Comments on: What is Faith? http://liberta.co.za/blog/what-is-faith/ Money for monkeys. Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:19:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Francois Viljoen http://liberta.co.za/blog/what-is-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-908 Francois Viljoen Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:21:37 +0000 http://liberta.co.za/blog/?p=1906#comment-908 @Danie Excellent points Danie! Makes me think of <a href="http://liberta.co.za/blog/wisdom-strawberry-4-common-sense-says-the-earth-is-flat/" title="Wisdom Strawberry #4: Common sense says the Earth is flat" rel="nofollow">Wisdom Strawberry #4: Common sense says the Earth is flat</a> (and it also says we should be watching out for those Martians moving rocks around on Earth). @Danie

Excellent points Danie!

Makes me think of Wisdom Strawberry #4: Common sense says the Earth is flat (and it also says we should be watching out for those Martians moving rocks around on Earth).

]]> By: Danie Loots http://liberta.co.za/blog/what-is-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-904 Danie Loots Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:16:50 +0000 http://liberta.co.za/blog/?p=1906#comment-904 That is so true Francois. Al lot of people blindly believe in so called "Science" without the slightest questioning. Knowing who sponsors the "science" can already be an indication of where the result of the "scientific study" will end up. E.g. if Nokia would employ scientists to study the effect of cell phones on children, I think it is reasonable to expect some censorship on the results, even if not officially imposed by the sponsor. As far as science related to history (Historic Science) goes, I have seen the most amazing claims been made as if it is unquestionable truth. Science is supposed to be questioned all the time and adjusted if needed. This may apply to many fields of study, but not where the age of the earth / universe comes in or where molecules-to-man evolution is studied. I read (in various books and articles) the following scientific evidence. A rock was found in Antarctica with Fossils of Bacteria on it. This rock originated a few kilometers below the surface of Mars. It left Mars about 50000 years ago and entered Earth's atmosphere about 15000 - 20000 years ago. If the above was published in National Geographic, Science or Nature, would ANYBODY question it? Think about it for a while. If you saw something about this on 50/50, Discovery Channel or National Geographic Channel, how inclined will you be to question its validity. Lets assume some so called scientist is questioned and he gives some fancy scientific explanation that you don't understand, he also draws some very nice looking pictures. Are you going to question it? Think about it for a while before you continue to read. To be truthful, a few years back, I would not have questioned it at all. I probably still accept some articles or programs like these as the truth, without thinking twice. Now lets try to think logically about this. How does a fossil of bacteria look like? How does these fossils survive entering the Earth's atmosphere? Which dating methods did they use to determine all these dates? How accurate are these dating methods? Did they connect their laptop to the USB port on the rock and download all this information? How do cause a rock to leave Mars without leaving a serious dent on the other side? (Or was it some Martian that moved it?). The above may be an extreme example, but I have seen just how gullible people are when reading magazines, news papers or books, not even to mention Television. Especially if the words Science, Scientific Evidence or Scientist is used. That is so true Francois. Al lot of people blindly believe in so called “Science” without the slightest questioning. Knowing who sponsors the “science” can already be an indication of where the result of the “scientific study” will end up. E.g. if Nokia would employ scientists to study the effect of cell phones on children, I think it is reasonable to expect some censorship on the results, even if not officially imposed by the sponsor.

As far as science related to history (Historic Science) goes, I have seen the most amazing claims been made as if it is unquestionable truth. Science is supposed to be questioned all the time and adjusted if needed. This may apply to many fields of study, but not where the age of the earth / universe comes in or where molecules-to-man evolution is studied.

I read (in various books and articles) the following scientific evidence. A rock was found in Antarctica with Fossils of Bacteria on it. This rock originated a few kilometers below the surface of Mars. It left Mars about 50000 years ago and entered Earth’s atmosphere about 15000 – 20000 years ago.

If the above was published in National Geographic, Science or Nature, would ANYBODY question it? Think about it for a while. If you saw something about this on 50/50, Discovery Channel or National Geographic Channel, how inclined will you be to question its validity. Lets assume some so called scientist is questioned and he gives some fancy scientific explanation that you don’t understand, he also draws some very nice looking pictures. Are you going to question it? Think about it for a while before you continue to read.

To be truthful, a few years back, I would not have questioned it at all. I probably still accept some articles or programs like these as the truth, without thinking twice.

Now lets try to think logically about this. How does a fossil of bacteria look like? How does these fossils survive entering the Earth’s atmosphere? Which dating methods did they use to determine all these dates? How accurate are these dating methods?

Did they connect their laptop to the USB port on the rock and download all this information? How do cause a rock to leave Mars without leaving a serious dent on the other side? (Or was it some Martian that moved it?).

The above may be an extreme example, but I have seen just how gullible people are when reading magazines, news papers or books, not even to mention Television. Especially if the words Science, Scientific Evidence or Scientist is used.

]]>