Are people with no background in science whatsoever, who do not know what evidence exists.....?

Question

but still claim that over one million scientists worldwide are wrong, arrogant?

For all you who claim that I made a "broad sweeping generalization" especially the self-claimed rude and arrogant man, who loves a good argument, yet hides his email and messenger id..:

"If the word "people" is a generalization, I apologize as I am obviously guilty. Otherwise I simply said people with no background in science and don't know what evidence exists" I did NOT generalize or categorize a particular group..did i?

I am sorry because if you answered like the aforementioned, then you must have been in some way convicted.

That is all...

Bad Attitude-Thats double minors in trade and philosophy...please get your facts straight before you try and insult

Answer 1

There are quite a few scientists (I had couple of senior biology professors like this who were not religious) who in a conversation had said that the more they discover things in their research, the more they believe God must exist because things were just too "perfect".

What people fail to realize is that science is "logical" by human observational standard, but is not in itself perfect either. If you look in history, theories have been proven wrong over and over again and still is. There are lot of exceptions to rules in the scientific system. Science isn't perfect. As long as long there are rooms for doubts on either side, people will always say their side is in the right - whether it's physical "proof" or "spiritual" proof. Who's to argue one is more valid than the other? Also consider that there are lots of phenomena that scientists can't explain that may seem to make sense by spirtuality.

And yes, there are lots of religous people who do not have scientific experience (lots also do), but there are also lots of scientists who haven't read and experienced the religious spirituality.

It would be ignorance in itself to call either ignorant.
(I'm not saying you said ignorant, but just saying in general).

Answer 2

They are certainly arrogant. They recognize their dependence on experts for matters of computer and automotive repairs, medicine, and science and technology generally. Yet on the question of evolution (and also on the question of the Bible) they feel that their own feelings give them certainty and make them instant authorities, who can thus ignore what scientists (and Biblical scholars) have to say. How do I know this? Because I myself was guilty of such arrogance. Fortunately I read books by mainstream biologists (e.g. Science and Creationism, edited by Ashley Montagu) who showed where young earth creationism was flawed, mistaken, and in some cases downright deceitful.

Young earth creationists claim that scientists are involved in a conspiracy, and that people who believe in evolution are brainwashed, and if people just look at the evidence they will see the truth. Well, I looked at the evidence, when I was still a young earth creationist myself, and the evidence overwhelmingly convinced me that the case for evolution is strong and solid.

Why do people not get upset about genetics, explaining human development in a way that seems at odds with Biblical language about God having knit us together in our mother's womb? Either you can see God's hand in everything, in which case evolution is not a hindrance to that, or you feel you have to choose between scientific and religious explanations, in which case you have to fight ALL areas of science and not just evolutionary biology.

Answer 3

Sweetheart, evolution is not a science. The so called one million scientists are not arrogant. They just not have been able to provide any credible evidences. Their dating methods are as good as their assumptions.

Evolution defies mathematical probability. Evolution defies laws of physics (second law of thermodynamics. )

Heather, you being a business major, must have taken a course in statistics & probability.

Sweetheart, you be the judge and explain following evolutionist's claims:
Successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires at least 200 beneficial mutations. The odds of getting that many successive beneficial mutations is
r to the power 200, where r is the rate of beneficial mutations. Even if r is 0.5 (and it is really much smaller), that makes the odds worse than 1 in 10 to the power 60, which is impossibly small.

Answer 4

I trust your premise. although, the mission you've is lumping all technological expertise into one enormous generalization. there is not any longer something of "faith" in uncomplicated Physics and Chemistry. genuine technological expertise creates technologies and purposes that you're using in the present day. although, there are some "sciences" that I call "Pseudo-Sciences". maximum of those remember on "probability" or "odds" or "inclinations". Evolutionary Biology, Psychiatry, Economics, Political technological expertise, and Meteorology, are examples of Pseudo-Sciences. Take Meteorology as social gathering, how commonly do you listen that there is a 50% probability of rain day after today? If it were a real technological expertise, there will be no favor to wager. they could't tell me 100% certain no matter if it really is going to rain or no longer, how can they tell human beings what the elements will be like in 10 years. 40 years in the past contained in the 70s and the oil disaster, we were instructed that we will be in an ice age in 10 years...that did not take position. In genuine technological expertise, no count number what number circumstances I combine hydrogen and oxygen in a 2 to at least one ratio using an similar real approach, i'm getting H20 (water). There are not any odds, no possibilities, no inclinations. an similar approach provides an similar outcomes each and each and every time. each and every time I boil water to 100 ranges Celsius at Sea element, it turns from liquid to gaseous type...each and every time. back, no possibilities, no odds, no inclinations.

Answer 5

So, as an international finance and trade major you naturally are scientifically qualified to make such an ignorant and sweeping generalization? Or is this just more evidence of atheists once again displaying the collective stupidity which is fast coming to typify your kind? Stop letting whoever it is do your thinking for you. Such obvious and glaring idiocy is sometimes indicative of your age group, but it's not etched into stone that it has to be.

Answer 6

They're prejudiced- it wouldn't matter how many scientists supported evolution creationists will always twist facts to give their ideology some credibility. They also suffer from the delusion that their views count for something- a fact is a fact and no amount of rhetoric and whingeing from creationists changes facts.

Answer 7

Arrogant, ignorant, deluded, easily misled, parroting what others tell them, etc, etc.

Pretty much.

They can hardy find two denominations which share the same beliefs, yet they criticize scientific theories which are accepted and actively used by scientists across a myriad of disciplines, international borders, cultures, languages, religious backgrounds and political opinions to achieve consistent results.

Answer 8

The way you have presented matters results simply in a sweeping generalization.
Without specifics (examples) nothing of weight can be added.

Answer 9

Evidence or proof?

The emperor has no clothes. Who was on the right side of that statement, the lemmings?

Answer 10

Absolutely, among other things like being afraid to seriously challenge what they believe