Scientific Consensus is extremely fallible

submitted by [deleted] from self.whatever

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Insider 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Most scientists agree with whoever is paying them or whatever would win them accolades.

This ain't true btw

only a very small percent of scientists are compromised, they just get the loudest voices because the government and/or companies are promoting their schtick

Bad practice and shoddy science in order to advance their career is more common, but accolades aren't a part of it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

70 years ago doctors recommended smoking, and I’m pretty sure that is because they were paid to.

Today, despite the mathematical order of the universe, most scientists will call noticing intellegent design as religion without fairly judging the evidence because their peers don’t believe in a Creator.

[–]Insider 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

most scientists will call noticing intellegent design as religion

Wow, that's retarded. "Noticing intelligent design" isn't evidence of a creator.

If there was an omniscient powerful being, it wouldn't be a "creator" in any sense we can imagine, because the concept of a "creator" is a low-IQ human-level concept. If God existed based on any religion, he would be a piece of shit and an insult to himself. Man made God in his image, not the other way around.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You don’t have to be religious to notice intellegent design.

But it’s precisely because of the stigma of religion in scientific circle that they won’t even consider the evidence.

Either the universe is designed or it isn’t. As a seeker of truth you have to weigh the evidence. Even if the rest of the boys in the science club call you mean names.

[–]Insider 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The evidence is basically "wow, life exists". It doesn't tell you anything. Also, if there is a Creator, he would be an evil piece of shit.

Let's say there is a Creator and he allows free will, explaining why people are capable evil. The Creator himself, also must have free will meaning he is capable of evil too, but most religions believe the Creator is all good.

But if he's all good and can NEVER do anything evil, then he doesn't have free will and he must be a deterministic entity rather than a conscience being. Therefore, in order for a Creator to exist, he can't be all good.

The Creator gave us free will, letting us choose for ourselves and allowing for evil to exist. No rules says he can't interfere or reduce evil acts. HE is the one who makes up the rules, he's the Creator after all. Now imagine Bill Clinton and Podesta fucking and torturing little kids who are shrieking and screaming in fear and pain. The Creator sees this and goes, "yep, I'll allow it".

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It doesn't mater if the Creator is good or evil, scientists should be able to assert there is a Creator if there is one.

[–]Insider 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No they shouldn't, it's beyond the reach of mankind's current capabilities. It's like trying to assert what happens after death.

A Creator may not be a conscious being, meaning it's a type of force in the laws of physics, like gravity. In which case, it wouldn't be called a "Creator".

It could, for example, have something to do with dark matter and scientists are working on figuring out what that is right now.