How is it that scientists, who cannot tell us if eggs are bad for us, expect us to believe their evolution?

Question

They cannot figure out what we should eat, how much water we should drink, but we are supposed to take their "word" that they can gauge their epochs based on sediments and that they can tell the half-life of an element.

Answer 1

You're not supposed to take their "word" for it. You should examine the evidence for yourself. For example, it's pretty simple to determine the half-life of most radioactive elements. You get a quantity of the radioactive element, wait for a period of time, and measure the decay. From this, you can derive the half-life of the element.

We're expected to accept that the numbers scientists have determined for half-lives are accurate because those numbers have been confirmed in repeated experiments. If they hadn't been repeatedly confirmed, we wouldn't be expected to accept them as accurate.

The reason that eggs are controversial is because various different studies/experiments have been done that say different things about whether eggs raise cholesterol.

Answer 2

A variety of reasons. One of which is that they believe that there is no spirituality. This is the basis of evolution, the crux: the belief that there is no God. The entire point and means of research in evolution is "How to explain this without there being a God, or some other supernatural explanation?" By that same token, if evolution were utterly and irrevokably proven true (which is hasn't been yet, there are still very solid arguments against it... the points that evolutionists are still researching), and all religion (again by the same token) utterly and irrevokably proven false, it would end a great deal of negative things. Imagine: no more religious war, no more waste of resources on religious causes, no more of all the things religion causes. For those who believe as those scientists do, this is a profound goal. Personally... just me and my opinion personally... I disagree with evolution. But that is easily what they would have to gain.

Answer 3

You're right that science has not been able to answer every question. We keep finding new evidence about nutrition and health, which forces us to revise our thinking.

On the other hand, the evidence for evolution has been pretty solid. As far as I know, there haven't been any significant challenges in the scientific community. Rather, there have been objections from people who are upset that the theory contradicts their religious beliefs.

I'll bet you do accept much of what scientists tell us. When you throw an object up in the air, do you expect it to fall down? Do you believe that a thermometer can tell us how warm it is? Do you expect anything in particular to happen, when you mix vinegar and baking soda?

Answer 4

maybe its because certain studies are more emphasized than others...and honestly health and evolution are two different things. So I think its unfair that you can make a judgment like that. This is where science and religion clash. I am christian and believe in some aspects of science although I don't necessarily argue with evolution. Theres no doubt that Science is out there and you yourself can choose what you want to believe and what you want to declare blasphemy. Therefore instead of being outruly on other aspects you should be more considerate. I'm not saying agree with it just be considerate to those who do believe. Also When you say "they" (your referring to all scientists) you're incorrect because it makes the assumption that all scientists together are educated and work together on all the same things. That is where your wrong there are many different types of scientists who specialize in different things.

Answer 5

Are you equating a nutritionist, who gets half their education in Gym class (they call it by it's big name, Kinestheology) with a peer reviewed scientific publication, that has the backing of years of empirical research and thousands of outside confirmations?

Here's a fun fact for you: If you think scientists don't understand radioactive decay, then they obviously don't have any clue as to the inner workings of the atom. Given that, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which required massive knowledge about atoms and decay) would not have been possible. If you question radioactive dating, wouldn't it be prudent for you to question the (apparent) massive government conspiracy that invented the Nuclear Bombing of not one, but two Japanese cities?

Answer 6

At least they research their position and don't just take another's word for it.

(If evolution didn't happen then why do you have a tail, Fluff Tail? If it's not one of the occasional genetic throwbacks that pop up from time to time, then did you just have it stitched to your backside as a fashion statement? Hmm?)

Answer 7

No. No scientist has ever asked anyone to "take his word for it."

Scientists publish their results, conduct experiments and explain exactly how they reach their conclusions.

Look it up.

As for the first question...science is not infallible, opinions are often in conflict and we have to wait for more research to get better answers.

Science is self correcting.
Religion is self-decieving

Answer 8

Never take anyone's "word". That's just silly.

Instead, read, educate yourself, examine the evidence. After that come back and ask this question again. I promise you will sigh just as loudly as I did just now when I read your "question".

Answer 9

I note that your pastors, priests, and rabbis ALSO cannot tell us whether eggs are bad for us. Why do you follow THEM?

Answer 10

It is so sad that people with so little scientific understanding are allowed to graduate high school.