Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You believe things that have never been observed how are you not brainwashed by your reasoning ?
I assume you are speaking (out of your ass) about evolution. Ever had flu medication?
So, having been thoroughly thrashed on physics, you would like to try your hand at the theory of evolution?
She's building a strawman, and your cognitive bias makes you blind to reason.
Poor, poor Lightweight....
....the bete noire is standing to his left, and he is afraid of it...so he looks to his right!
That's the basis of his not dealing with item #2 above.
And this guy claims to have gone to college....
This is a bad joke, you two are either really good trolls and I've been an idiot for following along, or you two are serious and my hope in humanity dies a little more.
I assume you are speaking (out of your ass) about evolution. Ever had flu medication?
So, having been thoroughly thrashed on physics, you would like to try your hand at the theory of evolution?
You've thrashed me based on your misconceptions of physical processes of our universe, you don't even understand the subject so that isn't really surprising to me.
If you would care to do some research and attempt to debate me on physics, have at it. I will be glad for the opportunity to educate you properly on the subject.
Well....since you bring up hypocrites...
When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained. Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion,” p. 143.
Again...Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.
It may come as a shock to you but me and many of my colleagues do not accept the hypothesis of string theory because it is insubstantial.
I would also like to note that ionic bonds (electrostatic) are completely observable.
Now, I'm not saying that you are insignificant...
...but within the context of this thread, you are insignificant.
Berlinski has it right. The kerfuffle is due to folks such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and Victor Stengler...
1. Richard Dawkins, in “The God Delusion,” makes no secret of his distain for those of faith, and contempt for theology. As in the case of many of our atheist scientists, they have hoped to discover laws of some final physical theory so powerful that they will explain the property of matter in all of its modes. “the most extreme hope for science,” Steven Weinberg has written, “is that we will be able to trace the explanation of all natural phenomena to final laws and historical accidents.”
2. Accidents? Well, some attempt to leave that to mathematics. MIT physicist Max Tegmark, physicist Edward Witten, and mathematician Alain Connes have written that the origins of creation are in some inexplicably austere and remote mathematical structure, one so powerful that from it space and time themselves may be derived.
a. Perhaps one should keep in mind that these ambitious speculations assign to mathematics a degree of agency that until now they don not seem to have possessed.
3. Dawkins, among others, has embraced the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours. Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to expericnce.
4. Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”
As Uncensored has indicated, scientist are often considered as infallible...and behave as the new 'priest-class,' yet are not subject to the same contumely.
So in your case, there would be no crime committed....
Son, if that's your idea of wit, you merely confirm that you're about as bright as a quantum singularity.
Oh well, one cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
Enjoy your brainwashed state, I bid you adieu.
You believe things that have never been observed how are you not brainwashed by your reasoning ?
Oh well, one cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
Enjoy your brainwashed state, I bid you adieu.
You believe things that have never been observed how are you not brainwashed by your reasoning ?
I assume you are speaking (out of your ass) about evolution. Ever had flu medication?
She's building a strawman, and your cognitive bias makes you blind to reason.
I am a very reasonable person and at the same time rational.
Everyone who is wrong generally thinks they are right in their assertion.
She's building a strawman, and your cognitive bias makes you blind to reason.
Poor, poor Lightweight....
....the bete noire is standing to his left, and he is afraid of it...so he looks to his right!
That's the basis of his not dealing with item #2 above.
And this guy claims to have gone to college....
This is a bad joke, you two are either really good trolls and I've been an idiot for following along, or you two are serious and my hope in humanity dies a little more.
Oh well, one cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
Enjoy your brainwashed state, I bid you adieu.
You believe things that have never been observed how are you not brainwashed by your reasoning ?
Scientists (at least good scientists) don't "believe" in things they can't see. A hypothesis is generated and an experiment is devised to attempt to discover if that unseen thing that was hypothesised does in fact exist. If the experiment fails (the vast majority) then the hypothesis and the experiment are reviewed to determine if the hypothesis is incorrect or the experiment was flawed in some way. Then the process is repeated.
Then, if everything works out and a desired result is achieved, other scientists are invited to replicate the experiment themselves. That was the downfall of the "cold fusion" fiasco years ago, and will be the downfall of the anthropogenic global warming movement today, they have gone so far away from the scientific method that not only can you not replicate what they have done (they will not release their source materials or computer model code) but they have taken both sides of a hypothesis thus generating a NON- FALSIFIABLE theory. That is the essence of a pseudo science.
The problem that non scientists have is they get most of their information from the media (which doesn't know squat about the scientific method) or from bad scientists who have been able to get themselves into the public eye and will continue to make stuff up to please their media handlers.
You believe things that have never been observed how are you not brainwashed by your reasoning ?
Scientists (at least good scientists) don't "believe" in things they can't see. A hypothesis is generated and an experiment is devised to attempt to discover if that unseen thing that was hypothesised does in fact exist. If the experiment fails (the vast majority) then the hypothesis and the experiment are reviewed to determine if the hypothesis is incorrect or the experiment was flawed in some way. Then the process is repeated.
Then, if everything works out and a desired result is achieved, other scientists are invited to replicate the experiment themselves. That was the downfall of the "cold fusion" fiasco years ago, and will be the downfall of the anthropogenic global warming movement today, they have gone so far away from the scientific method that not only can you not replicate what they have done (they will not release their source materials or computer model code) but they have taken both sides of a hypothesis thus generating a NON- FALSIFIABLE theory. That is the essence of a pseudo science.
The problem that non scientists have is they get most of their information from the media (which doesn't know squat about the scientific method) or from bad scientists who have been able to get themselves into the public eye and will continue to make stuff up to please their media handlers.
Creationist have made mistakes but so has the evolutionist. So are you saying creationist with degrees from accredited schools get their information from the media ?
Much of what comes from the media is support of macro-evolution so can you clear this up for me ?
Scientists (at least good scientists) don't "believe" in things they can't see. A hypothesis is generated and an experiment is devised to attempt to discover if that unseen thing that was hypothesised does in fact exist. If the experiment fails (the vast majority) then the hypothesis and the experiment are reviewed to determine if the hypothesis is incorrect or the experiment was flawed in some way. Then the process is repeated.
Then, if everything works out and a desired result is achieved, other scientists are invited to replicate the experiment themselves. That was the downfall of the "cold fusion" fiasco years ago, and will be the downfall of the anthropogenic global warming movement today, they have gone so far away from the scientific method that not only can you not replicate what they have done (they will not release their source materials or computer model code) but they have taken both sides of a hypothesis thus generating a NON- FALSIFIABLE theory. That is the essence of a pseudo science.
The problem that non scientists have is they get most of their information from the media (which doesn't know squat about the scientific method) or from bad scientists who have been able to get themselves into the public eye and will continue to make stuff up to please their media handlers.
Creationist have made mistakes but so has the evolutionist. So are you saying creationist with degrees from accredited schools get their information from the media ?
Much of what comes from the media is support of macro-evolution so can you clear this up for me ?
EVERYONE makes mistakes. The difference is how you respond to them. The problem is you expect a scientist to say "this is the truth". That's not the way science works. A scientist will say instead, "it is our current understanding, based on the observations and facts that we have gathered that X is true. However, if we develop a more accurate test then the FACTS may change in which case so does our understanding".
A religious person will ignore any number of mistakes (predictions of the end of times as an example) and will instead rely on their faith to ignore or rationalise those mistakes.
AGW supporters do the same BTW!
My response begins here:
This may come under the heading of 'try to teach an old dog new tricks...' but, please, try to learn how to use the quote function.
"It's based on the scientific method and empircal evidence really."
Here it is! The 'money quote'!
"It's based on the scientific method and empircal evidence really."
Not true.
Science isn't based on the scientific method and empircal evidence?
Either you did not read or understand the post...
...or, more likely, you have your eyes tightly closed and your hands pressed over your ears.
Oh snap. What a clever retort and insult! Surely you have thwarted me! All you have to do is say I didn't read the post, and provide some amusing narrative image of me acting like a child.
I didn't miss partially explain, in fact. I'm pretty sure I pointed out because it relates to our gaps in our knowledge of physics. But by all means, insult me and ignore what I said.
Congratulations, you've done nothing but repost. You've pointed out problems with the Standard Model, and most theoretical physicists would agree with you that those are the issues for the Standard Model. I even pointed out it also didn't account for dark matter/energy. No one is going to defend that it's the most perfect theory ever, but rather the best one we have currently.
It's also still has valid parts which are backed up by empirical evidence and observations. That was the point of don't throw the baby out with the bathwater comment.
Please reread my post, and actually respond besides simply acting like I didn't read anything you said.
Then grow thicker skin and stop acting like a victim.
It wasn't. You just reposted criticisms of the Standard Model.
If I may amble into the realm of conjecture, I see a desire by folks who take your view to align themselves with those who they see as cognoscenti, and a huge dollop of fear that they will be seen as uneducated.
"Oh, from you're new favorite book of the week."
To clarify, it's usually four to six books a week.
I didn't think you 'smart' folks would have a problem with books....
Oh. Look. More insults, the only new parts of your reply.
1. You are free to pretend that the argument is not proven, i.e., that science, physics, cosmology, does not use the same mechanisms that theologians use, that would be faith and belief, same has been documented throughout the thread.
Oh, it's because it's not perfect, therefore for all its flaws scientists must have great faith in the model to describe everything? They still have faith, even though they try to find solutions to the gaps in our knowledge?
Except here's the problem, you don't understand why they aren't dropping it. You think it's because they have religious faith in it. If there was a superior theory out there to explain it, scientists would pick it up pretty handily. They don't drop the standard model right now because the standard model still has it's valid parts. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, when you still can learn things from the bathwater. Another reason is many of the issues surrounding the standard model concern things we don't have a significant knowledge on like dark matter or the existence of the Higgs Boson.
2. When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities- universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but what is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.
Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion,” p. 143.
3. "Today we cannot see whether Schrodinger's equation contains frogs, musical composers, or morality," Richard Feynman remarked in his lectures on turbulence. The remark has been widely quoted. lt is honest. The words that follow, however, are rarely quoted: "We cannot say whether something beyond it like God is needed, or not. And so we can all hold strong opinions either way."Same source.
That is the argument, right there.
4. And, for you....the 'Tareq and Michaele Salahi Uninvited Appearance ' Award!
I just know you'll be back...or just admit the truth.
You'll be in good company.
1. Richard Dawkins, in “The God Delusion,” makes no secret of his distain for those of faith, and contempt for theology. As in the case of many of our atheist scientists, they have hoped to discover laws of some final physical theory so powerful that they will explain the property of matter in all of its modes. “the most extreme hope for science,” Steven Weinberg has written, “is that we will be able to trace the explanation of all natural phenomena to final laws and historical accidents.”
2. Accidents? Well, some attempt to leave that to mathematics. MIT physicist Max Tegmark, physicist Edward Witten, and mathematician Alain Connes have written that the origins of creation are in some inexplicably austere and remote mathematical structure, one so powerful that from it space and time themselves may be derived.
a. Perhaps one should keep in mind that these ambitious speculations assign to mathematics a degree of agency that until now they don not seem to have possessed.
3. Dawkins, among others, has embraced the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours. Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to expericnce.
4. Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”
As Uncensored has indicated, scientist are often considered as infallible...and behave as the new 'priest-class,' yet are not subject to the same contumely.
Creationist have made mistakes but so has the evolutionist. So are you saying creationist with degrees from accredited schools get their information from the media ?
Much of what comes from the media is support of macro-evolution so can you clear this up for me ?
EVERYONE makes mistakes. The difference is how you respond to them. The problem is you expect a scientist to say "this is the truth". That's not the way science works. A scientist will say instead, "it is our current understanding, based on the observations and facts that we have gathered that X is true. However, if we develop a more accurate test then the FACTS may change in which case so does our understanding".
A religious person will ignore any number of mistakes (predictions of the end of times as an example) and will instead rely on their faith to ignore or rationalise those mistakes.
AGW supporters do the same BTW!
I have to respectfully disagree with you about your view of creationist.
I don't expect what you say, but I do expect when someone on your side makes a claim they should be able present evidence to support said claim. Don't draw on a vivid imagination. I admit a large part of my views come from the word of God. Some of my views from the bible I can't prove but I don't have a problem admitting that I believe in some things out of faith. Your Side can't seem to admit believing something on faith.
Saying humans are related to apes there is zero evidence to supoort such claim and this has never been observed. Similarity proves nothing as a matter of fact creationist predict that living organisms should show similarity because we were designed by the same creator. But the similarity is not because we are related as your side claims.
Look at some of the creationist predictions and evidence that supports it.
Creationist Predictions
EVERYONE makes mistakes. The difference is how you respond to them. The problem is you expect a scientist to say "this is the truth". That's not the way science works. A scientist will say instead, "it is our current understanding, based on the observations and facts that we have gathered that X is true. However, if we develop a more accurate test then the FACTS may change in which case so does our understanding".
A religious person will ignore any number of mistakes (predictions of the end of times as an example) and will instead rely on their faith to ignore or rationalise those mistakes.
AGW supporters do the same BTW!
I have to respectfully disagree with you about your view of creationist.
I don't expect what you say, but I do expect when someone on your side makes a claim they should be able present evidence to support said claim. Don't draw on a vivid imagination. I admit a large part of my views come from the word of God. Some of my views from the bible I can't prove but I don't have a problem admitting that I believe in some things out of faith. Your Side can't seem to admit believing something on faith.
Saying humans are related to apes there is zero evidence to supoort such claim and this has never been observed. Similarity proves nothing as a matter of fact creationist predict that living organisms should show similarity because we were designed by the same creator. But the similarity is not because we are related as your side claims.
Look at some of the creationist predictions and evidence that supports it.
Creationist Predictions
I don't see a single prediction in the link you provided. I see a religious person rationalising scientific discoveries and explaining how they don't negate creationism.
For your information I have no views on creationism or creationists. I've worked with quite a few and they were wonderful people to work with.
The ones I worked with in the earth sciences were fond of saying "how long is one of Gods days? A billion years?" They had no problem reconciling what we knew of geologic history and creationism, they just weren't tied down to the dogma that Bishop Usher had promulgated where the Earth was a mere 6,000 years old. As they stated, he was a nice man but had no idea of the scientific discoveries that would come along and push back into the distant history the creation of the universe.
You contend that man is not evolved from apes yet the DNA evidence says we are 98% similar. That has been "proven" to the best degree possible but once again, a new technique may come along that disproves that. We don't know. That's why we are allways seeking.
EVERYONE makes mistakes. The difference is how you respond to them. The problem is you expect a scientist to say "this is the truth". That's not the way science works. A scientist will say instead, "it is our current understanding, based on the observations and facts that we have gathered that X is true. However, if we develop a more accurate test then the FACTS may change in which case so does our understanding".
A religious person will ignore any number of mistakes (predictions of the end of times as an example) and will instead rely on their faith to ignore or rationalise those mistakes.
AGW supporters do the same BTW!
I have to respectfully disagree with you about your view of creationist.
I don't expect what you say, but I do expect when someone on your side makes a claim they should be able present evidence to support said claim. Don't draw on a vivid imagination. I admit a large part of my views come from the word of God. Some of my views from the bible I can't prove but I don't have a problem admitting that I believe in some things out of faith. Your Side can't seem to admit believing something on faith.
Saying humans are related to apes there is zero evidence to supoort such claim and this has never been observed. Similarity proves nothing as a matter of fact creationist predict that living organisms should show similarity because we were designed by the same creator. But the similarity is not because we are related as your side claims.
Look at some of the creationist predictions and evidence that supports it.
Creationist Predictions
I don't see a single prediction in the link you provided. I see a religious person rationalising scientific discoveries and explaining how they don't negate creationism.
For your information I have no views on creationism or creationists. I've worked with quite a few and they were wonderful people to work with.
The ones I worked with in the earth sciences were fond of saying "how long is one of Gods days? A billion years?" They had no problem reconciling what we knew of geologic history and creationism, they just weren't tied down to the dogma that Bishop Usher had promulgated where the Earth was a mere 6,000 years old. As they stated, he was a nice man but had no idea of the scientific discoveries that would come along and push back into the distant history the creation of the universe.
You contend that man is not evolved from apes yet the DNA evidence says we are 98% similar. That has been "proven" to the best degree possible but once again, a new technique may come along that disproves that. We don't know. That's why we are allways seeking.
EVERYONE makes mistakes. The difference is how you respond to them. The problem is you expect a scientist to say "this is the truth". That's not the way science works. A scientist will say instead, "it is our current understanding, based on the observations and facts that we have gathered that X is true. However, if we develop a more accurate test then the FACTS may change in which case so does our understanding".
A religious person will ignore any number of mistakes (predictions of the end of times as an example) and will instead rely on their faith to ignore or rationalise those mistakes.
AGW supporters do the same BTW!
I have to respectfully disagree with you about your view of creationist.
I don't expect what you say, but I do expect when someone on your side makes a claim they should be able present evidence to support said claim. Don't draw on a vivid imagination. I admit a large part of my views come from the word of God. Some of my views from the bible I can't prove but I don't have a problem admitting that I believe in some things out of faith. Your Side can't seem to admit believing something on faith.
Saying humans are related to apes there is zero evidence to supoort such claim and this has never been observed. Similarity proves nothing as a matter of fact creationist predict that living organisms should show similarity because we were designed by the same creator. But the similarity is not because we are related as your side claims.
Look at some of the creationist predictions and evidence that supports it.
Creationist Predictions
I don't see a single prediction in the link you provided. I see a religious person rationalising scientific discoveries and explaining how they don't negate creationism.
For your information I have no views on creationism or creationists. I've worked with quite a few and they were wonderful people to work with.
The ones I worked with in the earth sciences were fond of saying "how long is one of Gods days? A billion years?" They had no problem reconciling what we knew of geologic history and creationism, they just weren't tied down to the dogma that Bishop Usher had promulgated where the Earth was a mere 6,000 years old. As they stated, he was a nice man but had no idea of the scientific discoveries that would come along and push back into the distant history the creation of the universe.
You contend that man is not evolved from apes yet the DNA evidence says we are 98% similar. That has been "proven" to the best degree possible but once again, a new technique may come along that disproves that. We don't know. That's why we are allways seeking.
1. Richard Dawkins, in “The God Delusion,” makes no secret of his distain for those of faith, and contempt for theology. As in the case of many of our atheist scientists, they have hoped to discover laws of some final physical theory so powerful that they will explain the property of matter in all of its modes. “the most extreme hope for science,” Steven Weinberg has written, “is that we will be able to trace the explanation of all natural phenomena to final laws and historical accidents.”
He hasn't made a secret of it for years, really. The God Delusion was just the big blockbuster book that made headlines. Given the vocal minority of retards that he has to deal with as an evolutionary biologist, you can't blame him.
A grand unifying theory has been the holy grail of physics for years now, for all physicists, not just the alleged atheist ones who are trying to lock out deities. I'm sure you could find a physicist hoping to find the physical theory to prove god.
2. Accidents? Well, some attempt to leave that to mathematics. MIT physicist Max Tegmark, physicist Edward Witten, and mathematician Alain Connes have written that the origins of creation are in some inexplicably austere and remote mathematical structure, one so powerful that from it space and time themselves may be derived.
Good for them?
Math has always been a powerful tool for human kind. This is nothing new. Other than that, see above. Good for those guys you listed above. If they find some mathematical proof, they're gonna need empirical observations and evidence to back it up. If they can do it, more power to them.
3. Dawkins, among others, has embraced the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours. Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to expericnce.
Can you test for God? Nope. Where's it written in the cosmos that he exists? In a series of poorly written texts written by people who didn't have the breadth of knowledge of the universe that we do now.
That's why people like Dawkins, and Sagan, and Tyson, and Hitchens are around. That's why they take beef with the issue of a deity. There is no empirical evidence to suggest it.
4. Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”
As Uncensored has indicated, scientist are often considered as infallible...and behave as the new 'priest-class,' yet are not subject to the same contumely.
Oh see, this is where you totally miss the point. Science and scientists? Fuck, anyone with two brain cells knows the entire point of science is fallibility. Which rose in response to the claimed infallibility of... anyone? Churches and religious organizations. Who claimed to know how shit worked. And then everyone else found out that they were wrong.
Science has to be fallible. It has been for centuries. You can see in any history class when you learn about the scientific revolution. Look how many previous theories there were that were overturned. Science is built on these failures, because you can always learn from failure. Theories generally only make sense of current and existing evidence. If enough evidence comes up to prove the theory wrong, that theory goes right out the window.
Scientists can be fallible and shitty too. Andrew Wakefield anyone? What about the Bone War of the late 1800s? It's why this thread is silly. Science knows it's infallible, and no one is surprised by bad scientists.
