world the truth and letting all those civilizations die in vain.

not one serious word was addressed towards it because it lays it all out and removes evolution from Christian teachings. don't ask me which thread, i do not remember and i would have to search like the rest of you

I took a wee look at the Darwin thread but gave up before not too long as your thesis was a complete non-sequitur. Needless to say that nobody is saved or can be saved by Darwin, so your assertion that God let pre-Darwin civilisations die in vain does not follow in the remotest.

Assyrian · Jul 25, 2007

archaeologist said:
no, some i just don't get to but i see a lot of my material ignored because it forces people to deal with the reality of what they are syaing and they do not want to change their lives.

theFijian said:
No, you just conveniently ignored it when I pointed out that I had not mirepresented or lied about you. I laid out the requisite posts in context to show that I had neither misrepresented you nor lied about you. At first you simply stated that I had then without anything to back this up, then when shown the evidence demostrating your fault you simply ignored it. I can point you in the right direction if needs be then the honest thing to do would be to apologise.

Yeah, I have had the same problem. Archie makes false accusations, and when you show what was actually said, he completely ignores it.

Originally posted by archaeologist
take for example my post about God waiting till darwin to tell the world the truth and letting all those civilizations die in vain.

not one serious word was addressed towards it because it lays it all out and removes evolution from Christian teachings. don't ask me which thread, i do not remember and i would have to search like the rest of you

It was in the thread is creation outside of science's scope?

archaeologist said:
which is key to dismantling belief in the theory of evolution.

many here have said that they have 150 years of scientific study to back them up and prove their theory true, most say they are christian and say the believe God.

BUT if the truth has only come out in the last 150 years where was God all this time? why would He allow His writers, who were faithful and obeyed Him to write that which is not true, then leave it that way for thousands of years?

Why would God use someone who did not believe in Him, and was probably very angry that God would let His daughter die, nor followed His commands, etc. to provide the modern world with 'the truth'.

what about all those civilizations before darwin? they all died without this knowledge, is God that cruel to let such a hoax persist for millenia and have billions die woithout hope of salvation?

we know that evolution was not preached during the ancient civilizations, so what of them.

why would God set apart the Israelites and send His son, who also recognized the genesis account as true,for salvation when He knew the people were reading the old testament and getting a 'false' story?

why didn't Jesus correct Moses when He was here on earth, setting the record straight instead of having peter and paul reiterate the old testament events as literally true?

instead Jesus quoted Moses' writings as literally true?

evolution does not exist, and those who subscribe to it are being deceived as God never used that process or natural selection to do His work.

The Biblical writers wrote what God wanted them to write, with the Holy Spirit very much involved as to what was written and there is no lie contained therein.

there is no evolutionary process, no natural selection that did God's work for Him.

Jesus once said about heaven and going to prepare a place for those who believe in Him, "i tell you the truth... if it were not so, i would tell you..."

the same honesty applies for all the Bible, if it were any different, God would have written His word so we would know because God does not lie.

It was a bit of a long section, containing a number of different claims, but I addressed the your claim about no salvation before Darwin at length.

Assyrian said:
Does the bible contain a lie because it does not mention that the earth is a sphere? Was God perpetuating a cruel hoax because the bible doesn't say the earth is rotating and orbits the sun?

There is no mention of gravitation that holds the earth in orbit around the sun. Did billions die without hope of salvation because they believed the sun moved around the earth? Could people only be saved once Copernicus and Newton (who denied the Trinity) revealed the science behind motion of the solar system. Do your really think salvation depends on scientific knowledge? What about the people before Watson and Crick who did not know DNA was a double helix? Are they not saved either?

We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, not by a correct interpretation of Genesis or the correct interpretation of any of the processes mentioned in scripture like the movement of the sun and moon. People did not lose their salvation if they thought the ends of the earth was literal, nor was God deceiving them and perpetuating a hoax.

All you could say in response was to complain about 'the same tired old arguments' and 'going to the absurd' and claim that accepting evolution was disobeying God.

Assyrian · Jul 25, 2007

assyrians use of the word authority is designed to find a biblical mandate for secular scientists when the word clearly is refering to something else.

No I never felt a particular need to find a mandate for science. God made us that way. We want to explore and learn about the amazing world around us, the world God created.

However if you are going to make unfounded claim that scientists have no authority to study the world, then I am going to compare your claim to what the bible says.

yes i spoke to soon about authority but those verses do not give scientist authority as they refer to governing not research and hypothesis.

Read the post. I established the God has given kings and governments authority in contradiction to your claim. I have shown that it is right for kings to carry out research, according to the words of Solomon himself, and I have show how kings and governments delegated that authority and responsibility to Royal Societies and Universities. Deal with the post and the scripture I quoted.

secular science and scientists have no authority do determine what took place when,and how nor do they have the right to determine what is or isn't science. their own rules are often violated by themselves as they cannot and have not observed one event when a species has split fromthe family tree and evolved into its own distinct line.

even the homo sapien/neanderthal/homo homo, or whatever latin title they have placed upon old skeletons, is based not upon observation of actual transformation but is purely conjectural based upon distorted investigation of long dead people and scant or minute evidence.

such declarations by secular scientists removes any authority they thought they had as they are not proclaiming the truth but what they want to think happened.

there is a big difference in governments having authority and a bunch of wannabe king makers (secular scientists) declaring what 'took place' in the past.

Was Darwin a 'wannabe king maker'? And I do not follow how scientific research 'removes any authority they thought they had'. That makes no sense at all. Scientific research has government mandate and you have no authority to remove it.

daas · Jul 25, 2007

archaeologist said:
"yet, science cannot verify the ressurrection, the crucifixion, heaven, hell or salvation but these are believed solely for the fact the person gets something out of it. But when God asks them to use the same faith for creation, the flood and other Biblical places, people, events they refuse appealing to the scientific method.

sorry but you can't have it both ways. either you take it all on faith or you don't. there is no cherry picking with God."

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.

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.

why we do not believe secular scientists

Senior Veteran

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Junior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency