Why do religious people think that quoting one scientist who goes against the mainstream will alter my opinion

Question

I've seen it many times on the R+S board and not always on my questions where if a matter of evolution or the Earth's age comes up they'll post a link to the one scientist who disagree's with the mainstream thought. To me the fact that you can link to one or two scientists who have become famous because they say stuff like "the earth cannot be older than 10,000 years old" is a negative sign and often their sciene is either flawed or "not up for appraisel by the sceintific community,"

Then again perhaps we should encourage these people, the longer they pretend to be scientists perhaps the better chance they might stumble upon real science and see their errors.

Answer 1

Here's a good reason:

Galileo was ONE scientist that went against the mainstream. So was Charles Darwin. They both proposed theoretical models - gravity and evolution through natural selection. While their theories have been and continue to be refined as new discoveries are made, science has realized it was mistaken about the nature of things, and the science conducted by these two individuals ultimately proved that. Yes, the theories were NOT perfect when they were proposed, but the mere existence of gravity or evolution is not challenged by science - just the precise nature of it.

Maybe now, you'll pay attention to science, and not popularity contests. Just because a theory has limited support in the scientific community doesn't automatically mean it is Wrong. The History of Science is filled with single individuals that challenged existing models to emerge victorious.

Answer 2

Perhaps they are not trying to change your views but to present you with theirs from their own perspective.

I would not say that evolution (as a separate issue and within each separate species) existed in the process of God's creation.
But possibility is offered that the man holds a position as if coming into existence in a separate process. (a baby for example does not know that he already exist while he is in the womb), but in fact he did already exist. The easiest way to travel at the speed of light is evolving in light itself, in such a way, the flesh does not know were the spirit was before it entered the flesh.

In Jesus resurrection everything is consummated:
The Spiritual realm, the Karma, the Reincarnation (in same species, or becoming flesh again), the traveling to other higher worlds, the Order of the Heavens that many civilizations looked for, So then: "Sky is the limit".

In the last 6000 yeas that we live according to scriptures, we have developed technology and conditions dangerous enough for human and animal extinction. Even in the last days a combat aircraft flew with 5 or 6 nuclear heads posing a great disastrous threat.

If the man is to have been living on Earth for over 160,000 years, then that means that statistically we should be already extinct.

The diversity and locations of our achieved technology offers the possibility of traces of our civilization being found even after 160,000 thousand years, yet we have not found such technology in any old civilization site.

Answer 3

It's just Chinese whispers, someone might see something on TV or read and tell another, the story changes along the way until it becomes "Purple Monkey Dishwasher" just like bible quotes. It takes some people a bit longer to figure something out so don't get upset or angry remember yahoo answers is all in fun where our opinions differ from another and you also find like minded thinkers like yourself.

Answer 4

Probably for the same reason someone would post in R&S if they don't have any religious beliefs: it goes against what they believe.

If someone doesn't want to believe in some sort of god they'll look for theories which disprove the religious account of history (evolution, age of world...).

If someone does want to believe in some sort of god they'll look for theories which support their religious views (intelligent design, age of world...).

But really, who cares what religious or non-religious people think? Why does it matter to convince someone else? If they want to believe theres a man in the clouds let them. If they want to believe life happened by chance let them. These are both personal beliefs and have no relevance to anyone else.

Answer 5

I'll wager 9 out of 10 real scientists know evolution is fact. The other one is just a religious nutjob with a degree.

Answer 6

Most scientists are religious. I am presently reading a best seller by a scientist . that had been an atheist, but came to be Christian and discovered this in his studying.

Answer 7

Perhaps it's because they think we worship scientists when the truth is we only respect them for the work they do if they honestly follow the scientific method and if their work is scrutinized and peer-reviewed.

Answer 8

Yes, but the number seems to be increasing where scientists are turning from evolution. God will not be mocked.

Answer 9

the idea is that religious people are used to quote something or someone, stupid as that quote may be.
a good example of that is the way they quote from the bible, so why not some person who can't count beyond 10,000

Answer 10

And you think these evolutionists are real scientists? Coming up with one loose theory after another to try and another loose theory - that of evolution.