Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: edmc^2

Having evidence for something is NOT a requirement to have faith in it. Don't just change the definition of words to suit your needs.

originally posted by: edmc^2
Sure, according to YOUR TEXTBOOK. Which judging from your limited understanding of the English word "FAITH" leaves much to desire.

That rich. My textbook? I didn't make up the concept of flawed logic and logical fallacies or set the ground rules for debating. You claimed in the thread title you were using logic. Then you get upset when Iquote all of your illogical statements and fallacies that defy logic.

If you even paid attention to what I said then you'll have an idea.

That's laughable, I've broken down every detail of what you've typed in this thread and clearly demonstrated that YOU are not paying attention when it comes to logic.

I said 'in principle' a law, any law can not exist apart from a lawmaker. It can't be done! This is a universal truth that is unassailable that hold onto. To which I would add, your "equivocation" definitions at every category don't hold true.

I don't care that you said "in principle". It doesn't mean anything in your argument. You are still equating 2 definitions of the same word as the same. You are still equivocating. "In principle", universal laws do not require a lawmaker. Stop being so intellectually dishonest. Since you had to fall back on definition #1 again, I'm taking this as you conceding the argument since you have nothing to add other than repeating your original faulty claim.

Even the law of Gravity (Fg=G*m1m2/r2) has a mind behind it.

And since you can't refute it logically nor scientifically, then to use you own words:

I have clearly refuted everything you have said in this thread. Prove that gravity was created. Otherwise you have nothing but the usual semantics.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

its got two meanings - sarcasm and "tzar chasm" or abyssal king. its a veiled reference intended, fittingly enough, to be sarcastic. my own little joke.

are you finished?

So I gather you must the abysmal abyssal king of sarcasm then?

Not sure if I should congratulate you or pity you.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
Sure, according to YOUR TEXTBOOK. Which judging from your limited understanding of the English word "FAITH" leaves much to desire.

That rich. My textbook? I didn't make up the concept of flawed logic and logical fallacies or set the ground rules for debating. You claimed in the thread title you were using logic. Then you get upset when Iquote all of your illogical statements and fallacies that defy logic.

If you even paid attention to what I said then you'll have an idea.

That's laughable, I've broken down every detail of what you've typed in this thread and clearly demonstrated that YOU are not paying attention when it comes to logic.

I said 'in principle' a law, any law can not exist apart from a lawmaker. It can't be done! This is a universal truth that is unassailable that hold onto. To which I would add, your "equivocation" definitions at every category don't hold true.

I don't care that you said "in principle". It doesn't mean anything in your argument. You are still equating 2 definitions of the same word as the same. You are still equivocating. "In principle", universal laws do not require a lawmaker. Stop being so intellectually dishonest. Since you had to fall back on definition #1 again, I'm taking this as you conceding the argument since you have nothing to add other than repeating your original faulty claim.

Even the law of Gravity (Fg=G*m1m2/r2) has a mind behind it.

And since you can't refute it logically nor scientifically, then to use you own words:

I have clearly refuted everything you have said in this thread. Prove that gravity was created. Otherwise you have nothing but the usual semantics.

No need to prove it - the evidence is right there.

Even the law of Gravity (Fg=G*m1m2/r2) has a mind behind it.

If you can't see it then I can't help you.

@OP


The path of your logic since the first post demonstrates your lack of understanding about science. No one knows if there's a "creator" and no lab to my knowledge is out there looking for one. If one pops up, that's fine. But in the meantime, no one knows - and probably will never know. Science seeks facts and hard evidence. Assumptions and speculation are just that - assumptions and speculations. Scientific theories, on the other hand, already have some basis in fact or they wouldn't be theories.

Be careful what you wish for. The "creator" could be a creature in another universe who models our universe like a video game - wars and all. That could be your "Creator".

You could always write up your thesis and submit it to a scientific journal. Maybe someone has similar logic, although I doubt it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: edmc^2

Having evidence for something is NOT a requirement to have faith in it. Don't just change the definition of words to suit your needs.

That's where you're ABSOLUTELY, CATEGORICALLY wrong Krazysh0t.

I can't have FAITH on anything unless I have evidence to which I can base my faith on.

It's very dangerous to have / exercise faith on anything without any evidence as it becomes blind faith.

Like I said, you can't just open a bank account unless you have faith on the banking system based on evidence of trustworthiness.

It's Krazy to lend money to someone based on blind faith. You have to have evidence that they can pay you back. Otherwise you're just giving away you money.

You can't have faith in a doctor's words without evidence that he is able to do what he claims. Otherwise you're puting your life in danger.

You can't climb a ladder unless you have sure faith that it will hold you.

I can go on and on, but the point is the same - FAITH - Veritas Fides - True Faith is based on solid evidence.

As the say in the Marines "SEMPER FI".

Semper Fidelis. What a powerful motto.

Surely, Marines don't just go Semper Fi to their buddies unless they have solid evidence of their loyalty to each other. Don't you think?

Semper Fi!

originally posted by: Phantom423
@OP


The path of your logic since the first post demonstrates your lack of understanding about science. No one knows if there's a "creator" and no lab to my knowledge is out there looking for one. If one pops up, that's fine. But in the meantime, no one knows - and probably will never know. Science seeks facts and hard evidence. Assumptions and speculation are just that - assumptions and speculations. Scientific theories, on the other hand, already have some basis in fact or they wouldn't be theories.

Be careful what you wish for. The "creator" could be a creature in another universe who models our universe like a video game - wars and all. That could be your "Creator".

You could always write up your thesis and submit it to a scientific journal. Maybe someone has similar logic, although I doubt it.

To the contrary Phantom, my understanding on science is based on logic and rational thinking. They are testable and repeatable supported by solid evidence.

For instance going back to what Hawking said about the origin of the universe:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

Will you or do call this statement true science or philosophy?

If you say science, what about my stance?

Life can only come from life.

Is this scientific fact or philosophy?

I'm curious.

originally posted by: edmc^2
That's where you're ABSOLUTELY, CATEGORICALLY wrong Krazysh0t.

I can't have FAITH on anything unless I have evidence to which I can base my faith on.

It's very dangerous to have / exercise faith on anything without any evidence as it becomes blind faith.

Don't move the goalposts. You clearly said that anyone cannot have faith without evidence. Now you are saying that you personally can't have faith without evidence. Before you wouldn't even acknowledge that faith without evidence existed, now you are calling it blind faith.

Like I said, you can't just open a bank account unless you have faith on the banking system based on evidence of trustworthiness.

It's Krazy to lend money to someone based on blind faith. You have to have evidence that they can pay you back. Otherwise you're just giving away you money.

You can't have faith in a doctor's words without evidence that he is able to do what he claims. Otherwise you're puting your life in danger.

You can't climb a ladder unless you have sure faith that it will hold you.

You certainly CAN do all of those things based on faith alone. It's certainly not advisable, but saying that you "can't" do it is wrong.

I can go on and on, but the point is the same - FAITH - Veritas Fides - True Faith is based on solid evidence.

As the say in the Marines "SEMPER FI".

Semper Fidelis. What a powerful motto.

Surely, Marines don't just go Semper Fi to their buddies unless they have solid evidence of their loyalty to each other. Don't you think?

Semper Fi!

I'm pretty sure that there are a good portion of Marines that say that buzzphrase without knowing its etymology in the slightest.

a reply to: edmc^2

It's the man's opinion. It isn't even a theory; it's basically his hypothesis. Maybe the LHC will provide more data.

You say your logic is based on repeatable scientific evidence. But I haven't seen any links to research papers which verify your position.

a reply to: edmc^2

If you say science, what about my stance? Life can only come from life. Is this scientific fact or philosophy? I'm curious.

Neither!

Your stance is more like science fiction!

There is zero evidence that life can only come from life. In fact, there is more evidence that life can arise from organic natural processes.

Life from nonlife: A creationist's nightmare

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Don't move the goalposts. You clearly said that anyone cannot have faith without evidence. Now you are saying that you personally can't have faith without evidence. Before you wouldn't even acknowledge that faith without evidence existed, now you are calling it blind faith.

Krazysh0t Lol! I didn't move the goalposts. There's no goalpost to move, but your understanding of what I said is faulty - it's too literal. Lol.

When I said, 'you can't have faith', it doesn't mean literally you can't. There's no one stopping you. You can believe or have faith on anything. That's you're prerogative. What I said if you read it again is that, you can't have faith on something without evidence unless or it becomes BLIND FAITH. Hence, it's DANGEROUS BLIND FAITH.

Here let me quote what I said and bold the CONDITIONAL words.

I can't have FAITH on anything unless I have evidence to which I can base my faith on.

It's very dangerous to have / exercise faith on anything without any evidence as it becomes blind faith.

Again, my examples:

You can't have faith in a doctor's words without evidence that he is able to do what he claims. Otherwise, you're putting your life in danger.

a reply to: flyingfish

There is zero evidence that life can only come from life. In fact, there is more evidence that life can arise from organic natural processes.

flyingfish thanks for the vid - I'll watch it later to be able to comment properly but in the meantime, what do you mean by "organic" as oppose to a non-living thing?

a reply to: flyingfish

Ok - flyingfish, please explain to me why my stance that Life can only come from life

"is more like science fiction!"

???

While yours 'life from nonlife' is not?



Also, your videos are fascinating, but they didn't create life. Nope, but just created something that's lifelike, then redefined it as life.

It's like putting together parts and pieces then made it mimic life. Like a robot walking or talking - it mimics life but it's not alive. Unless of course, you define it as life or alive.

Semantics again.

In addition, if assuming this is how life started, and the chemicals these intelligent scientists were mixing correspond to the building blocks of life, who then do these intelligent scientists correspond to in the scheme of things - in nature?

a reply to: Phantom423

It's the man's opinion. It isn't even a theory; it's basically his hypothesis. Maybe the LHC will provide more data.

Sure, it's the man's opinion but many gullible atheists believe it. They are bamboozled by an opinion as if it's a fact because it came from a brilliant man.

It's even supported and propounded by top physicist's like Prof. Krauss:

You say your logic is based on repeatable scientific evidence. But I haven't seen any links to research papers which verify your position.

You don't even need research paper because you yourself can do it. That is, create 'life from pre-existing life."

There's no problem there, but I think your problem is with God, of who created him.

a reply to: Phantom423

No one knows if there's a "creator" and no lab to my knowledge is out there looking for one.

I guess the millions and millions of Christians who believe in God don't know then?

They don't have any evidence that God exist? They don't have evidence that Jesus Christ came to earth to reveal his God and Father?

This also includes the thousands of men and women who are scientists themselves but believe in God?

Sir Isaac Newton, Kepler,

and some more...
Scientist/ Engineer
Lifetime
Contribution
Albert of Bollstadt (Albert Magnus)
1193/1206-1280
Alchemist
Leonardo da Vinci
1452-1519
physics, art
Nicholas Copernicus
1473-1543
Taught the planets revolved around an immoveable sun
Tycho Brahe
1545-1601
At least a theist
John Napier
1550-1617
Discoverer of logarithms, he was a strong Protestant who in 1594 wrote, “Plaine Discovery of the Whole Revelation of Saint John”
Francis Bacon
1561-1626
scientific method
Galileo Galilei
1564-1642
telescope, gravity, solar system
Johann Kepler
1571-1626
planet’s elliptical orbits
William Harvey
1578-1657
circulation of blood. At least a theist.
Puritans
1600-1700
A higher percentage of Puritans were in the English Royal Society than in the general population
Athanasius Kircher
1601-1680
Jesuit who anticipated the germ theory and wrote of Noah’s flood
John Wilkins
1614-1672
scientist and clergyman who wrote how Noah’s ark would be of adequate size to fit all of the animals.
Walter Charleton
1619-1707
President of the Royal College of Physicians who wrote on the flood and miracles
Blaise Pascal
1623-1662
math, fluid flow
Robert Boyle
1627-1691
Boyle’s law - chemistry. Learned Hebrew, Greek, Syriac. Founded the Boyle lectures to prove Christianity vs. atheists, theists, pagans, Jews, and Muslims.
John Ray
1627-1705
natural history
Nicolaus Steno
1631-1686
stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet
1635-1715
geologist and clergyman
Nicolas Lemery
1645-1715
chemist who converted to Catholicism
Sir William Petty
1623-1687
statistics, economics
Christiaan Huygens
1629-1695
Huygen’s Principle. At least a theist
Isaac Barrow
1630-1677
Cambridge math prof. who taught Newton. He later retired to teach God’s Word
Robert Hooke
1635-1703
physicist and geologist. Hooke’s Law of elasticity. At least a theist
Increase Mather
1639-1723
son of Cotton Mather, astronomer on comets, theologian, and one of the first presidents of Harvard.
Nehemiah Grew
1641-1712
physician and botanist. Protestant who wrote on the unique creative design of plants and animals.
Isaac Newton
1642-1727
Co-inventor of calculus, gravity, Newton’s 3 laws
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz
1646-1716
co-inventor of calculus, and anticipated Boolean algebra
John Flamsteed
1646-1719
Founded the Greenwich observatory
William Derham
1657-1735
ecology
Cotton Mather
1662-1727
published treatises on “animacules” causing smallpox, and President of Harvard
John Woodward
1665-1728
paleontology
John Harris
1666-1719
mathematician, clergyman, Wrote an English dictionary 1704
William Whiston
9 Dec 1667-22 Aug 1752
succeeded Isaac Newton at Cambridge. Wrote on flood geology. Translated Josephus and was an Arian like Newton. He thought the Tatars were the lost tribes, and the Millennium would start in 1766.
John Hutchinson
1674-1737
paleontologist who wrote on the flood. Also studied Hebrew.
Bayes
1702-1761
Probability, Presbyterian minister
Benjamin Franklin
1706-1790
Believed in God, unsure about Christ’s divinity, had a mistress, was perhaps the last person who could know all of science.
Carolus Linnaeus
1707-1778
taxonomy-classified life
Leonard Euler
1707-1783
mathematician and physicist
Gustavus Brander
1720-1787
paleontologist who wrote on the flood
Jean Deluc
1727-1817
Coined the word geology. He and his father invented the barometer. Wrote of a worldwide flood.
Richard Kirwan
1733-1812
Mineralogy
Joseph Townsend
1738-1816
English geologist and clergyman published much of William Smith’s work
William Herschel
1738-1822
discovered Uranus, galactic astronomy
Antoine Lavoisier
1743-1794
A Catholic
James Parkinson
1755-1824
perforated appendix, Parkinson’s disease, wrote on the flood and coal from plants
Alessandro Volta
1745-1827
first electric battery; Christian
William Kirby
1759-1850
entomologist and English clergyman
Benjamin Barton
1766-1815
physician, biologist, recent creationist
Thomas Malthus
1766-1834
economics, over-population, clergyman
John Dalton
9/15/1766-7/17/1844
atomic theory, Dalton’s law of gases. Quaker
Georges Cuvier
1769-1832
comparative anatomy
Samuel Miller
1770-1840
Presbyterian minister and influential science writer chronicling the 18th century,
Thomas Young
1773-1829
double-slit experiment
Charles Bell
1774-1842
anatomist and surgeon
Andre Marie Ampere
1775-1836
father of electrodynamics
John Kidd
1775-1851
chemical synthetics
Hans Christian Oersted
1777-1851
electromagnetism
Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss
1777-1855
Gauss’s Law
Humphrey Davy
1778-1829
Thermokinetics, safety lamp
Benjamin Silliman
1779-1864
mineralogy, geology, founded the American Journal of Science
Peter Mark Roget
1779-1869
physician and physiologist, Roget’s Thesaurus
Thomas Chalmers
1780-1847
social scientist, professor of theology, popularized the “gap theory”
David Brewster
1781-1868
optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope, opposed Darwinism
William Buckland
1784-1856
geologist and priest in the Church of England
William Prout
1785-1850
food chemistry
Adam Sedgwick
1785-1873
Named Cambrian and Devonian periods. A friend of Darwin but against evolutionary ideas, saying the result would be harmful.
Augustin L. Cauchy
1789-1857
Developed infinitesimal calculus and studied permutation groups. He was friends with Lagrange and Laplace.
George Boole
1815-1864
Irish mathematician. He developed Boolean algebra
Michael Faraday
1791-1867
Electromagnetics
Sam. F.B. Morse
1791-1872
Telegraph
John Herschel
1792-1871
son of William, he found 500 nebulas
Charles Babbage
1792-1871
Computer science, Operations research, Opthamaloscope, mathematical analysis of Biblical miracles
Edward Hitchcock
1793-1864
geologist in Mass. And Vermont, against Darwinism
William Whewell
1794-1866
anemometer
Joseph Henry
1797-1866
...
glaciers, fish, most famous biologist behind Darwin
Henry Rogers
1808-1866
geology of the Appalachians , wrote of the universal flood
James Glaisher
1809-1903
Founded the British Meteorological Society
Phillip H. Gosse
1810-1888
Ornithologist. Plymouth Brethren, said the earth was young, but fossils and sediments created with appearance of age
Henry Rawlinson
1810-1895
deciphered Behistun inscription
James Simpson

A unit of energy is named after him
Thomas Anderson
1819-1874
discovered pyridine, opposed Darwinism
George Gabriel Stokes
1819-1903
Viscosity and Stokes Law in fluid flow
Charles Piazzi Smyth
1819-1900
Astronomer, studied Egyptian pyramids. Weird guy influential in Anglo-Israelism error
John William Dawson
1820-1899
Canadian geologist and old-earth Creationist
Gregor Mendel
1822-1884
Mendelia

"No one knows". Hmm.

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Don't move the goalposts. You clearly said that anyone cannot have faith without evidence. Now you are saying that you personally can't have faith without evidence. Before you wouldn't even acknowledge that faith without evidence existed, now you are calling it blind faith.

Krazysh0t Lol! I didn't move the goalposts. There's no goalpost to move, but your understanding of what I said is faulty - it's too literal. Lol.



When I said, 'you can't have faith', it doesn't mean literally you can't. There's no one stopping you. You can believe or have faith on anything. That's you're prerogative. What I said if you read it again is that, you can't have faith on something without evidence unless or it becomes BLIND FAITH. Hence, it's DANGEROUS BLIND FAITH.



Here let me quote what I said and bold the CONDITIONAL words.

I can't have FAITH on anything unless I have evidence to which I can base my faith on.



It's very dangerous to have / exercise faith on anything without any evidence as it becomes blind faith.

Again, my examples:



You can't have faith in a doctor's words without evidence that he is able to do what he claims. Otherwise, you're putting your life in danger.

adopting a rational outlook in terms of "reasonable" faith vs blind faith doesnt make your stance as presented in the op (and virtually every post after) any less irrational. just because you have the propensity to exhibit rational thought doesnt automatically qualify all of your assertions as rational. they must each be tested in turn, but you have spent the entire thread arranging your questions and postulations so they cant be tested. and for the FINAL time, i pose to you a query of my own: if life can only come from life, what life produced god? you have not yet answered this question to satisfaction and so it remains a gaping hole in your hypothesis. if god doesnt have to be born to exist, neither does life or the universe. and if life and/or the universe must be created, then the same applies to god, by your own logic. one or the other, edmc2. make up your mind or admit your error.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Don't move the goalposts. You clearly said that anyone cannot have faith without evidence. Now you are saying that you personally can't have faith without evidence. Before you wouldn't even acknowledge that faith without evidence existed, now you are calling it blind faith.

Krazysh0t Lol! I didn't move the goalposts. There's no goalpost to move, but your understanding of what I said is faulty - it's too literal. Lol.



When I said, 'you can't have faith', it doesn't mean literally you can't. There's no one stopping you. You can believe or have faith on anything. That's you're prerogative. What I said if you read it again is that, you can't have faith on something without evidence unless or it becomes BLIND FAITH. Hence, it's DANGEROUS BLIND FAITH.



Here let me quote what I said and bold the CONDITIONAL words.

I can't have FAITH on anything unless I have evidence to which I can base my faith on.



It's very dangerous to have / exercise faith on anything without any evidence as it becomes blind faith.

Again, my examples:



You can't have faith in a doctor's words without evidence that he is able to do what he claims. Otherwise, you're putting your life in danger.

adopting a rational outlook in terms of "reasonable" faith vs blind faith doesnt make your stance as presented in the op (and virtually every post after) any less irrational. just because you have the propensity to exhibit rational thought doesnt automatically qualify all of your assertions as rational. they must each be tested in turn, but you have spent the entire thread arranging your questions and postulations so they cant be tested.

Like I said in the OP:

'... as a Christian, my view of the origin of life (based on honest consideration and study of the evidence available) is that Yahweh / Jehovah God is the source of life. Hence, the statement "Life comes from pre-existing life" is an undeniable fact of life. It's a view I hold that is supported by an unassailable truth and testable evidence within the bounds of rational thought.

Whilst the Atheist point of view:

"Out of nothing, something" - is irrational, an untestable, unfalsifiable view, a (to be blunt but not meant to offend) delusional point of view as there's no evidence to support it whether scientifically or mathematically. An unworkable model. A philosophical assertion.

You can test this two views to your heart's content and you'll come with the same conclusion that I did.


But again, like I said - this is NOT the problem for you. Your problem is with God.

and for the FINAL time, i pose to you a query of my own: if life can only come from life, what life produced god? you have not yet answered this question to satisfaction and so it remains a gaping hole in your hypothesis. if god doesnt have to be born to exist, neither does life or the universe. and if life and/or the universe must be created, then the same applies to god, by your own logic. one or the other, edmc2. make up your mind or admit your error.

Considering all possibilities, the ONLY logical and rational answer as to WHO created God is: No One.

He Always Existed. To say otherwise is an infinite regress.

From the OP:

'....

There MUST be an Always Existing Life to produce life! There MUST be a pre-existing all powerful intelligent life to produce the physical Universe and all the things in it. A loving, all powerful UNCREATED God who willed the universe into existence. He is not the created "god of the gaps" that atheist like to throw at Christians but The Living God. '


Even if you don't accept the above and take the atheist view. That is, if you believe that the universe created you, who then created the universe?

What's the logical and rational answer? nothing.

So to me, the Christian - Biblical Theistic - view is the logical and rational answer. I can even say it's supported by science.

The atheist view, on the other hand, can only be explained from a philosophical point of view.

To quote Hawkings:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

To quote Krauss' book: "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing"

“Nothing,” they insist, is not any of the things I discuss. Nothing [they say] is “nonbeing,” in some vague and ill- defined sense….Some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine “nothing” as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe. But therein, in my opinion, lies the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy. For surely “nothing” is every bit as physical as “something,” especially if it is to be defined as the “absence of something.”

Of course, it's your choice what to believe.

a reply to: edmc^2

even scientists are allowed to have opinions. however, they ACKNOWLEDGE that it is an opinion and any TRUE scientist keeps their opinions and hypotheses and theories and conclusions all very well organized to avoid confusing them with one another, because they value honesty in their work and would rather fit the conclusion to the evidence instead of cramming a square peg into a round whole. you ought to learn something from that.

a reply to: edmc^2

Like I said in the OP:

'... as a Christian, my view of the origin of life (based on honest consideration and study of the evidence available) is that Yahweh / Jehovah God is the source of life. Hence, the statement "Life comes from pre-existing life" is an undeniable fact of life. It's a view I hold that is supported by an unassailable truth and testable evidence within the bounds of rational thought.

Whilst the Atheist point of view:

"Out of nothing, something" - is irrational, an untestable, unfalsifiable view, a (to be blunt but not meant to offend) delusional point of view as there's no evidence to support it whether scientifically or mathematically. An unworkable model. A philosophical assertion.

You can test this two views to your heart's content and you'll come with the same conclusion that I did.

this is the definition of what some call a "false dichotomy". narrowing it down to two "either/ or" answers prematurely when dozens of other options are still being explored, precisely for the purpose of funneling us into your prepared (and comparatively poorly founded) conclusion.

FYI, scientists are currently in the process of attempting to verify or falsify the nature of our universes beginnings. They are employing science to the best and most honest of their abilities, unlike you. I would much rather be patient and certain than quick and faithful.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

even scientists are allowed to have opinions. however, they ACKNOWLEDGE that it is an opinion and any TRUE scientist keeps their opinions and hypotheses and theories and conclusions all very well organized to avoid confusing them with one another, because they value honesty in their work and would rather fit the conclusion to the evidence instead of cramming a square peg into a round whole. you ought to learn something from that.

This is not to knock down scientists, but they are just imperfect men and women prone to biases of their own. They are affected by pride as well as selfishness and political ambitions and convictions.

Take for example the ongoing fight and animosity between two camps of scientists proving and disproving Global Warming / Climate Change. Which one do you think holds the TRUTH?

The IPCC camp of scientists or the "climate change deniers"?

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud

www.thenewamerican.com...

In a book called "The great betrayal Fraud in science".

It states:

Also striking is Judson’s initial chapter, “A Culture of Fraud,” describing public cases of fraud by businessmen, social scientists, clergy, and others. The conclusion is obvious: a few scientists are likely no better and no worse than the few members of the general population who are crooks and charlatans. His epilogue includes a plea to restore high standards to the conduct of scientific research.

Several interesting chapters, titled “The problems of peer review,” “Authorship, ownership: problems of credit, plagiarism, and intellectual property,” and “Laboratory to law: the problems of institutions when misconduct is charged” will be enlightening and challenging to readers who deal with such problems and try to teach students how to avoid them in the responsible conduct of research.

...
In response, universities, research hospitals, and institutes are updating their policies and procedures, at least to address the federal government’s new definition: “Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results . . . [A] finding . . . requires that: there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and the misconduct be committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly; and the allegation be proven by a preponderance of evidence.”

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So you see it's not all black and white.

As for Steven Hawking's writings, who peer-reviews them?

Scientist of the same view? i.e atheist?

Of course.