The rather exquisite irony is that scientists themselves don't transmit information in this manner, neither to each other nor to the general public.

Michael Polanyi explains why:

"The amount of knowledge which we can justify from evidence directly available to us can never be large. The overwhelming proportion of our factual beliefs continue therefore to be held at second hand through trusting others, and in the great majority of cases our trust is placed in the authority of comparatively few people of widely acknowledged standing...

"Nobody knows more than a tiny fragment of science well enough to judge its validity and value at first hand. For the rest he has to rely on views accepted at second hand on the authority of a community of people accredited as scientists. But this accrediting depends in its turn on a complex organization. For each member of the community can judge at first hand only a small number of his fellow members, and yet eventually each is accredited by all. What happens is that each recognizes as scientists a number of others by whom he is recognized as such in return, and these relations form chains which transmit these mutual recognitions at second hand through the whole community. This is how each member becomes directly or indirectly accredited by all. The system extends into the past. Its members recognize the same set of persons as their masters and derive from this allegiance a common tradition, of which each carries on a particular strand."

There's a reason why all scientific claims are subject to peer review. Any molecular biologist who solicited man-in-the-street opinions to validate his claims would, by that fact alone and regardless of any real merit his claims might possibly have, completely lose his cedibility with both his peers and the general public. It's not so much the information that's de facto suspect here, but the total absence of standard scientific protocol.

Feb 17, 2012 -- 3:49PM, Knowsnothing wrote:

On www.watchtower.org/e/20040122a/article_0...

Also, she told my wife that during the Bible study scheduled for the following week, they would consider a Bible prophecy showing that 1914 was a significant year. That was exactly the opening I needed! I told the Witness that I would be at home for the next Bible discussion. I wanted to check the mathematical accuracy of what she was going to discuss about the year 1914.

In my mind, 1914 as being predicted through 607 BCE has been totally debunked.  Talk about mathematical accuracy. 

Interesting that you should choose history (and prophecy) as the field of science to start with - I would not have expected that!   But History it is (I would have preferred chemistry, microbiology or some other science).

607 has been totally debunked?  Really? 

We had a recent article on history in support of 607 BCE - have you researched it yet?

Now, it is so new I may have trouble finding it!  So if anyone else finds it first - please post the reference!

The conclusion of the article is that secular chronology contradicting 607 BCE is on shaky ground and that Biblical chronology is more accurate.  I will search for the article.

The conclusion of the article is that secular chronology contradicting 607 BCE is on shaky ground and that Biblical chronology is more accurate.

Biblical chronology is what the individual religious sects say it is, I've discovered.  I'll stick with the secular, thanks awfully.