Peanut Butter - The Atheist's Nightmare

[conv3rsion]

It took a commitment to rationality to make us willing to reject the tons of prior experience and proof that classical mechanics explained everything and the ability to do this led to an increase in knowledge. It was the exact opposite of the blind scientific dogmatism we are seeing in this thread.

This isn't to say we should deny all experience and proof. It's to acknowledge the role that it plays. Keeping in mind that the default state of the universe is not order but chaos, and the second law of thermodynamics dictates that the universe is moving from order to chaos and any evolution in the reverse direction is an anomaly.

No one said modern evolutionary theory is fully complete. They just say that it is currently the most complete theory and like classical mechanics, has a tremendous amount of evidence to support it. More importantly, it makes testable claims and allows for practical applications.

Quantum mechanics supplements classical mechanics, but in its scope classical mechanics still allows for repeatable testing and practical application. Something else may supplement evolutionary theory, but for that something else to eventually largely replace evolutionary theory, it would still need to be consistent with the large amount of evidence currently available and still need to be useful at the same scope.

Science is not dogmatic. Evolution being incomplete is the not the same as evolution being wrong. Just like classical mechanics are not wrong.

 

[nickster]

@Scion

Not sure who you are talking to, but I have never argued the absolute of evolution. I am not arguing FOR evolution I am arguing against religion. It is you and the idiots who made the videos who are pitting them against each other.

Evolution is not FACT, however it is based on evidence (no matter how flimsy you might feel), however religion is baseless.

Science is NOT about saying THIS is FACT, just that this is the best theory we have available today

Religion IS about saying THIS is FACT, but with no evidence whatsoever.

 

[Ar Scion]

No one said modern evolutionary theory is fully complete. They just say that it is currently the most complete theory and like classical mechanics, has a tremendous amount of evidence to support it. More importantly, it makes testable claims and allows for practical applications.

Quantum mechanics supplements classical mechanics, but in its scope classical mechanics still allows for repeatable testing and practical application. Something else may supplement evolutionary theory, but for that something else to eventually largely replace evolutionary theory, it would still need to be consistent with the large amount of evidence currently available and still need to be useful at the same scope.

Science is not dogmatic. Evolution being incomplete is the not the same as evolution being wrong. Just like classical mechanics are not wrong.

Actual science isn't dogmatic. But people who claim to represent the scientific position whilst denouncing something without any rational basis to do so are dogmatic.

(1) Lack of evidence does not mean something is incorrect. (2) Calling something stupid or idiotic is not a scientific evaluation.

In fact it's decidedly unscientific to dismiss something based on personal prejudice. I'm stating this in the context of posters who run around hollering against religion whilst claiming to represent the scientific position.

The self-contradiction inherent in that position is amusing.

But it's worrying at the same time, because these guys are supposed to be high school and college graduates and fall under the label of "educated".

The bottom line is, when these kinds of "culture warriors" are at the forefront of discussion, they inevitably end up distorting the fields they represent. Whereas any reasonable person would acknowledge the incompleteness of evolution, the fact that it's theoretical and that evidence for it is largely circumstantial, Mr. Defender of Atheism wants to argue that it's fact, proven beyond any reasonable doubt, and cannot be doubted, questioned or challenged.

Of course, if you are involved in science you don't want to step in and correct idiots like this because they are deifying your work.

It takes a bit of objectivity and level-headedness to see all of this. The fact that these traits are so absent from the self-proclaimed advocates of science and evolution should be very worrying.

 

[nickster]

Mr. Defender of Atheism wants to argue that it's fact, proven beyond any reasonable doubt, and cannot be doubted, questioned or challenged.

Sorry but this is what you don't seem to be getting, the majority of atheists do not believe this. In fact there was just one guy on this thread who thought that and the rest of the atheists (read intelligent people) tore him another one.

 

[Ar Scion]

Sorry but this is what you don't seem to be getting, the majority of atheists do not believe this. In fact there was just one guy on this thread who thought that and the rest of the atheists (read intelligent people) tore him another one.

So why is there such an outcry over creationism?

Sure, the body of evidence for it doesn't stack up to evolution, it's a theory in its scientific infancy. Evolution itself was in a similar place not too many years ago.

Most objective people will wait for it to develop and judge it on its own merits rather than turn it into some sort of personal vendetta.

Unfortunately, looking at the quality of discourse when it comes to creationism, it appears as though there aren't very many objective people around. It's the culture warriors who are dominating the discourse, misrepresenting science and end up hurting the public and damaging science.

Go back over this thread and look at how many people insulted me because I dared to suggest objective analysis.

 

[nickster]

Why such and outcry against purple monkeys?

So now you reckon we should have objective analysis of every weird theory that has NO evidence?

Dude there is NO evidence for creationism, its not a theory its a dogma.

 

[conv3rsion]

Whereas any reasonable person would acknowledge the incompleteness of evolution, the fact that it's theoretical and that evidence for it is largely circumstantial, Mr. Defender of Atheism wants to argue that it's fact, proven beyond any reasonable doubt, and cannot be doubted, questioned or challenged.
.

Relativity is also theoretical in that it is explained by a scientific theory. It is also the reason that the GPS in your car works.

Using the word theoretical to discredit evolution is intellectually dishonest. Thats my point.

 

[Pulse]

Humans are incredibly intelligent. So much so that they are aware of their own mortality, we will all die someday. The thought of our mortality causes a great amount of anxiety, so to alleviate the anxiety of death people created "gods" (plural mother fuckers, you think your christian god is the right one? what about all those other religions with followers who think they're 100% correct?? you haven't blown anything up for what you believe in...just sayin).

Everyone wants to believe that they'll live forever, that what they do here will matter. Uh.. from my perspective, here on earth, people die and then they are forgotten. Unless you're one of the extremely rare individuals who have impacted history in a great way, your family and friends will remember you for a generation or two and then you'll be lost in the sands of time.

I guess my whole point is quit worshiping your imagination and live for today. In the end we're all just worm food.

Yay for brainwashing, sing with me!!
"Jesus loves me this I know,
for the bible tells me so,
little ones to him belong,
they are weak but he is strong,
yes jesus loves me..."

I haven't been to church in 15 years and I still remember that shit.

worm food.

 

[Ar Scion]

nickster, the notion of "weird theory" has no place in scientific discourse. Either it has evidence or it doesn't.

If it doesn't have evidence, you leave it alone. You don't prod at it, you don't poke at it, you don't try and stifle it or mock it. You let it be.

Every theory has moments of vulnerability, where cynical pseudo-scientific advocates try to kill it because it contradicts their personal agenda. If these kind of people won, we wouldn't have any scientific progress.

Even Freud, with all his now-dismissed theories did more for the soft-science of psychology than anybody else.

I think the bottom line is that people like you have got to acknowledge that you're not representing science, you're representing atheism.

Relativity is also theoretical in that it is explained by a scientific theory. It is also the reason that the GPS in your car works.

Using the word theoretical to discredit evolution is intellectually dishonest. Thats my point.

You're right.

But if you're under the assumption that I'm discrediting evolution, you're mistaken.

 

[conv3rsion]

So why is there such an outcry over creationism?

Sure, the body of evidence for it doesn't stack up to evolution, it's a theory in its scientific infancy. Evolution itself was in a similar place not too many years ago.

Most objective people will wait for it to develop and judge it on its own merits rather than turn it into some sort of personal vendetta.

Unfortunately, looking at the quality of discourse when it comes to creationism, it appears as though there aren't very many objective people around. It's the culture warriors who are dominating the discourse, misrepresenting science and end up hurting the public and damaging science.

Go back over this thread and look at how many people insulted me because I dared to suggest objective analysis.

This is where you are completely wrong. Creationism is junk science. It is not a theory in its infancy, it is not objective. It is a sham attempting to create confusion. Every single claim it makes can be disproven to a large degree.

This is not a dogmatic adherence to evolution. Evolution (like all scientific theories) is incomplete. That doesn't mean it is wrong, or that pseudo science alternatives should be given equal wait when their whole premis is easily dismissible (and not because people are blindly following their gut).

Skepticblog » Ten Major Flaws of Evolution – A Refutation

Blindly following anything is wrong. Ignoring tremendous amounts of evidence because you are unhappy with the implications is also very wrong.

Also "evolution itself was in a similar place not too many years ago." is A BLATANT AND EASILY DISPROVABLE lie. When Charles Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species" in 1859 he did not understand DNA or the mechanisms for how genetic mutation occurs. Now we do, and low and behold it fits with a theory that was proposed 150 years ago.

Stop lying.

 

[Ar Scion]

This is where you are completely wrong. Creationism is junk science. It is not a theory in its infancy, it is not objective. It is a sham attempting to create confusion. Every single claim it makes can be disproven to a large degree.

This is not a dogmatic adherence to evolution. Evolution (like all scientific theories) is incomplete. That doesn't mean it is wrong, or that pseudo science alternatives should be given equal wait when their whole premis is easily dismissible (and not because people are blindly following their gut).

Skepticblog » Ten Major Flaws of Evolution – A Refutation

Blindly following anything is wrong. Ignoring tremendous amounts of evidence because you are unhappy with the implications is also very wrong.

Define "junk science".

 

[conv3rsion]

Define "junk science".

I'm out of time for this today, it can be googled.

 

[Ar Scion]

Wikipedia says

Junk science is a term used in U.S. political and legal disputes that brands an advocate's claims about scientific data, research, or analyses as spurious. The term may convey a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, or other unscientific motives.

So much for scientific analysis.

 

[clyde]

Lemme ask you something. Did "tons of experience and proof" plus "testability and repeatability" when it came to principles of classical mechanics allow us to infer that behavior at the subatomic level follows quantum theory?

Of course not. It was the opposite. When it comes to mechanics, "tons of experience and proof" plus "testability and repeatability" were an impediment to acceptance of quantum theory because you had to reject a vast body of dogma and start over when dealing with mechanics at the subatomic level.

It took a commitment to rationality to make us willing to reject the tons of prior experience and proof that classical mechanics explained everything and the ability to do this led to an increase in knowledge. It was the exact opposite of the blind scientific dogmatism we are seeing in this thread.

This isn't to say we should deny all experience and proof. It's to acknowledge the role that it plays. Keeping in mind that the default state of the universe is not order but chaos, and the second law of thermodynamics dictates that the universe is moving from order to chaos and any evolution in the reverse direction is an anomaly.

It's nice to have consistency and have everything work like clockwork so you have a big body of work to depend on, but it's good to have a healthy degree of skepticism.

Impartiality is where it's at.

Did I say that the theory of evolution was perfect and indisputable?

No.

That's not how science works, science is not religion.

Did the bible, quran, kabala pushers say creationism was perfect and indisputable?

Yes, without a doubt.

You're barking at the wrong tree Mr. "PHD".

Let me try to guess what's really going on in that mind of yours, God purposely misled us by allowing the Devil to invent the theory of evolution. God will reveal himself later on and it's better safe than sorry. amirite?

j/k, i'm outta here.

 

[emp]

nickster, the notion of "weird theory" has no place in scientific discourse. Either it has evidence or it doesn't.

If it doesn't have evidence, you leave it alone. You don't prod at it, you don't poke at it, you don't try and stifle it or mock it. You let it be.

Err? WHAT now?

Scientists have been laughed out of the room when their hypotheses have been disproven. Wrong science is mocked and ridiculed all day long.

This is the beauty of science. Find flaw in a hypothesis, throw it away, start new, get a teeny bit closer to the truth.

Science is here to find truths that can explain ALL data gathered, without flaw.

This is also why the creationist bunk does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Every theory has moments of vulnerability, where cynical pseudo-scientific advocates try to kill it because it contradicts their personal agenda.
If these kind of people won, we wouldn't have any scientific progress.

Science is not a "I make you feel good, you make me feel good" kinda thing. I find flaw with your hypothesis, you can be sure I'll rip you a new one and get laudated by the rest of the community for advancing science.

Even Freud, with all his now-dismissed theories did more for the soft-science of psychology than anybody else.

Advancing a field has nothing to do with being dismissed later. Actually, most scientists share that fate.

That is what science is. You find a clue to something that might explain a bit in your field. You set up experiments or look at data with a fresh eye. You write papers, you form your hypothesis, you attend conferences...
and you are laughed at when the next guy disproves your stuff and finds some flaw in your logic.

And yet! You have advanced your field, even in failure, even in defeat.

I think the bottom line is that people like you have got to acknowledge that you're not representing science, you're representing atheism.

You're right.

But if you're under the assumption that I'm discrediting evolution, you're mistaken.

And please stop using the word "theory" for creationism. It is, at it's best, a hypothesis.

::emp::

 

[BradleyT2p2]

 

[LotsOfZeros]

Science is here to find truths that can explain ALL data gathered, without flaw.

Climategate
</thread>

 

[99999]

Tangible, empirical evidence of science. Not a lot stacking up for God.

 

[papajohn56]

Climategate
</thread>

No not </thread> that's an example of desperation via political and funding motivation. Evolution doesn't have that, and lumping all science in with that mess is disingenuous. That's like saying you doubt the existence of the laser since it was developed by science.

 

[lukep]

So why is there such an outcry over creationism?

Sure, the body of evidence for it doesn't stack up to evolution, it's a theory in its scientific infancy. Evolution itself was in a similar place not too many years ago.

At the risk of sounding like I give a shit about god: JESUS H. CHRIST!

-------------------------------------SCORECARD:------------------------------------------------------------

"THEORY" OF CREATIONISM: OLDER THAN 3,000 Years old. Likely half a million.
Evidence: ....Still a bit difficult to find any evidence for whatsoever.

THEORY OF EVOLUTION: 150 years old.
Evidence: Every fossil found by man to date.

Saying creationism is "in its scientific infancy" is like saying vegetables are just now starting to be investigated for their properties of levitation.