So, you are saying that scientist are always objective? They would never falsify data or misrepresent it? They are pure at heart and always want the truth, never financial gain, or self-promotion? WOW!
I know you weren't talking to me but.... of course they aren't always subjective. sometimes they are intentionally biased and sometimes they are unintentionlly biased. they are humans after all. fortunately, science has the peer review process which helps spot and weed out a lot of the biased research and analyses. it's not a perfect process, but it's been sufficient for science to make some pretty amazing progress over the years.
I should become a scientist (however you get that title) so I can be 100% truth.
You seem pretty critical of science for someone who claims to not know how to get the title of scientist! These days you usually go to college and get a degree in a scientific field and then you get a job doing some kind of scientific research. You make it sound like any bozo off the street can start calling himself a legitmate scientist. I agree that you should become a scientist though. It would help you clear up some of your apparent misconceptions about "science" and "scientists".
Scientist love to hop over that boundary between fact and faith.
Are you sure that's a reasonable generalization to make? I mean there are a lot of scientists in the world. Personally I think very few like to "hop over that boundary between fact and faith". Maybe you just think that's what they are doing because you don't understand what they are dealing with as well as them. Could that be possible? I appreciate your skepticism, but I think your claim is totally unwarranted.
They take small amounts of data to build a big picture and call it proven.
This is not my experience with science. all scientific knowledge is somewhat tentative in nature. that's why we don't have a bunch of "laws" in science. we call what we know about gravity theories. we call what we know about evolution theories. we call heliocentrism a theory. (even though in science the word theory is used a bit differently) I understand that sometimes the tentative nature of scientific knowledge can seem to be glossed over though.
Faith is the ability to believe without seeing, and there are a lot of “scientific” theories and ideas that leap over fact and into faith.
Well faith in science is generally different than religious faith to be sure. In religious faith you take something to be the complete and utter truth, without a body of supportive and objective empirical evidence, and you base many of your beliefs about life on it. In science faith is more like "thinking something is true because there appears to be a reasonable amount of empirical evidence suggesting it's true". You don't base your life around it. You just think something is probably right, and if it someday turns out to be proven wrong, well it's not that big of a deal, life goes on. Whereas when someone realizes their religious faith is wrong their entire world can get turned upside down.
Faith is the ability to believe without seeing, and there are a lot of “scientific” theories and ideas that leap over fact and into faith. Because most evolutionist rule out the possibility of the existence of a God, they would never even consider the possibility of a “creator” or “designer” so any evidence, regardless of how lucrative or miniscule would automatically be dismissed as “not science” but faith. It amazes me just how faithful science is.
Well science deals in empirical data. Is there any empirical data that a creator exists? Science would most likely postulate a creator if the idea was suggested by a body of empirical data. That's not science being faithful, that's science using the type of data that has been proven to yield the most reliable results.
I watch the History Channel and it seems that science argues with science all the time. It also seems that the most popular idea is the one that is “fact”. I watched a show on the origin of life and it truly amazed me. They argued back and forth about things they had no idea about.
I saw most of that too. I think you're mistaken in your implication that all they did was talk about speculation as if it were fact. Do you think just because they couldn't cram every bit of knowledge and evidence they have about evolution into an hour long TV program that they don't know anything about it? it's a TV show for laymen to enjoy. they give you the interesting snippets without showing, and trying to explain to you the entire body of evidence that supports their ideas. however, sometimes in science, speculation
is done. but scientists generally try to keep it pretty clear when they are speculating. and it's necessary to do from time to time so new hypotheses to be tested can be thought up.
It was a bunch of interesting theories and possibilities, but even under the most controlled experiments, they could not reproduce organic material from inorganic.
That was done in 1953 at the University of Chicago by Miller and Urey.
Miller—Urey experiment - Wikipedia
quote:
At the end of one week of continuous operation Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds.
also
quote:
This experiment inspired many experiments in a similar vein. In 1961, Joan Or found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. He also found that his experiment produced a large amount of the nucleotide base adenine
That isn't to say that they aren't criticisms over the validity of the experiements (this is the peer review process coming into play) but indeed organic compounds have made from inorganic substances before.
And they expect me to just “believe” in good “faith” that it was some kind of freak accident?
Oh no, not at all. You aren't supposed to believe anything in good faith in science. no real scientist expects that. why do you think they do? are you sure you're just not looking into things very in depth for yourself? if you want to understand all the reasons they think what they think, you have to do more than watch a 1 hour cable television program. they're not just pulling this stuff out of their butts, there's loads of evidence for most of what they say, and like I said before, even then the conclusions are realized to be somewhat tentative. part of what the program was showing you was that the we don't know exactly what the origin of life was. but we know some things about the world, and we know some things about life, so we have some ideas.
What is this mysterious force of evolution and what fuels it? It seems to have no consciousness, but, out of nothing, create everything including human thought and emotion. Interesting . .
The source of natural selection and why it exists is an interesting question. It's an amazingly powerful force indeed though.
I don’t trust what the latest greatest scientific discovery is any more that a politician promising to lower the gas prices or a priest saying its wrong to drink. There are always more things to question, not just taking the word of a person full of flaws.
I just ask that you remember that you get to type on a computer on the internet about how unreliable science is because of the sucessful utilization of a great number of scientific achievements. bit ironic really.
™ Version 4.2
