Christian scientist..

[hmbld]

38 minutes ago, Ezra said:

1. Because it is pure fantasy, and Christians deal in reality.

2. Because it is a diversion of wealth for non-productive and wasteful expenditures.

3. Because even if it were true, there is no saving this planet from total supernatural burning and cleansing, in order to bring the New Earth into existence.

Maybe its #3 everyone is trying to disprove!  lol

[Tristen]

It somewhat depends what you mean by the scientific community.

You could get an undergraduate degree and then a scientific job, and do you job well without any compromise to Christianity whatsoever.

However, if you desire to get a PhD and be involved in research and get published, you would want to keep creationist views to yourself until you have established a career - as there is an overt bias against such ideas in the secular scientific community, which will close off opportunities for you if you make your creationist beliefs known. But just saying you are a Christian, in-general, usually doesn't present any problems.

[HisFirst]

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

It somewhat depends what you mean by the scientific community.

You could get an undergraduate degree and then a scientific job, and do you job well without any compromise to Christianity whatsoever.

However, if you desire to get a PhD and be involved in research and get published, you would want to keep creationist views to yourself until you have established a career - as there is an overt bias against such ideas in the secular scientific community, which will close off opportunities for you if you make your creationist beliefs known. But just saying you are a Christian, in-general, usually doesn't present any problems.

Hmm interesting.

Thank you.

[HisFirst]

On 28/11/2016 at 3:39 AM, Dave LP said:

Greeting!

I'm just a layman myself but I'd like to share a recent poll:

 "just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power"

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

I'm not saying 51% are Christian, the study didn't get that specific but it does seem to confirm your suspicions many scientists are Christians.  What is interesting is the study found only 41% of scientists don't believe, a minority.  I think most of what scientists do doesn't depend on what they believe.  It's the rare controversial stuff that bears on their worldview that gets all the attention.

Just throwing this out there, the guy who invented the MRI, Raymond Vahan Damadian is a creationist.

Blessings!

-Dave

   

 

 

Thank you Dave.

[HisFirst]

On 28/11/2016 at 5:51 AM, Enoch2021 said:

YES.  It's actually the 'ONLY PART' in the REAL 'Scientific Community" --- Chemistry/Biochemistry, Genetics, and Quantum Mechanics: there is no other coherent position.

 

The 'huge pressure' will come from the "Religions":   paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, geology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics 'non-experimental' ---astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology. 

Crocheting is more "SCIENTIFIC" than these CLOWNS...COMBINED !!!!

The first six pretenders can't get to the First Step of the Scientific Method 'Observe a Phenomenon' ("SCIENCE") without a Time Machine.  The three final masqueraders can't formulate Scientific Hypotheses because they lack VIABLE  **Independent Variables**; Ergo...CAN'T ISOLATE, TEST, then VALIDATE their Dependent Variables (*Predictions*)...Step 3 Hypothesis (*"SCIENCE"*). Hard STOP!!

 

Once you remove the Equivocation Fallacy with "SCIENCE"; then, there actually is no problem. 

 

regards

 

? Thank you - wish I was more science minded but it interests me hugely nonetheless.

Edited December 2, 2016 by HisFirst

[HisFirst]

On 29/11/2016 at 11:12 AM, Ezra said:

1. Because it is pure fantasy, and Christians deal in reality.

2. Because it is a diversion of wealth for non-productive and wasteful expenditures.

3. Because even if it were true, there is no saving this planet from total supernatural burning and cleansing, in order to bring the New Earth into existence.

Ezra, thank you for replying? I'm still in two minds about global warming - I need to find out more?

[Guest shiloh357]

We were told back 2001 that if we didn't change, in 10 years the polar icecaps would melt and certain animals would be extinct and what wasn't under water would be on fire.   Well 15 years later, we didn't change and those predictions never came true.

Global warming doesn't have as much support from the scientific world as the media would lead us to believe.  We are just supposed to shut up and accept it, no questions asked.   Same with Evolution.  We are to assume the issue is settled and that scientists are correct and to question them is to be subject oneself to ridicule and derision.

[Enoch2021]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

We were told back 2001 that if we didn't change, in 10 years the polar icecaps would melt and certain animals would be extinct and what wasn't under water would be on fire.   Well 15 years later, we didn't change and those predictions never came true.

Because they weren't 'Scientific Predictions' to begin with...

There's a Big Difference between Scientific "Predictions" and: Jeanne Dixon, Edgar Cayce, Nostradamus, Jimmy "the Greek", and Carnival Tent "Predictions". 

That is, Scientific PREDICTIONS are the Consequent of the NECESSARY Antecedent,"Independent Variables" !!! 

 

Scientific Hypothesis - a special kind of prediction that forecasts how the independent variable will affect the dependent variable.

http://www.csef.colostate.edu/resources/vocabulary.pdf

 

"Notice there are two parts to a formalized hypothesis: the “if” portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the “then” portion is the prediction of expected results from an experiment.  An acceptable hypothesis contains both aspects, not just the prediction portion."

http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm

There is no Viable "Independent Variable", hence --- no Viable Scientific Hypothesis, hence --- No "Science".

 

Quote

Global warming doesn't have as much support from the scientific world

Because it isn't "Science".

 

Quote

We are just supposed to shut up and accept it, no questions asked.   Same with Evolution. 

evolution isn't "Scientific" either; heck, nobody can even define it -- save for 'Change' 

 

Quote

We are to assume the issue is settled and that scientists are correct ...

No actual "Scientists" have weighed in on the matter...mostly because, it's not "Science".

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

13 hours ago, Tristen said:

However, if you desire to get a PhD and be involved in research and get published, you would want to keep creationist views to yourself until you have established a career - as there is an overt bias against such ideas in the secular scientific community

Well because the Secular 'Scientific Community' are demonstrable Metaphysical Pseudo-Scientific Priests.

 

And, as for PhD's...

 

(courtesy of: Professor Stuart Firestein, chair of Biological Sciences Columbia University)

So basically, you know a Whole Truckload about... next to Nothing.  (Post Docs are in the 'negative'  )

 

regards

[Tristen]

3 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Well because the Secular 'Scientific Community' are demonstrable Metaphysical Pseudo-Scientific Priests.

 

And, as for PhD's...

 

(courtesy of: Professor Stuart Firestein, chair of Biological Sciences Columbia University)

So basically, you know a Whole Truckload about... next to Nothing.  (Post Docs are in the 'negative'  )

 

regards

 

Hi Enoch,

You said, “Well because the Secular 'Scientific Community' are demonstrable Metaphysical Pseudo-Scientific Priests”

I think that only really applies to people engaged in historical disciplines (e.g. the studies of Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry). And I think most of them would come under the umbrella of deceived, rather than being intentionally dishonest. But there are some (like Dawkins, deGrassy-Tyson, Hawking, etc. and their ilk) who push the secular line religiously – i.e. exaggerating the confidence in secular theories beyond what is logically justified by the facts.

However, there are many people in the non-Christian cohort of society who have a sincere interest in the natural world, and so pursue educations and careers in investigating the natural world. Contrary to populist myth, Common Ancestry is not necessary for the overwhelming majority of scientific endeavours. The assumption of Common Ancestry is only really ever required to underpin “evolutionary” claims. This is true despite the fact that “evolution” tries to lay claim to all of biology (and bits and pieces of other disciplines such as geology) – which is of course ridiculous.