(May 18, 2018 at 2:23 am)Mathilda Wrote:(May 17, 2018 at 11:43 pm)Godscreated Wrote: As I said this comes from scientist making the statement. What's wrong with repeating them.
(May 17, 2018 at 11:43 pm)Godscreated Wrote: like I posted to ShellB, it was not my statement it came from another on a National Geographic show.
OK so now we're getting closer to the truth here. You didn't actually speak to a scientist in person, you saw something on a TV program which was edited according to what someone else, a non-scientist, deemed would make for interesting viewing about one particular field and you are applying that to all of science. Let me just remind you ...
An atheist scientist made the statement on an atheistic show that did not need to be edited, since you seem to think all of the things a Christian has to say to you is lies I see no reason to continue this discussion with you.
(May 17, 2018 at 12:46 am)Godscreated Wrote: Many scientist today are writing things just to throw papers and information out there so they can claim they were the first to say this or that when and if those things are proven. This comes from scientist that are becoming disappointed by the way science is turning to guessing for the sake of fame.
Truth is that every scientific field has its challenges. Astrophysics is trying to figure out what it is measuring from incredibly vast distances with very little data. So of course there are going to be lots of hypotheses. It's part of the process. Give it slightly more data and the vast majority of those hypotheses will be discarded. Cellular biology has vast amounts of data to sift through so they have to mine for any pattern they can. A cynic being edited for ratings on a TV program would say they are just looking for patterns with no understanding. But that's how the understanding comes about in time. In Artificial Intelligence a cynic such as me could claim that people are writing smart programs and calling them intelligent when it really they are not, but it's still part of the process as you need to find out the scope of any technique so you can then understand why it is limited and why natural intelligence is the way it is.
But instead you saw a generic scientist on a TV program talk about the challenges specific to his own particular field and applied that to all of science because you need to convince yourself that your own non-scientific personal religious 'truth' is valid.[/quote]
My religion is not non-science, some people may be but i and many of my fellow Christian friends enjoy science and follow what is being explored. Of coarse we reject some of what secular scientist have to say because we know how biased they are toward creation science which you and your ilk will not accept, even without reading about what creation science has to say about things you will automatically reject the data, so why should I pay attention to secular scientist... I do because I know they are smart and that a few do not try and fit data to their personal opinions. They make statements as to the reality of things when they have no evidence period, why do I need to do a face to face with a secular scientist in any field, I trust them to lie to a creationist from the get go.
GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.