Robert Byers
Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009
|
| Quote (Krubozumo Nyankoye @ Mar. 01 2010,04:02) | Just dropping in on a thread that involves geology, I have wasted an inordinate amount of time reading the first 17 pages and had to skip to the end because I have to get to work in about 5 hours.
It is very entertaining to read various people's responses to the creotards inanities but I have to admit I don't have the fortitude for it. Life is too short. That is not so say I do not have a kind of grudging respect for the many here who actually choose to remain in the trenches risking intellectual damage to themselves out of the sheer obstinacy of the the stupidity and dishonesty of a Byers. If life was just, you all should be rewarded.
But I would like to try to bring the thread, perhaps in parallel back to the original question which is what caught my attention in the first place. The question that was broached if memory serves me, was something to the effect, is it possible to be a geologist and deny evolution?
The obvious answer is of course yes. I am sure many of my colleagues think evolution is bunk. Why they think so I cannot very well elaborate on because frankly I haven't much opportunity and even less interest in discussing it with them. Or much of anything else for that matter.
While it is quite true that in my own field for example evolution is not a factor at all, my grounding in geology is far broader than my own field, and I have some limited knowledge of many of its other disciplines. Something that is not overly obvious to one outside the scientific envioronment that is very important is having a sense of confidence in and trust of the motives and efforts and intentions of ones fellows (pts), which gives an ability to rely on other's work in trying to further your own. In a word trust.
After 35 years of effort trying to learn a very narrow and specific subset of geology within its overall context to the science as a whole and the the society in which I pursue it, I have not made much of any contribution, but everything I have contributed to the best of my ability has always been honest. And for my confidence in my own honesty to be at least reasonably high, I have to make an effort to critically understand what others in that field are finding. To a great extent I have to trust that they too are making their best effort.
I will go away from the evolution question for a moment and portray instead a different motivation that I think corrupts the science - money. It is similar to creationism but I won't address that. Money can corrupt good science and produce phony science in abundance. It happens all the time. In my specific field it happens mainly on stock exchanges where mineral properties that are probably worthless are touted as the next great gold rush. The scientists who provide the information that is turned into hype rationalize the dishonesty of it in some way. Often I am sure it is simply a matter of a marginally negative assessment being turned into a big winner because that is the only way to move investors.
So my conclusion is that yes indeed one can be a 'geologist' and still hold beliefs that are contradictory to the premise of the whole discipline, and at the same time demonstrably of spurious origins. I do not at all mean to imply that most scientists, in any field, are corrupt. But obviously, some are in every field, because of things like money, and self-serving beliefs.
Just as in this forum, you have to learn whom you can trust.
I want to make one last observation. I think that the purpose of attacking science, whether it be by political or polemical or other means, is intended solely and entirely to try to discredit its results. The purveyors of the snake oil of faith realize that if the body politic understands the power of science they are doomed. Because they rely entirely on superstition.
I for one never cared whether someone clung to superstition or not, until they began to try to impose it on me.
My circumstances are such that I am able to communicate only for a few hours late in the day but I would like to continue the discussion of the threats and condition of science both academic and applied with those here who are serious about it.
That is to say to the creotards I intend to ignore you. |
You admit geologists have false motives. AMEN. When origin issues touch on religion its obvious to all creationisms that there is more going on then mere scholarship.
We agree that some geologists can't be trusted.
You say you contributed nothing to your field. Why not? why should a creationist be impressed with your conclusions?
I'm not stupid or dishonest. Of coarse if I was I wouldn't know it or honestly admit it. A line of reasoning.
You wrote that you will ignore creationists.
Yet these are forums to discuss these things?!
Ignoring creationism will not save the side of error.
Contribute here where your expertise in geology is relevant.
.Unless you truly are ignoring us.
|
