[_ Old Earth _] Instant experts

[Heidi]

The trouble is, that most people can't think for themselves. They automatically look to people who have done what their teachers wanted and completed coursework to receive letters after their names. Then once a person receives his diploma he is considered an instant expert in the field in which he majored, even if the teachers gave him false information. Then people say; "yeah, yeah, this guy knows what his talking about", instead of seeing that the person has only taken the first stept toward getting a decent-paying job!

So people who don't believe in God are up the creek without a paddle because they don't know who to believe; today's sciencists or tomorrow's sciencists who correct today's sciencists. And since scientists all disagree with each other even in the same generation, then people are really in the dark!

But concerning evolution, all it takes is basic logic and observation of reality to see what apes and humans breed. And that's why Jesus said to come to him as little children who instincitively understand the reality around them. They do not analyze, twist and distort reality. They simply observe it.

 

[Quadeshet]

The problem with that, Heidi, is that you base 'truth' on belief, not knowledge.

Would you be willing to accept a new religion if one were presented as having more evidence for truth than your own? No, probably not. This is because you believe the religion you follow is correct.

Scientists don't believe they are right: they know it. Knowledge means accepting the best evidence, and being prepared to revise ideas as more evidence comes along. It is pretty much the opposite to belief.

There are christians who accept the knowledge that evolution is the best answer to the development of life on the planet, and still believe that there is a god.

And as to your last part, children in no way 'instinctively understand the world around them.' It takes years of cognitive development. Have you ever taken a psych class? Children are little ego monsters with little objective reason.

 

[Heidi]

The problem with that, Heidi, is that you base 'truth' on belief, not knowledge.

Would you be willing to accept a new religion if one were presented as having more evidence for truth than your own? No, probably not. This is because you believe the religion you follow is correct.

Scientists don't believe they are right: they know it. Knowledge means accepting the best evidence, and being prepared to revise ideas as more evidence comes along. It is pretty much the opposite to belief.

There are christians who accept the knowledge that evolution is the best answer to the development of life on the planet, and still believe that there is a god.

And as to your last part, children in no way 'instinctively understand the world around them.' It takes years of cognitive development. Have you ever taken a psych class? Children are little ego monsters with little objective reason.

Nope. Fallibility only leads to fallibility, my friend. And until you learn that, you will seek infallible truth from a fallible human mind which is an oxymoron. I already did that for 38 years and was left in th same place I was as an infant with no knowledge of God. You are then again stuck trying to figure out which fallible man has the truth and your eternal fate will be decided on a guess. I don't know wbout you, but i don't want to gamble my soul on a guess. You can if you like.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

I'd bask in the glow of the irony from that first sentence Heidi, but nuclear explosions have been dimmer and make less cancer causing radiation.

From someone who gets all her knowledge from her bible and pastor, this is juicy stuff.

If someone has spent 4-12 years studying a topic, then calling them an expert is an easy thing to do, especially if they're say a scientist who's had to study, observe and understand their field in order to be given that degree. They aren't instant experts, it takes time, commitment, and serious work to reach a diploma in any of the sciences that you manage to so carelessly throw aside. You could at least show the respect to attempt to learn what the theory of evolution is, but that I won't hold my breath for.

 

[Quadeshet]

Heh, Syntax, I wasn't even going to go there.

Who would you consider an 'expert' Heidi? It doesn't have to be a scientist.

How does an expert qualify themselves?

Are you an expert on creationism?

 

[Heidi]

I'd bask in the glow of the irony from that first sentence Heidi, but nuclear explosions have been dimmer and make less cancer causing radiation.

From someone who gets all her knowledge from her bible and pastor, this is juicy stuff.

If someone has spent 4-12 years studying a topic, then calling them an expert is an easy thing to do, especially if they're say a scientist who's had to study, observe and understand their field in order to be given that degree. They aren't instant experts, it takes time, commitment, and serious work to reach a diploma in any of the sciences that you manage to so carelessly throw aside. You could at least show the respect to attempt to learn what the theory of evolution is, but that I won't hold my breath for.

So all the scientists in the 19th century who believed in phrenology were right? :o You can learn a lot from historical perspective, my friend. You can also learn a lot by listening to the news and the latest findings in science which contradict previous findings. Only when you acknowledge the fallibility of man will you listen to scientists with a grain of salt. They're only right when they agree with God's word. And if you don't understand that now, I can assure you you will when you die. :wink:

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

I'd bask in the glow of the irony from that first sentence Heidi, but nuclear explosions have been dimmer and make less cancer causing radiation.

From someone who gets all her knowledge from her bible and pastor, this is juicy stuff.

If someone has spent 4-12 years studying a topic, then calling them an expert is an easy thing to do, especially if they're say a scientist who's had to study, observe and understand their field in order to be given that degree. They aren't instant experts, it takes time, commitment, and serious work to reach a diploma in any of the sciences that you manage to so carelessly throw aside. You could at least show the respect to attempt to learn what the theory of evolution is, but that I won't hold my breath for.

So all the scientists in the 19th century who believed in phrenology were right? :o You can learn a lot from historical perspective, my friend. You can also learn a lot by listening to the news and the latest findings in science which contradict previous findings. Only when you acknowledge the fallibility of man will you listen to scientists with a grain of salt. They're only right when they agree with God's word. And if you don't understand that now, I can assure you you will when you die. :wink:

My argument implies no such thing. Science acknowledges its error and attempts to quantify it.

Scientists don't need to worry about the agreement of their findings with scripture or those who interpret it, because that's not what they're studying. Science has been in conflict with plenty of biblical teachings for centuries, or more specifically it has been in conflict with at least one teaching of each major stance on the bible, more so especially with fundamentalists and their intellectually void theology of biblical literalism.

I really don't care what you think about my postvivial prospects, you haven't shown the least bit of interest in anything I have ever said and I don't feel I should extend to you the same courtesy.

 

[Heidi]

I'd bask in the glow of the irony from that first sentence Heidi, but nuclear explosions have been dimmer and make less cancer causing radiation.

From someone who gets all her knowledge from her bible and pastor, this is juicy stuff.

If someone has spent 4-12 years studying a topic, then calling them an expert is an easy thing to do, especially if they're say a scientist who's had to study, observe and understand their field in order to be given that degree. They aren't instant experts, it takes time, commitment, and serious work to reach a diploma in any of the sciences that you manage to so carelessly throw aside. You could at least show the respect to attempt to learn what the theory of evolution is, but that I won't hold my breath for.

So all the scientists in the 19th century who believed in phrenology were right? :o You can learn a lot from historical perspective, my friend. You can also learn a lot by listening to the news and the latest findings in science which contradict previous findings. Only when you acknowledge the fallibility of man will you listen to scientists with a grain of salt. They're only right when they agree with God's word. And if you don't understand that now, I can assure you you will when you die. :wink:

My argument implies no such thing. Science acknowledges its error and attempts to quantify it.

Scientists don't need to worry about the agreement of their findings with scripture or those who interpret it, because that's not what they're studying. Science has been in conflict with plenty of biblical teachings for centuries, or more specifically it has been in conflict with at least one teaching of each major stance on the bible, more so especially with fundamentalists and their intellectually void theology of biblical literalism.

I really don't care what you think about my postvivial prospects, you haven't shown the least bit of interest in anything I have ever said and I don't feel I should extend to you the same courtesy.

If you want to put your faith in fallible human beings, then be my guest. But you will only get fallibility. If you always want to be right, then agree with God. if you always want to be wrong, then disagree with him. And if you think that you or anyone on this earth knows better than God, then you will be held accountable for your arrogance. You will also find out when you die just how deluded you were, my friend. Jesus said; "He who exalts himslef will be humbled and he who humbles himself will be exalted." Wise people listen to him; foolish people don't. The choice is yours.

 

[Quid]

If you want to put your faith in fallible human beings, then be my guest. But you will only get fallibility.

Please stop using medicine then. There are more deserving people. Best stop using the computer since it was something made by those wacky scientists.

 

[Heidi]

If you want to put your faith in fallible human beings, then be my guest. But you will only get fallibility.

Please stop using medicine then. There are more deserving people. Best stop using the computer since it was something made by those wacky scientists.

Medicines are being pulled off the shelf, sometimes as fast as they're put on the shelf because of the side affects and in some cases, actually causing the diseases they were invented to cure! Hormone Replace Therapy is one such medication. In addition, all bacteria and viruses will eventually become resistant to medicine because it is the job of each cell (including bacterial cells) to survive. So medicines are as temporary as the theories of scientists. In addition, doctors don't have the cure to terminal illnesses because we all die. But Jesus does. :angel:

 

[Solo]

If you want to put your faith in fallible human beings, then be my guest. But you will only get fallibility.

Please stop using medicine then. There are more deserving people. Best stop using the computer since it was something made by those wacky scientists.

Quit breathing the air and drinking the water that God created then, pardner. :D

And you don't have to prove whether you deserve it or not, God already knows.

 

[Guest]

In addition, all bacteria and viruses will eventually become resistant to medicine because it is the job of each cell (including bacterial cells) to survive.

Isn't that a mechanism of evolution you are describing?

So medicines are as temporary as the theories of scientists. In addition, doctors don't have the cure to terminal illnesses because we all die. But Jesus does.

So because scientists haven't found the cure to terminal illnesses yet that means they won't? If it were easy to cure diseases everyone would be doing it.

Unfortunately it may be longer than it would have been thanks to creation/ID advocates efforts to weaken science education in the U.S thereby slowing scientific progress. After all a person can't study science to possibly cure diseases if he is being taught a phony definition of science.

 

[Heidi]

In addition, all bacteria and viruses will eventually become resistant to medicine because it is the job of each cell (including bacterial cells) to survive.

Isn't that a mechanism of evolution you are describing?

[quote:3d265]So medicines are as temporary as the theories of scientists. In addition, doctors don't have the cure to terminal illnesses because we all die. But Jesus does.

So because scientists haven't found the cure to terminal illnesses yet that means they won't? If it were easy to cure diseases everyone would be doing it.

Unfortunately it may be longer than it would have been thanks to creation/ID advocates efforts to weaken science education in the U.S thereby slowing scientific progress. After all a person can't study science to possibly cure diseases if he is being taught a phony definition of science.[/quote:3d265]

No it's not a mechanism of evolution because evolution doesn't exist. It's called basic biology.

 

[Loren Michael]

In addition, all bacteria and viruses will eventually become resistant to medicine because it is the job of each cell (including bacterial cells) to survive.

Isn't that a mechanism of evolution you are describing?

No it's not a mechanism of evolution because evolution doesn't exist. It's called basic biology.

...pardon me if i sound snippy, but in basic biology you are actaully taught that that is a mechanizm of evolution. "basic biology" is essentially meaningless without evolution. ergo, "No it's not a mechanism of evolution because evolution doesn't exist. It's called basic biology." is without meaning. you had it right the first time, when you were actually describing one of the facets of evolution.

 

[Heidi]

In addition, all bacteria and viruses will eventually become resistant to medicine because it is the job of each cell (including bacterial cells) to survive.

Isn't that a mechanism of evolution you are describing?

No it's not a mechanism of evolution because evolution doesn't exist. It's called basic biology.

...pardon me if i sound snippy, but in basic biology you are actaully taught that that is a mechanizm of evolution. "basic biology" is essentially meaningless without evolution. ergo, "No it's not a mechanism of evolution because evolution doesn't exist. It's called basic biology." is without meaning. you had it right the first time, when you were actually describing one of the facets of evolution.

Not in the 19th century, my friend. And there is still a lot of debate about how harmful it is to teach kids that animals breed humans. And this is precisely why earning a Ph.d does not make someone an instant expert, particularly if he is receiving faulty teachings in schools. All it does is re-inforce those faulty teachings. And since science books are constantly being updated, students are receiving faulty teachings every generation even by the admission of scientists themselves!

So if you want to continue the delusion that animals can breed human beings, then be my guest. You can always find people in the world who can't distinguish truth from fiction concerning what kind of offspring each animal breeds, so there will always be people in agreement with you. You're one of the people who seems to believe everything a fallible human being says, particularly if he plays teacher's pet and earns enough credits to receive a degree. You then set yourself up to be very easily deceived, my friend.

 

[Guest]

No it's not a mechanism of evolution because evolution doesn't exist. It's called basic biology.

What you described earlier is evidence that evolution exists. Evolution is part of basic biology; simply denying this doesn't make it so.

And there is still a lot of debate about how harmful it is to teach kids that animals breed humans.

Actually animals do breed humans because humans are animals, which is part of basic biology.

And this is precisely why earning a Ph.d does not make someone an instant expert, particularly if he is receiving faulty teachings in schools. All it does is re-inforce those faulty teachings. And since science books are constantly being updated, students are receiving faulty teachings every generation even by the admission of scientists themselves!

There is nothing instant about earning a Ph.d. People have to work hard and long to do so. And the facts they unearth after they do so also comes about by hard work. So it is sad to see their hard work simply waved aside by people who don't understand the facts.

Science books are changed because scientists through their hard work find new information and so they include that information to upgrade the books.

Microsoft will probably make changes to Word for the next update, as they find better ways to make the software. But because they change the software doesn't mean the current edition is completely bad.

And scientists who may make changes to parts of the Theory of Evolution, as they find better information. But that doesn't mean the Theory of Evolution is wrong.

 

[Rick W]

No it's not a mechanism of evolution because evolution doesn't exist. It's called basic biology.

Evolution is part of basic biology

Actually animals do breed humans because humans are animals, which is part of basic biology.




And scientists who may make changes to parts of the Theory of Evolution, as they find better information. But that doesn't mean the Theory of Evolution is wrong.

You treat evolution as fact then simultaneously admit it's a theory.
Many do this. Almost all documentaries on past life invariably begin with.. "10 million years ago ..." or "When man evolved.." with no distinction made between theory and fact. The normalization that the theory is correct seems to make it a fact before it's proven.

 

[Quid]

You treat evolution as fact then simultaneously admit it's a theory.

I'd imagine you treat gravity the same way. It's only a theory after all.

 

[Guest]

You treat evolution as fact then simultaneously admit it's a theory.
Many do this. Almost all documentaries on past life invariably begin with.. "10 million years ago ..." or "When man evolved.." with no distinction made between theory and fact. The normalization that the theory is correct seems to make it a fact before it's proven.

Evolution (what) is a fact. The Theory of Evolution (how) is a scientific theory.

Nothing is proven in science, but a scientific theory comes about as close to fact as anything in science.

 

[dad]

Evolution (what) is a fact. The Theory of Evolution (how) is a scientific theory.

.

Evolution from a common ancestor is absolutely not a fact. If you mean the process of evolution, or what many prefer to call adaption, I won't argue the point, cause it's moot anyhow. (You'd need to prove old ages which you can't do for starters) A very misleading claim, because many people think of 'evolution' as the old ages story that has been used to supplant the creation story. You know, where we all came from the magically appearing lifeform, that came from non life, and God didn't 'really' create us in a week as the bible says..