by Sea Breeze 26 Replies latest jw friends
"The new study indicates that the oceans that covered the entire planet in water were at least 300 metres deep. They may have been up to one kilometre deep."
Yet, some secularists say they are sure that the earth was never completely flooded with water above the tops of mountains as described in Genesis.
Does that make sense to you?
Scientists can only work with what they find. The article you link explains that they can make those inferences because the geology of Mars allows them to see a more reliable history in its rocks, whereas the tectonic acitivty on Earth has "erased all evidence of what happened in the first 500 million years of our planet's history." Thus, they can't do more than speculate about whether there was ever that much water on Earth in the past.
Also, it's pretty awesome that there's a Professor Martin Bizzarro out there. That's a Bond villain in the making if there ever was one.
They lie about Mars, they did not put a rover on the planet 12 yrs ago. All the pictures are lies, they are all taken on Earth.
@TonusOH - Here's a "scientific" study that says the earth formed much faster than previously thought.
And this study suggests Mars is made of moving tectonic plates just like earth. So, how can secular scientists be sure that Mars was once covered by water and Earth was not completely covered in water above the mountains as Genesis maintains?
Just looking at pictures of the two planets side by side makes that certitude seem absurd. Secular scientists wouldn't flat out lie to protect an anti-biblical bias would they?
This study notes:
"By selectively excluding study subjects or amending the experimental procedure after designing the study, researchers in the field may be subtly biasing studies to get more positive findings. And once research results are published, journals have little incentive to publish replication studies, which try to check the results.
That means the psychology literature may be littered with effects, or conclusions, that aren't real. [Oops! 5 Retracted Science Studies]
The problem isn't unique to psychology, but the [scientific] field is going through some soul-searching right now. Researchers are creating new initiatives to encourage replication studies"...
Another study notes:
"Among the more than 2,000 retracted life science papers that researchers reviewed in this study, only about 20 percent were retracted because of honest errors. A whopping 70 percent were pulled as a result of scientific misconduct -- that is, lying, cheating and/or stealing".
So, what can be done to combat the documented bias, lying and stealing that goes on in the scientific community? How is the average person supposed to know which scientific studies are false, and which ones are true?
SeaBreeze: So, what can be done to combat the documented bias, lying and stealing that goes on in the scientific community? How is the average person supposed to know which scientific studies are false, and which ones are true?
Such will always be a problem plaguing any efforts at learning. The scientific method works over the long term, as more people do research and experimentation. It is a system that has worked quite well, as the current states of scientific and technological understanding demonstrate. We can have confidence in those studies which produce the world we live in, and must allow time for those that will shape the future.
Cutting edge science will always be inexact and subject to bias and incorrect info, since it requires time and more research and testing to get a better understanding of what is just being discovered. There will always be 'recent studies' that challenge our knowledge. And some of them might even have found something that changes what we know or understand. That's just how learning works, especially where people are pushing the current limits.
It seems as if, everytime some new discovery is made or knowledge is gained, people will use it to promote all kinds of ideas. Some of those will pan out. Most don't. This is also a part of learning. We will be wrong as often (if not more so) than we are right. And that's fine- the stuff that is right will eventually rise to the top, and the stuff that is wrong will eventually be discarded.
SeaBreeze is one of those rare XJWs who are still Biblical literalists.
Usually it’s the opposite…
…most XJWs have already concluded that not everything in the Bible can be taken literally, and it’s a significant factor in their exit.
If Noah lived on Mars 4 billion years ago, I'd believe the flood stories were possible. I had a joke about Uranus but my better nature deleted it.
Such will always be a problem plaguing any efforts at learning
@TonusOh
At great personal cost, I left one community because of them publishing lying studies.
Why would any XJW invest heavily in another institution of man that is increasingly known for its bias and lying studies? Doesn’t make any sense.
Might as well have stayed a JW as far as I’m concerned.
There must be something else drawing some xjws to continually hold “scientific” studies over the word of God despite all the evidence.
peacefulpete - Uranus jokes never get old!
SeaBreeze: Why would any XJW invest heavily in another institution of man that is increasingly known for its bias and lying studies?
There are no institutions that are not of man, is what I've come to realize. The scientific method is meant to deal with the various ways in which people distort the learning process. It doesn't stop people from lying, or from being driven by bias and other failings, but it does help to weed those out over time, which is the best we can hope for. The most important feature of science is that it recognizes that we can be wrong. This gives us the opportunity to make progress, even when it is painfully slow.
It is, IMO, unique in this. Other human institutions --including religion-- practically codify human bias and bad intellectual approaches, making them extremely difficult to update when they are found to be wrong or misguided. It's adherents are forced to work around those obstacles and shape the truth to fit them, because honest inquiry might lead to censure, oppression, or even death. In spite of this, I think we've come remarkably far when we consider the mental roadblocks we have had to overcome, time and again.
