Suspicion Against Scientists?

[Tristen]

10 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This is a gross exaggeration and you know it.

And you think that scientists have not been doing this for years?

But sure, stick with your complaint against the use of logical fallacies...

 

“This is a gross exaggeration and you know it”

Saying “We are the experts. Do what we say because we know what is best for your child” is the direct implication of appealing to expertise rather than rational argument. Obviously, they know well enough not to word it that way – but that's exactly what it means - and that is exactly why people are cautious not to trust those who make such arguments.

 

“ And you think that scientists have not been doing this for years? But sure, stick with your complaint against the use of logical fallacies...”

You're not being consistent. I only take issue with the use of logic fallacies. I have no issue with those who support their conclusions with rational arguments. I didn't claim anything about how often scientists do or don't provide arguments. I have absolutely no problem with those who have “been doing this for years”. I only claim that logic fallacies are logically fallacious – for reasons of logic. People seeking information from science deserve arguments and evidence, not fallacy.

[thomas t]

19 hours ago, Cletus said:

every single study done by scientists to prove homosexuality is genetic has either used manipulated data, fsalsified data, or no controls were used.

Hi Cletus,

please, could you please prove your point that every single study in this field has used manipulated or falsified data, or no controls were used?

Please go ahead, cite every single study about it, and I will name studies if you fail to cite all of them, and then specify which data it was that they falsified, and please provide what you think the correct data is. Name sources.

A mere "do your homework" is not enough to back up this bold statement. "google this and that" won't  either.

19 hours ago, Cletus said:

the first major public study started back with a man by the name dean hammer(i think in the 90s), who was later found out and stripped of his credibility. 

please be precise and detail which study that is you're talking about providing a link.

Then please specify who stripped the author of that study of his crediblity. And please tell us how that study was dismissed and provide the facts necessary for dismissing a study.

You came up with your story, please back it up, thank you.

 

By the way I'm not talking about homosexuality but about the failure to back up claims.

 

Regards,

Thomas

 

[Guest shiloh357]

On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 9:09 AM, one.opinion said:

No one enjoys having their work questioned, particularly by people that have no idea what they are talking about.

Not talking about their work, per se, but their claims which don't pan out, but we are still expected to defer to them  as "experts" even when their claims and predictions clearly don't pan out.  

Quote

But scientists are used to having their conclusions questioned by others that have actual data that shows when a scientific conclusion has been wrong. Longstanding assumptions in science have been discarded repeatedly when new data shows that the assumptions were in error. It may take some time for the paradigm to be shifted, but new data has a great track record for changing scientific assumption.

Actually the scientific community has already decided what it will and will not accept as "science"  and scientists who hold to the creationist model are routinely mocked and their research funding is cut and they are pretty much driven out of mainstream science.   This isn't about the obvious flux that occurs over time in any a scientific discipline.   It is about the obvious way that the atheistic worldview that permeates the scientific community rejects good science when it presents evidence that flies in the face of the atheistic, evolutionist worldview.

[one.opinion]

43 minutes ago, Cletus said:

do you realize how many years i have been keeping up with this, all of whats been published in scientific journals, magazines

This is honestly a topic of science I haven’t followed much. What do you know about twin studies that have been done in homosexuality. That’s about the best control imaginable in genetics studies of humans.

[one.opinion]

12 minutes ago, Cletus said:

when we look at real science we have x chromosomes and y chromosomes.  x is female and y is male.  i think xx means the creature is female, xy means its male.

The biology isn’t quite that simple. In humans and other mammals, the “default” gender is female. Male development requires the specific expression of the Sry gene. If the gene is deleted or altered, it is entirely possible for a person with an XY combination of chromosomes to develop as female reproductively, but with some male secondary characteristics. Additionally, although it isn’t common, some individuals are born with both male and female reproductive organs. There are many other conditions like androgen insensitivity and nomdisjunction if the sex chromosomes that further complicate gender development. Now, most homosexuals do not exhibit these rarer characteristics, but the biology and development of gender is very complex and many things can go wrong. It is not always a simple issue of what chromosomes you are born with.

It is not an unreasonable step to think that biology may also impact sexual orientation. Now, the choice of right and wrong actions is still available, but I believe biology very well could leave some individuals more prone to homosexual behavior. That’s why I was curious about the twin studies. That could reveal a lot.

[one.opinion]

 

7 minutes ago, Cletus said:

exactly what is deleting or altering these genes you are speaking of?

Mutations occur in the DNA all the time. Some mistakes can be small-scale and only change a single DNA “letter”, but sometimes mutations occur that make large-scale deletions.

7 minutes ago, Cletus said:

sounds like its being made to be more complicated by "scientists" to prove a point to me.

I’m sorry, but I’m not understanding what you are saying here.

[siegi91]

On 11/3/2018 at 7:03 PM, thomas t said:

Hi Siegi,

interesting what you wrote - and personally I'm as sceptical towards scientist's work as I am towards craftsmen's. I trust them almost blindly.

For me, Bible trumps science in only one area:

as soon as the Bible announces a miracle, I trust Bible more.

For me, God is almighty and an almighty God can of course perform miracles any time he wants to do so.

 

Let me give you one more example:

Let's just assume a scientist was present at the wedding feast of Cana and was getting asked the question how old the drink was he was having.

Of course, the alcoholic content of it would have counted as evidence that the wine was at least 6 months old, since this is the minimum timespan that it takes for wine to become wine.

But Jesus made it in the twinkling of an eye ? let's see John 2, verses 3 to 10 (ESV).

When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”

4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”

5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

6 Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.1

7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim.

8 And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it.

9 When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom

10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.”

 

 

Tschüßilein,

Thomas

 

Yes, but that assumes that you give priority to what you read in a book just because...it is written on that book.

But what logical reason do you have to do that?

 Sieglinde 

 

[thomas t]

Hi Sieglinde,

Thank you for inspring me to think...

On 12/2/2018 at 3:13 AM, siegi91 said:

just because...it is written on that book.

I see it this way:

either you believe in miracles or you don't.

If you do, you can't always give priority to what science teaches, because they never analyse miracles. At least they never did so far. Science either has a non-theistic explanation for things or, if they don't have any yet, they say science will.

But if you consider anything scientists say or might say in the future as truth, just because it is the result of testing and observing... then there isn't any space left for miracles.

 

I'm not saying scientists are dumb as justme007 implies here (justme, I still need to answer you in the other thread, but I would take the liberty of citing you)...

On 11/9/2018 at 7:45 PM, justme007 said:

"science" being flawed and biased and overwhelming evidence to back that up. 

 

... but I'm saying that I want to provide a chance for myself to believe in the following verse:

Is any thing too hard for the LORD?  Gen 18:14a

Regards,

Thomas

[enoob57]

On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 5:43 AM, shiloh357 said:

Not skeptical of science, as science isn't the problem. But there is a prevailing assumption that scientists wear a mantel of infallibility and to question them is to be against science.   We are, evidently, expected to simply defer to them uncritically, as if they are above question and scrutiny.  

And anyone who thinks that scientists don't manipulate data to force the outcome they want is pretty naïve.   When you are the gatekeeper of the information and you get to control what the populace gets to see, and it is to your advantage to be able shape public thinking a certain direction, then it is not surprising that some will use that to cause popular consensus to go in that direction.  This is particularly true of those with an atheistic worldview and given the way that atheism has hi-jacked science it would not be surprising at all.

@siegi91 I noticed you did not respond to this post to you... would really like to read your response to this.

[Uber Genius]

On October 29, 2018 at 6:43 AM, thomas t said:

I believe the world to look older than it really is, very much in the way it looked older right the first day of it's creation (Genesis chapter one).

 I also believe Adam to have looked older than he was in Genesis chapter 2 (one day old only).

Liked the discussion. It seems that the reason God gave us faculties to explore and discover our world and the ability to perceive it through our senses, rational thinking, memories, testimony,many introspection was that he wanted us to know the world he created.

 

Romans 1:19-20 suggests that God created a world that testified about his attributes. Not exhaustively, but certainly some of his essential attributes. Why then would he misrepresent the "Things that were made," to have the appearance of age? 

 

Does es he want people to know about him through his creation or is he lying to them through his "Appearence of age?"