Do Scientists Have "Faith" in the Same Sense some Christians do?

[shunyadragon]

Many think that it's scientifically impossible that many dinosaurs even existed, with their tremendous size, etc.

'Many think' is a fallacy. In this case I doubt that 'many think' objectively here and not consider the vast amount of evidence concerning dinosaurs.

 

[QuestioningMind]

There is no evidence that the Earth orbits the Sun. It is just as plausible to conclude that the Sun and stars orbits the Earth. Even Einstein was honest enough to admit this. A lot of people still lack the honesty and ability to know themselves. Both are taken by faith/confidence. I know stubbornness will make you think differently, however due to confirmation bias of one model.

ROFL... actually there is plenty of evidence that the Earth and other planets orbit the sun in the manner described by the theory of heliocentrism. That's why scientists can predict precisely where heavenly bodies will be in the sky at any given time. Such predictions are NOT made based on the notion that the the sun and stars orbit the Earth. Using a model in which everything orbits the Earth makes it IMPOSSIBLE to make such predictions and is the main reason that rational minded people eventually concluded that the Earth COULDN'T be the center of everything. Why, modern day science has figured out how objects move about the solar system to such a degree that they were able to accurately predict the solar eclipse back in August down to the minute.

But you go ahead and keep living in your delusional little world where there is no evidence that the Earth orbits the sun. Perhaps for you, ignorance IS bliss.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no evidence that the Earth orbits the Sun. It is just as plausible to conclude that the Sun and stars orbits the Earth. Even Einstein was honest enough to admit this. A lot of people still lack the honesty and ability to know themselves. Both are taken by faith/confidence. I know stubbornness will make you think differently, however due to confirmation bias of one model.

Sarcasm?!?!?

Please do not take Einstein's name in vain foolishness!

It appears you are playing the devils advocate!

 

[shunyadragon]

The assumptions of science, and the science of evolution as well are that our natural existence is consistent, and predicable, and this is tested every time the predictability of a theory or hypothesis is tested with scientific methods, research, and the confirmation of the predictions.

I want to add that this is indeed true of the theories and hypothesis involving the multiverse hypothesis. The problem is there is no objective verifiable evidence, and it is based the predictability of Quantum Mechanics models and the predictable logic of Math theorems.
.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Why believe the word of Jehovah instead of the words of Zeus? Or Osiris? Or Odin? Or Zarathustra? Or Zoroaster?

Dinosaurs didn't exist during the "first age" of the Earth, and they didn't even all live during the same epoch.

I figured as much, that you would probably come up with some Lame reasoning.

But I thought I would take a chance. But all I get is some lame reasoning.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Many think that it's scientifically impossible that many dinosaurs even existed, with their tremendous size, etc.

I am aware. I am also aware that creatures of such enormous size can and do exist. Some are even bigger. I'm also aware that some dinosaurs were only slighter bigger than a chicken, and that Jurassic Park is way more fantasy than what most people realize.

I figured as much, that you would probably come up with some Lame reasoning.

But I thought I would take a chance. But all I get is some lame reasoning.[/QUOTE]
So, in other words, you have nothing. I ask for proof, and you have none. I offer rebuttal, you have nothing in return.
Asking questions and providing rebuttal isn't "lame thinking." I can't say the same for thinking it is.

 

[David T]

What?

I throw a rock up it falls math has zero to do with it falling or theories or arratives. Ow if I shove a bone

What?

Hey I get on RF because it's about as far as one can get from NATURE!!! So in that regard it might be actually a good view of "NORMAL". LOTS of TV book conversation about nature but it's about as close as a book or tv. Uhhhh books they not determine nature. Math thez not determine nature, ideas thez not determine nature. Skull it tiny sky big big . Sky come first then skull. Skull believe it created sky. Skull very damaged phd disorder Confused uuuugh.

Easier?

 

[Faithofchristian]

I am aware. I am also aware that creatures of such enormous size can and do exist. Some are even bigger. I'm also aware that some dinosaurs were only slighter bigger than a chicken, and that Jurassic Park is way more fantasy than what most people realize.

Jurassic Park comes more to the truth, than people actually knows.

We have the Dinosaurs bones proves these facts.
But then there are those that trys to dismiss Dinosaurs bones as some sort of trick.

These are ignorant People to say the least.

 

[Profound Realization]

Sarcasm?!?!?

Please do not take Einstein's name in vain foolishness!

It appears you are playing the devils advocate!

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.” -Albert Einstein

 

[Profound Realization]

'Many think' is a fallacy. In this case I doubt that 'many think' objectively here and not consider the vast amount of evidence concerning dinosaurs.

I know that many not dare go against the status quo of the scientific church community, but for those free in mind and free from conforming to anything... these are some decent ideas:

Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Theory of Prehistoric Dinosaurs

 

[Profound Realization]

You presented contradiction. Opinion is not the same as an assumption in science.

o·pin·ion noun

1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
   "I'm writing to voice my opinion on an issue of great importance"
   synonyms: belief, judgment, thought(s), (way of) thinking, mind, (point of) view, viewpoint, outlook, attitude, stance, position, perspective, persuasion, standpoint; More
   
   • the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.
     "the changing climate of opinion"
   • an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something.

From: undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

What is an assumption in science?

The process of science builds reliable knowledge about the natural world. ... The process of building scientific knowledge relies on a few basic assumptions that are worth acknowledging. Science operates on the assumptions that: There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.

The principle assumption in science is that our physical existence is consistent, uniform, and predictable. Every research project, theory and hypothesis that that is tested makes predictions. These assumptions are tested millions of times over the years and they have not failed yet.

Thanks for confirming, by noting the basic assumptions.

Now, the many links you may read from, research from will give you sound science and then the unanswered questions will give you, "such and such are "THOUGHT" to have ........" "Such and such "COULD HAVE." Therein enters the opinion.

Take for instances with dinosaurs attempting to explain away some of their sheer size... one of the most prominent is that "gravity" was "thought" to have been not consistent, yet again a contradiction to an assumption.

A contradiction, assumption, and opinion all noted in just trying to "explain" how dinosaurs "could have" been that large.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Jurassic Park comes more to the truth, than people actually knows.

They messed up sizes, behaviors/habits, even got the spellings wrong a couple times. If you want to learn about dinosaurs, that franchise is one of the last places you should learn about them from. It's like to to learn about sex by watching porn.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I know that many not dare go against the status quo of the scientific church community, but for those free in mind and free from conforming to anything... these are some decent ideas:

Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Theory of Prehistoric Dinosaurs

Okay. *Cracks knuckles* I haven't had fun addressing a list form like this in a long time so let's have a go.

1. "An extinction-level event of this magnitude would have destroyed all life on Earth, not just the dinosaurs; this would be evident archaeologically"
   The KT or K-Pg extinction event wasn't the first extinction event. Nor the last one (technically we are still in one.) There's no reason to believe the K-Pg asteroid was large enough to permanently wipe out Earth's life. Instead, it caused a nuclear-style winter which favored smaller animals in most places excepting nearest to the equator where there was still enough heat for larger reptiles to get by. It also allowed a competitive edge to already existing smaller animals. Also, it's worth noting that dinosaurs were already in rapid decline before the asteroid hit, due to a variety of different factors included some I've mentioned here. Scientists have some surprising news about what REALLY happened to the dinosaurs
2. "There would not have been enough food or fresh water for plant-based animals this big to have lived"
   Again, this is an assertion without much reason to assert it. It's like saying that blue whales can't exist because they're much bigger than elephants, and elephants have to eat 18 hours a day! That's not really how the world works. Different types of digestion systems and different types of food types offer different yields of energy to different animals. Plus, if large lizard-hipped dinosaurs like brontosaurus were cold-blooded or cold-blooded like then they probably also had a very slow metabolism. Even the largest snakes only eat once or twice a month. Gators can fast for months at a time.
3. "No one is allowed to question the Dinosaur Orthodoxy without extremely harsh criticism"
   One can expect extremely harsh criticism for saying gravity doesn't exist, too. That doesn't mean gravity is a scientific conspiracy against the ones 'asking questions.' The problem isn't asking questions, the problem is creationists failing to bring objections based on scientific data, rather than from faith. The need for it to not be true.
4. "Dinosaurs were too big to have existed with the confines of the laws of physics"
   No more true than the aforementioned blue whale. Setting artificial limitations to body mass and physiology is not a very reliable way to convince people. And the mechanisms, such as pumping blood to the head, are already well known: How Long-Necked Dinosaurs Pumped Blood to Their Brains | Science | Smithsonian
5. "Lack of perpetual fossil evidence - everyone should be finding these bones in the backyards"
   It's incredibly unrealistic to expect the majority, or even a large minority, of animal remains to become fossilized. Fossilization of large bodied animals is very rare because there's a high probability factors will destroy those remains before the process has time to complete. Scavengers, tectonic activity, water damage, crushing, etc would scatter most remains to the wind. It's likely we do find more fossils than we think we do, we just don't recognize them as such because they're mangled, worn, tiny or mixed in with other materials.
6. "Radiocarbon dating, also known as Carbon-14 Dating, cannot date back longer than 40,000 years"
   Radiocarbon isn't a dating method used on fossils at all. It can be used on non-fossilized remains and is by anthropologists and paleoanthropologists. However, Radiocarbon 14 dating is not the only dating method by a long shot ( you can see some of them here Radiometric dating - Wikipedia ) and dating methods with mother isotopes with longer half-lives are used to date fossils. Mostly Potassium and Potassium Argon dating, which can be used on materials older than a billion years old.
7. "Dinosaurs did not exist in mythology in any culture before the 1800s"
   Neither do the many arrays of deep sea creatures which are truly monsterous. Even though they sometimes wash up onto shore. A limited exposure to remains isn't enough to create major cultural icons in mythology. However, I notice that the question has a picture of a dragon but brushes off a possible dinosaur-dragon connection, as there are various types of dragons in cultures all over the world, and various skeletal remains of dinosaurs and extinct non-dinosaurian reptiles which very could very easily be inspiration for it.
8. "A full skeleton or a dinosaur has never been found - not even close to one"
   Once again, it's highly unrealistic to expect complete skeletons for reasons already mentioned. And I'm not sure why they decided this makes dinosaurs suspicious. If dinosaurs were a manufactured conspiracy, you'd think there would be tons of complete skeletons. Why would they omit parts of it?
   
9. "There is more evidence for the presupposition of dinosaurs than the other way around"
   The claim itself is a presumption. And many presuppositions have been made in this list. What isn't presupposed is dinosaurs. I have personally, with my own two hands, extracted dinosaur fossils from the soil. And personally, with my own two eyes, identified the remains. Now unless there's some truly mythic level amounts of undercover scientists planting fossils in backwater states by the boat loads, and then covering the soil in the way that entire strata sits between me and the fossil, I'm going to have to say that saying 'dinosaurs are hoaxes' is silly.
   
10. "Even an extinction-level event would not have destroyed the dinosaurs who lived in the deep-ocean"
    Dinosaurs didn't live in the 'deep-ocean.' Large marine reptiles lived in open bodies of ocean, but they were all ectotherms and with reptilian lung configurations which would have been fatal in 'deep oceans.'
    However, various climate conditions effect the ocean all the time. A 'nuclear winter' from an asteroid strike would block sunlight penetration into the ocean, destroying whole blooms of phytoplankton and interrupting the food chain from the top down.
    But, once again, large marine reptiles were already on their way out as they were being out-competed by smaller predators. This wasn't just true of marine reptiles, it killed off megalodon too.

 

[Grandliseur]

That's a problem for creationism. No two creationists agree about what was created. How about if we define kind as any organism that replicates?

Our common ground is a void.

`Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed is in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so. 12 And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed is in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that it is good; 13 and there is an evening, and there is a morning--day third.
. . .
, `Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.' 21 And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that it is good. 22 And God blesseth them, saying, `Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and the fowl let multiply in the earth:' 23 and there is an evening, and there is a morning--day fifth.
24 And God saith, `Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind:' and it is so. 25 And God maketh the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, and God seeth that it is good.​

While the details don't get into each little kind of animal, the picture is given.

You as well as nearly everyone else I can think of probably agree that whether poodle, cocker spaniel, German shepherd, or Great Dane, all are dogs and were bred out of one ur-dog pair. While my beliefs are that this family, kind, which includes wolves, etc., originated with an ur-dog, your belief is that all originated from a single cell, and from hot mineral rock soup. Your belief is that no design is present, and mine is that all living organisms were designed.

The fact that your beliefs are more detailed than mine - is not a problem for me. I do not need any more details for my belief system to work. Your's does.

It does neither you or me any favors to discuss who is right; both of us stand on high pedestals doing balancing acts that pretty much prevent any crossover.

​

 

[Grandliseur]

But notice that you're describing evolution, not creation.

You're wrong.
The fact that I believe that animals were created in kinds, that again subdivided into clearly recognizable family members is not evolution. Ur-dogs never were ur-cats. That is the definition of 'kind.'
Evolutionists tend to claim all DNA and its mutations for themselves. Instead, it is observed that animals may breed into many different types that are vastly different in size, in color, etc. while still containing the quality that makes them a specific kind. There is adjustments for environment, polar or warm latitudes, and especially for being manipulated by man for his desires, as seen with cows, and other domestic animals, in the amount of milk production, and wool production. This is not evolution, and when their DNA is artificially changed, it is by design once again.

 

[Profound Realization]

Okay. *Cracks knuckles* I haven't had fun addressing a list form like this in a long time so let's have a go.

1. "An extinction-level event of this magnitude would have destroyed all life on Earth, not just the dinosaurs; this would be evident archaeologically"
   The KT or K-Pg extinction event wasn't the first extinction event. Nor the last one (technically we are still in one.) There's no reason to believe the K-Pg asteroid was large enough to permanently wipe out Earth's life. Instead, it caused a nuclear-style winter which favored smaller animals in most places excepting nearest to the equator where there was still enough heat for larger reptiles to get by. It also allowed a competitive edge to already existing smaller animals. Also, it's worth noting that dinosaurs were already in rapid decline before the asteroid hit, due to a variety of different factors included some I've mentioned here. Scientists have some surprising news about what REALLY happened to the dinosaurs
2. "There would not have been enough food or fresh water for plant-based animals this big to have lived"
   Again, this is an assertion without much reason to assert it. It's like saying that blue whales can't exist because they're much bigger than elephants, and elephants have to eat 18 hours a day! That's not really how the world works. Different types of digestion systems and different types of food types offer different yields of energy to different animals. Plus, if large lizard-hipped dinosaurs like brontosaurus were cold-blooded or cold-blooded like then they probably also had a very slow metabolism. Even the largest snakes only eat once or twice a month. Gators can fast for months at a time.
3. "No one is allowed to question the Dinosaur Orthodoxy without extremely harsh criticism"
   One can expect extremely harsh criticism for saying gravity doesn't exist, too. That doesn't mean gravity is a scientific conspiracy against the ones 'asking questions.' The problem isn't asking questions, the problem is creationists failing to bring objections based on scientific data, rather than from faith. The need for it to not be true.
4. "Dinosaurs were too big to have existed with the confines of the laws of physics"
   No more true than the aforementioned blue whale. Setting artificial limitations to body mass and physiology is not a very reliable way to convince people. And the mechanisms, such as pumping blood to the head, are already well known: How Long-Necked Dinosaurs Pumped Blood to Their Brains | Science | Smithsonian
5. "Lack of perpetual fossil evidence - everyone should be finding these bones in the backyards"
   It's incredibly unrealistic to expect the majority, or even a large minority, of animal remains to become fossilized. Fossilization of large bodied animals is very rare because there's a high probability factors will destroy those remains before the process has time to complete. Scavengers, tectonic activity, water damage, crushing, etc would scatter most remains to the wind. It's likely we do find more fossils than we think we do, we just don't recognize them as such because they're mangled, worn, tiny or mixed in with other materials.
6. "Radiocarbon dating, also known as Carbon-14 Dating, cannot date back longer than 40,000 years"
   Radiocarbon isn't a dating method used on fossils at all. It can be used on non-fossilized remains and is by anthropologists and paleoanthropologists. However, Radiocarbon 14 dating is not the only dating method by a long shot ( you can see some of them here Radiometric dating - Wikipedia ) and dating methods with mother isotopes with longer half-lives are used to date fossils. Mostly Potassium and Potassium Argon dating, which can be used on materials older than a billion years old.
7. "Dinosaurs did not exist in mythology in any culture before the 1800s"
   Neither do the many arrays of deep sea creatures which are truly monsterous. Even though they sometimes wash up onto shore. A limited exposure to remains isn't enough to create major cultural icons in mythology. However, I notice that the question has a picture of a dragon but brushes off a possible dinosaur-dragon connection, as there are various types of dragons in cultures all over the world, and various skeletal remains of dinosaurs and extinct non-dinosaurian reptiles which very could very easily be inspiration for it.
8. "A full skeleton or a dinosaur has never been found - not even close to one"
   Once again, it's highly unrealistic to expect complete skeletons for reasons already mentioned. And I'm not sure why they decided this makes dinosaurs suspicious. If dinosaurs were a manufactured conspiracy, you'd think there would be tons of complete skeletons. Why would they omit parts of it?
   
9. "There is more evidence for the presupposition of dinosaurs than the other way around"
   The claim itself is a presumption. And many presuppositions have been made in this list. What isn't presupposed is dinosaurs. I have personally, with my own two hands, extracted dinosaur fossils from the soil. And personally, with my own two eyes, identified the remains. Now unless there's some truly mythic level amounts of undercover scientists planting fossils in backwater states by the boat loads, and then covering the soil in the way that entire strata sits between me and the fossil, I'm going to have to say that saying 'dinosaurs are hoaxes' is silly.
   
10. "Even an extinction-level event would not have destroyed the dinosaurs who lived in the deep-ocean"
    Dinosaurs didn't live in the 'deep-ocean.' Large marine reptiles lived in open bodies of ocean, but they were all ectotherms and with reptilian lung configurations which would have been fatal in 'deep oceans.'
    However, various climate conditions effect the ocean all the time. A 'nuclear winter' from an asteroid strike would block sunlight penetration into the ocean, destroying whole blooms of phytoplankton and interrupting the food chain from the top down.
    But, once again, large marine reptiles were already on their way out as they were being out-competed by smaller predators. This wasn't just true of marine reptiles, it killed off megalodon too.

That's the point, I'd love to have a philosophical reasoning with you back and forth with our best guesses. . If I were to argue me, I'd say just about everything you did.

1. Philosophical explanations. We don't even know what caused their extinction. Best guess is a meteor. Also don't know if there was a nuclear style winter.

2. I can agree, but at the same time also acknowledge much of this is guesswork as to the nature of the beasts.

3. I know an "atheist" who did and was mocked and left paleontology courses. A good way of misleading is to bring up Creationists into something that's completely irrelevant.

4. A blue whale is well proportioned for its weight. Some of these best guess inventions as to what they would look like leave them so misproportional and misbalanced, yet are concluded so quick and agile, and fliers with small wings and a lot of weight. That link states things like "believed to be" and "for unexplained reasons."

5. This can go with your #9. Anyone can dig up a few large or small bones and claim/identify them as whatever they want to. From a large mammal, a large reptile, a small mammal, a small reptile, etc.

6. That dating isn't on the fossils themselves, it is on the rocks and sediments and other things from whence they were found, admittingly for reasons you stated in #5.

7. Nobody magically started finding dinosaur bones until the bone race and when people were emotionally heightened to support a growing evolution model.

8. Why so? Other species full set of bones are intact even from long ago.

9. See #5. I can reason that dinosaur hoaxes
are both silly and non-silly.

10. These are also all philosophical thoughts and assumptions.

 

[shunyadragon]

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.” -Albert Einstein

I believe this is a bit out of context since Einstein was putting this in the context of time, and not after the Copernicus was accepted by all without controversy.

 

[blü 2]

These scientists have only proved that they are wrong over and over again in that they change their theories around quite often. God's word does not change. You should do some serious thinking and praying about that.

I'd put that another way.

Science derives its conclusions by empiricism and induction, hence knows that nothing protects those conclusions for a counterexample that might turn up tomorrow, or never turn up. Hence they're all tentative.

Science also requires its conclusions to be stated in falsifiable form, to allow them to be tested. Since all conclusions are always open for scrutiny and debate, science is good at detecting its own errors and setting out to correct them.

Thus your statement that science changes its opinion when the evidence so requires, points to the great strength of science, to be self-interrogating and self-correcting.

Whereas in so far as religion makes falsifiable statements, as creationists do, these have in general been effortlessly falsified.

Does creationism learn from this and correct its ideas so that they conform with reality ie are true?

Nope. Creationism instead ties itself into perverse intellectual knots trying to invent excuses why the falsification wasn't really a falsification at all.

There's a word for that, but I won't use it here.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Dinosaurs did not exist in mythology in any culture before the 1800s"
Neither do the many arrays of deep sea creatures which are truly monsterous. Even though they sometimes wash up onto shore. A limited exposure to remains isn't enough to create major cultural icons in mythology. However, I notice that the question has a picture of a dragon but brushes off a possible dinosaur-dragon connection, as there are various types of dragons in cultures all over the world, and various skeletal remains of dinosaurs and extinct non-dinosaurian reptiles which very could very easily be inspiration for it.

I read, or maybe watched, somewhere, and it speculated that to the Greeks, the bones of mammoths and dinosaurs might have been known, but rearranged to become their titans (or other giants of other cultures). No hard evidence to confirm it, but interesting I thought.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The theory of evolution is entirely based on faith if one assumes it is correct. It has not been proven correct and probably cannot be. One must believe it is truth on faith.

Why don't you believe the theory of evolution if all it takes to believe is faith? That's not a deal breaker for you.