Scientists do not have universal knowledge

Scientists, like any other profession, have specialties. Therefore, is it fair to assume that just because somebody is a "scientist" that they are experts enough to be quoted on any scientific subject? Does a chemist have enough authority to speak about evolution? It depends on what kind of chemistry he specializes in of course. This isn't to say that they can't have an opinion, but when people hear that they are a scientist, their words are not questioned by lay persons. Just something to think about.

yeah that is true. but generally scien**** have more knowledge about things then your average joe, since they research a lot obviously, but on the other hand they only give you their point of view on a controversial subject.

I agree with you, but this is also part of the misconception. My example of a chemist may have a PhD in chemistry, but may have not taken a biology class since they were in undergrad and even then may have been a very basic one. Even within their field there is distinction. An organic chemist and physical chemist have different areas of knowledge.

[Adam Knowlden]

Yes and no.

I would say it depends also upon if we are dealing with origins science or operational science. Operational being science we can observe, test, and record, origins being scienct that is non-testable/observable.

As scientists know how to work the scientific method, they can deduct as to whether a theory outside their realm of expertise holds scientific credibility or is mere speculation with no operational backing.

It also depends upon their flow of logic and their knowledge of the subject.

One must be careful not to use ad hominem attacks. In other words scientist x makes a point, and instead of refuting the point, scientist y attacks the credential of the scientists.

Many scientists do have deep understanding of multiple field, especially those of which interact with their own areas, while not holding degrees in those topics. They also have a deep understanding of what constitutes valid scientific research and what does not.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[~*NobodysAngel*~]

But isn't that one theory out of many? It's rather unfair to group all scientists by one single speculation on creation... and isn't the whole point of science to continue to gain knowledge on subjects? This could, in effect, mean that they have not yet found that link to evolution as the prime factor of life on earth, but in the years ahead may discover something that makes evolution the definitive piece in the puzzle. Plus.. what about all the other religions out there who claim their god is the foremost in making the earth and it's inhabitants? Are they all wrong?
I don't think anyone can claim to have the 'right' answer on this query.. it's all a matter of different opinions, really. But that's just my thinking.

[CoLDTuRKeY]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course there is only one who knows all:

<font color="red"> 20For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things </font>



[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of awkward to think that there is only one being in the universe who knows the answers to all the questions there are. Its just strange thinking that we could be wrong about everything /forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
Kind of awkward to think that there is only one being in the universe who knows the answers to all the questions there are. Its just strange thinking that we could be wrong about everything

[/ QUOTE ]

There is only One God and one Infitine Being:

<font color="red">5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else

12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
</font>

[ QUOTE ]
This could, in effect, mean that they have not yet found that link to evolution as the prime factor of life on earth, but in the years ahead may discover something that makes evolution the definitive piece in the puzzle.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply begging the question and attempting to shift the burden or proof.

You have basically stated as Darwin did:

1. We have no evidence for 'goo to you' evolution.

2. We're here.

Conclusion- that proves the evidence is missing.

[ QUOTE ]
Plus.. what about all the other religions out there who claim their god is the foremost in making the earth and it's inhabitants? Are they all wrong?


[/ QUOTE ]

This again, is attempting to shift the debate.

See our bible study links, we have throughly covered all these questions.

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
This could, in effect, mean that they have not yet found that link to evolution as the prime factor of life on earth, but in the years ahead may discover something that makes evolution the definitive piece in the puzzle.

[/ QUOTE ]

This friend, is why evolution is a religion. The major failure of evolution, even before Darwin proposed his theory to the world, has always been the lack of a viable mechanism that can produce new genetic information.

In all of Darwin's book, he shows many examples of Survival of the Fitess, yet fails to show where or how the fittess arrived in the first place.

Consequently, Darwin essentially adhered to Lamarchianism, which has been proven wrong.

This is the doctrine that says what a parent does in his life can essentially improve his offspring's ability to survive. Consequently this is certainly a very old theory.
But Darwin did believe it. Take his book " Decent of Man "

here is a quote from Darwin which is very much like Jean Bapttiste Lamarcks false theory

[ QUOTE ]
The early male forefathers of man were, as
previously stated, probably furnished with great canine teeth; but as they
gradually acquired the habit of using stones, clubs, or other weapons, for
fighting with their enemies or rivals, they would use their jaws and teeth
less and less. In this case, the jaws, together with the teeth, would
become reduced in size, as we may feel almost sure from innumerable
analogous cases. In a future chapter we shall meet with a closely parallel
case, in the reduction or complete disappearance of the canine teeth in
male ruminants, apparently in relation with the development of their horns;
and in horses, in relation to their habit of fighting with their incisor
teeth and hoofs.


[/ QUOTE ]


Consequently this was proven wrong by Augist Weismann, after cutting off 901 tails from white mice in a row, and found it never affected the offspring of these animals.

Darwin was also an advocate of Pangenesis. Which was quite wrong. He believed that somatic cells produced what were called " gemules "

And these essentially could transfer experiences to gametes via the circulatory system. Darwin's cousin tested the theory via transfusion of blood from say different color rabits. Alas, Francis Galton( his cousin ), stated that the theory was clearly false.

But Darwin emphatically held to his belief.

At this stage, we see, that men " Believed " that information increasing evolution occured. But had no mechanism for it. The problem has only become worse.

Many other theories have been proposed. Such as Orthogenesis which has been abandoned.

Probably one of the most famous was Devries " Macro Mutation " proposel. Which Goldschmidt made famous via
his quote " Hopeful Monster's " story.

He believed that Evolution could take place in a massive step. Here is a quote from him

[ QUOTE ]
single mutations involving large complex stages that happen to be successfull.

[/ QUOTE ]

We now realize that this is dead wrong. And this is now regarded almost universly as false.

It would take hundreds or thousands of mutations to form a new feature. Additionally, countless structures are irreducibly complex. Meaning you cannot have partial mutations along the way.
'
Koch et, al in Genetics 72:297 in his article entitled
" Enzyme evolution: The importance of untranslatable intermediates "

States the following.

[ QUOTE ]
A Major enigma in evolutionary biology is that new forms or functions often require the concerted efforts of several independent genetic changes. It is unclear how such changes might accumulate when they are likely to be deliterious individually and be lost by selective pressure

[/ QUOTE ]


Which poses a major problem. Slow mutations building up does not work, because as stated above, Biological machinary is irreducibly complex, and slow changes would be eliminated by natural selection as individually they would be delitarious.

As for hopeful monsters, several mutations all comming together at once, even by evolutionary standards would be supernatural. The evolutionist Ernst Mayr explains

[ QUOTE ]
The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation &amp;#8230; is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless'. They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection &amp;#8230; the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles

[/ QUOTE ]

Note the last part: is equivalent to believing in miracles

Indeed, such as statement encompasses the evolutionary religion completely. As there are no mechanisms for increased genetic information.

For example Dr. Marulis and Dr. Sagan, both evolutionists recognize this problem in their discourse entitled " Acquiring Genomes. A Theory of the Origins of Species "

[ QUOTE ]
deficiencies. Furthermore, this Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric. Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement. One mutation confers resistance to malaria but also makes
happy blood cells into the deficient oxygen carriers
of sickle cell anemics. Another mutation converts a gorgeous newborn into a cystic fibrosis patient or a victim of early onset diabetes. One mutation causes a flighty red-eyed fruit fly to fail to take wing.

Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies.



[/ QUOTE ]

That sums up our point clearly.

There are many more explanations, all of which begin with the metaphysical, philosophical, religous axiom that
" Evolution is true " but we do not know how it occurs.

But as you state.

[ QUOTE ]
This could, in effect, mean that they have not yet found that link to evolution as the prime factor of life on earth, but in the years ahead may discover something that makes evolution the definitive piece in the puzzle.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the evolutionary attitude, and it has prevailed for 150 years, and yet still to no avail. I believe that starting with this axiom has hindered scientific thought.
For example, Evolution has this on their list of hinderances

- It used to be believed that we had 150 vestigial organs
- embryonic recapitulation was proved wrong and led to nothing but false conclusions
- inappropriate treatment of back pain (trying to make our backs more like those of our supposed ape ancestors actually makes back problems worse
- countless fraudelent " discoveries " proven wrong one by one

There are many other theories. I'll summarize

- panspermia - This only transfers the problem and does not explain the origin of genetic information

- Sagan above believes that symbiogenesis is the answer. But exchange of genetic information, in no way explains where information arose to be exchanged. It begs the question

- puncuated equilibrium and Quantum evolution -

Quantum involves rapid all or none evolution and PE is a similar idea. It is essentially a cleaning up of the Hopeful monsters theory.

It also attempts to rectify the lack of fossil evidence.

- There is no evidence in the fossils for evolution
- it must have happened to quickly to see it.

But this story, like Hopeful monsters, this still fails to give a mechanism for the origin of large amounts of information.

Dr. Spetnor covers it best by stating that if such large scale information increasing evolution occurs, we should be able to see it. " But we don't "

Thus, origins science falls outside of operational science.

And as stated, you must " believe " with a capital b. Like any other religion.