 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> There's nothing wrong with science, but IMO many scientists seem to be
> way too arrogant and lack humility, even to the point of being unscientific.
> The attitude of many scientists seems to be "since I can't think of any
> other rational explanation, then this explanation must be the Truth, the
> only Truth, and nothing but the Truth, and anyone who doubts that is nuts".
Baloney. I don't know of anyone who has studied relativity or quantum
physics that thinks they know the truth of which one is "right", seeing
as how they're contradictory.
> Scientists don't seem to learn from past mistakes. For example in the
> late 1800's the general attitude among scientists was that physics was
> more or less complete,
From wikipedia, Borh model:
In atomic physics, the Bohr model depicts the atom as a small,
positively charged nucleus surrounded by electrons that travel in
system, but with electrostatic forces providing attraction, rather than
gravity. This was an improvement on the earlier cubic model (1902), the
plum-pudding model (1904), the Saturnian model (1904), and the
Rutherford model (1911). Since the Bohr model is a quantum-physics based
modification of the Rutherford model, many sources combine the two,
referring to the Rutherford-Bohr model.
Sure looks like they figured everything was known, with only four other
competing theories of the shape of the model at the time.
You're beginning to sound rather fanatical, making up easily refuted
statements about scientists being just as religious as those who argue
from lack of evidence.
> how the universe works than newtonian mechanics, then newtonian mechanics
> must be the Truth,
Even *newton* knew he was wrong, dude.
> arrogant attitude they don't only extrapolated that, but they stated that
> it must be the only Truth, and that physics is complete. We know everything
> there is to know.
Show me where they stated that? Or are you just making up crap or
repeating what ignorant friends have told you?
> Then technology advanced, measurement instruments got better, and science
> got a lesson in humility. Our knowledge of physics was far from complete.
They knew that. There were dozens of measured experimental results that
couldn't be explained in terms of newtonian physics. That's why Einstein
got a Nobel prize for figuring out the answer to one that had been
bothering people for a while. Damn, I'm not even a physicist and *I*
know this much about it.
I probably know more about the Bible too, is the sad part.
> Many arrogant scientists struggled for decades, fighting against the new
> evidence. They couldn't admit being wrong.
You're so full of crap. Bohr came up with the first workable(*) model of
how an atom is arranged internally in 1911. Einstein won a Nobel prize
ten years later for explaining that Bohr was wrong and quantum physics
was right.
How many arrogant scientists had to fight against Einstein to keep him
from getting a Nobel prize within 10 years?
> Finally they had to submit and admit that perhaps physics was not complete
> and that there might be something else to it than what they thought.
Unlike religious people, who never admit that.
> Have scientists learnt anything from this episode? It doesn't seem so.
> They are still arrogant, they still think they know the Truth, the only
> Truth and nothing but the Truth, and simply because they can't think of
> any other explanation.
They can think of many other explanations. Then they discard those
explanations because they don't match all the facts.
> anyone who doubts it is nuts and deserves ridicule.
Not at all. Anyone who doubts it *and* claims they have a better
explanation *and* presents said better explanation that contradicts all
the facts that the current theories accomidate *and* continue to insist
they're right in spite of that, those people deserve ridicule.
> Over a hundred years
> ago scientists assumed that they could simply deduce what happens at
> atomic levels, extremely high speeds, etc, without actually "going there".
No, they didn't. They just didn't have any way of testing it, and
nothing they knew contradicted it. What they didn't accept is angels
holding up the moon.
> They were wrong. Nowadays scientists assume that they can simply deduce what
> happened millions of years ago, without actually going there. But this must
> be the Truth.
So you propose, instead, that dinosaurs were around 6000 years ago,
living with man, and Adam eating the tree of knowledge led to the
creation of weeds and the changing of dinosaurs and lions into carnivores?
There's a saying that goes something like this:
The world is not flat.
The world is not spherical either.
But it's a lot less wrong to say the world is spherical than
to say the world is flat.
There are differences in degree of wrongness. I ridicule those who can't
see those differences.
> History tends to repeat itself. People never learn from past mistakes.
> People are arrogant and think they are omniscient and that they know the
> Truth. Anyone who doubts that deserves ridicule.
Yes, the infamous "Et tu" logic. My religious beliefs are arrogant and
make me think I am omniscient. My religious beliefs tell me what
happened back when the world was young. However, scientists also are
arrogant and think they're right, so they can't be any righter than I am.
Like I said, illogical.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> and atheists aren't anti-christian, they're anti-theist. :-)
>
> In my experience the majority of self-proclaimed atheists vehemently
> oppose christianity, usually much more than any other religions. Usually
> they have a more or less indifferent attitude towards other religions,
> while loudly opposing anything related to christianity.
Warp, Have you ever had the pleasure of meeting a (or at least
interacting with online) one of the so-called born again southern
baptists. They usually tend to take the bible literally, and will
proselytize everyone they come in contact with. Maybe this is why some
atheists appear to be vehemently anti-Christian.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> There's a difference between an attitude like "I think this is a very
> plausible theory, and I'm going to try to find even more evidence to
> support it", and "this theory is the truth, and anyone who doubts it
> is nuts and deserves ridicule".
Scientists don't say that second thing. They say "you're theory is nuts
and deserves ridicule, as does anyone who believes it."
The first step of trying to put forward a scientific theory is to
explain at least one actual fact.
I don't know of *any* actual fact that creationism explains.
> However, debunking and ridicule are two different things. The former
> shows scientifical thinking, the latter shows arrogance.
I disagree. Debunking only works on the rational. Ridicule stirs up the
emotions enough that the misled feel a need to interact.
> Another typical attitude is that anyone who presents even the slightest
> opposition to the idea that evolution is the whole Truth, that the evolution
> theory presents exactly and accurately what happened, must be a creationist.
I've noticed that. I'm told it's something the creationists brought on
themselves. Since creationism isn't an actual theory that explains any
actual facts, the "theory" of creationism is "evolution isn't the right
theory." So if you doubt evolution, you're likely a creationist, at
least in the eyes of people who know what's going on.
> The attitude seems to be "if you can't present any counter-arguments or
> scientifically plausible alternative theories, then you simply must believe
> in the theory of evolution as presented". It's as if it was completely
> unscientifical and illogical to doubt a theory if there exists no plausible
> alternative.
If there's no plausible alternative and nothing difficult to explain
with the theory in hand, then it is pretty illogical and unscientific to
doubt it. On what scientific or logical grounds do you doubt that
evolution is significantly correct, given that it's actually used
regularly all around the world to create important products? It's not
hard to understand in broad outline. It's not hard to understand
detailed evidence when presented well. The only reason to doubt it's
right is "I don't like what it implies", which is illogical and
unscientific.
That doesn't mean it's *wrong* to do so. Just ... illogical and
unscientific. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <473dd597$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Tim Attwood wrote:
> > vehemence of anti-Christian rhetoric lately
>
> This wasn't anti-Christian rhetoric, tho. It is clear the author is
> indeed Christian. This is anti-Stupidity rhetoric.
>
> Don't confuse "bashing stupid Christian's stupidity" with "bashing
> stupid Christian's Christianity".
>
Exactly. Though, some people seem to confuse them a lot. Case in point,
the constant whining we get around now about the "war on Christmas",
from idiots that don't get that "X" is "Chi" and has been used as short
hand for Christ since back in the Roman empire. If you want to read
anti-religious (I don't think only targeting Christians is worth much,
even if there are so many where I am that if you fired a shotgun at a
group of people the odds are you would miss all the non-Christians),
then you read this womans fall from live and let live agnosticism to
hardline atheism:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/11/evolut
ionblog.html
Some of us are just starting to get real fed up at being told to shut up
and play nice all the time, when the other side not only doesn't have to
play by that rule, but has threatened to put us in internment camps or
deport us for not being American enough (something we, despite some
people's true rhetorical complaints, I haven't heard many of us saying,
and fewer still standing around in huge crowds to cheer at).
--
void main () {
call functional_code()
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <473dda5c$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > Wouldn't that be, "Why it doesn't make sense to doubt it?"
>
> Yah. Forgive me. I've been ill. :-)
>
> > this guy makes some common mistakes. First one is suggesting that their
> > are some huge number of *possible* combinations that would work. Really
?
> > How does he determine this?
>
> Actually, I read somewhere that someone had figured out (well after that
> article was written) that there are something like 12 different
> isomorphic ways you can arrange the codons to do the same job. So
> instead of 41^22! or whatever it was, there were at least 12. :-)
>
> > do anything at all, such as INC X followed immediately by DEC X.
>
> That's a completely different point. That just means there are genes
> that don't code for anything. He's assuming that there's no good reason
> for the bit patterns in the instruction set to be arranged in any given
> pattern for a particular instruction.
>
> > But none of that really matters, since the article says *nothing* about
> > the likelihood of macro vs. micro,
>
> So here's the question: What is "macro vs micro"? How do you know when
> you have "macro" evolution? What makes something of two "kinds"?
>
> I suspect you'll wind up coming up with a tautologically false answer,
> if you want to invent something that hasn't been observed.
>
Well, strictly speaking "kind" is a word the Creationists came up with,
which is entirely meaningless. They place species that **can't** breed
at all in the same "kinds", including the donkey/mule/horse version,
which can breed, but produce the third on in that list as a sterile
result. The correct term "Species" means it cannot breed at all. This
has recently gotten a bit fuzzier, since you obviously can breed most
cats, even though they are recognized as different species. Likely we
need a subcategory for those, instead of using species. But, even with
cats you do also get things like Ligers, which are sterile about 50% of
the time, so Tigers and Lions have diverged enough to *almost* be two
distinct "kinds" in the parlance of these nitwits.
Basically, science's distinction is that, sure, you can get 5 million
different sorts of birds from one proto bird, but 99.9% of them can't
breed with each other, so they have become different species. The ID
version of this would be, there are 5 million different kinds of birds,
all from some proto bird, but they are all the same "kind". They gloss
over the fact that you can't breed them, so they don't have to admit
that they are different species. Point it out to them and they back
peddle and claim it all happened in a few hundred years after the flood
(since all those different birds(not to mention other animal) would have
had to exist **immediately** after the flood ended to explain how many
people saw them over 5,000 years ago.) It just doesn't work at all. And
that is the main problem here. They **literally** want evolution to mean
that tomarrow your dog will give birth to an elephant, never mind the
fact that it doesn't work that way, and if it did, it **would** imply
intervention.
> > There is nothing in there that would suggest denial of common descent o
f
> > macro evolution.
>
> Sorry. I meant it as an explanation of evidence in favor of common
> descent, regardless of how I misworded the original statement.
>
Ah, ok. Kind of confusing there.
--
void main () {
call functional_code()
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <473ddb21$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Warp wrote:
> >>> The article and the photo series was nothing more than mocking for
the
> >>> sake of mocking. "Have a look at these photos and have a good laugh."
> >>> There was no other point.
> >
> >> Yes. And I feel it's entirely appropriate to mock people who are tryin
g
> >> to get others to act in self-destructive ways.
> >
> > Mocking for the sake of mocking is not constructive nor helpful. It o
nly
> > increases aversion between different groups.
>
> Yes. I want to mock the stupid dangerous group in order that people who
> hear my mocking might avoid them, or recognise how silly they are.
>
> > Is that really the correct way of doing things?
>
> If I could figure out how to make the stupid dangerous group less stupid
> or less dangerous, that would obviously be the right way to go. In my
> experience, religion is illogical (in the mathematical sense of the
> word), so it's almost impossible to convince someone to change their
> religion with mere evidence. You have to get to the unreasoning
> emotional underpinning. Of the various ways to do that, mocking would
> seem to be the least damaging and easiest to control.
>
Not specific about mocking, but it cuts to the heart of the issue
anyway:
"So when you tell an atheist (or for that matter, a woman or a queer or
a person of color or whatever) not to be so angry, you are, in essence,
telling us to disempower ourselves. You're telling us to lay down one of
the single most powerful tools we have at our disposal. You're telling
us to lay down a tool that no social change movement has ever been able
to do without. You're telling us to be polite and diplomatic, when
history shows that polite diplomacy in a social change movement works
far, far better when it's coupled with passionate anger. In a battle
between David and Goliath, you're telling David to put down his
slingshot and just... I don't know. Gnaw Goliath on the ankles or
something.", Greta Christina - Oct. 15, 2007
Playing nice gets you no place at all, and when someone is impervious to
evidence, facts or logic, you don't have much left, without being
Machiavellian, but to laugh at them, in the hopes that embarrassment
will open a crack in the wall of ignorance where everything else failed.
--
void main () {
call functional_code()
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <473cde43@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > Why the #@$@$@ is it flawed.
>
> You sound like a religious fanatic.
>
Why? Because I got a bit annoyed and dared to ask a question? Seriously,
claiming there is a problem and not giving one good explanation for what
that is, or how it undermines the whole concept is what religious
fanatics do. They don't ask people to explain themselves, they just
spout assertions, then ignore any request for clarification.
--
void main () {
call functional_code()
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The correct term "Species" means it cannot breed at all.
So, two human women are obviously not the same species, because they
can't breed, right? :-)
> had to exist **immediately** after the flood ended to explain how many
> people saw them over 5,000 years ago.)
Not to mention the written records in China of dynasties more than 5000
years old, yah.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:
>> Warp a ?crit :
>>> There's a difference between an attitude like "I think this is a very
>>> plausible theory, and I'm going to try to find even more evidence to
>>> support it", and "this theory is the truth, and anyone who doubts it
>>> is nuts and deserves ridicule".
>
>> And which one you think is more common among creationists?
>
> Who was talking about creationists? I wasn't. I was talking about
> scientists.
I know. I asked you something different.
Do you doubt that the fundamentalists think you're crazy and deserve
scorn if you don't believe what they do?
> Or are you trying to say that since creationists ridicule scientists
> it then becomes ok for scientists to ridicule creationists? That's
> flawed logic.
No, the creationists deserve ridicule because they have crazy fixations
with no support. They deserve ridicule just as we ridicule people who
believe we've never gone to the moon, people who believe the earth is
flat, and people who believe that Zeus makes lightning.
>> What do you think happens when a tenant of the first attitude tries to
>> discuss the matter with a tenant of the second attitude? No discussion
>> is possible, that's what happens.
>
> That's why it's impossible to discuss with some scientists (or, more
> usually, scientist wannabes).
I think if you want to actually discuss scientific things with a
scientist, they'll be happy to talk to you without ridicule, no matter
how wrong you are. If you spout unsupported and unsupportable
creationist babble, and try to claim it's scientific, you won't get much
discussion. Mostly because most people willing to discuss such things
are tired of bashing their heads against unreasoning insanity.
>> Debunking has been done and redone and re-re-done, at some stage it
>> needs to stop.
>
> So the next logical step is to start mocking and ridiculing? Yes, that
> makes a whole lot of sense.
Indeed it does.
>> Ridiculing a religious nutcase
>> is in my opinion a valid weapon to use.
>
> Valid for what purpose? It certainly isn't constructive and can only
> make things worse.
In what way? You're not going to change the mind of the religious
person. The best you can do is to get others to look at the
fundamentalist's claims with common sense. Hearing ridicule often turns
on the common sense, waking you up from seductive nonsense.
>> I'm all for doubting a theory as long as something else, new experiments
>> or a new interpretation of the old ones at least, is offered that makes
>> some sense. Doubting for the sake of doubting is not really interesting,
>
> That's exactly the flawed logic. "Since there's no alternative plausible
> theory, this theory must be true."
That's not what was said. You can doubt the theory, but on what grounds?
Why would you doubt it, if it explains all the evidence?
>> because then you doubt, and then what?
>
> I don't even understand what you mean by that.
He means, what do you do with that doubt?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Sure looks like they figured everything was known, with only four other
> competing theories of the shape of the model at the time.
> You're beginning to sound rather fanatical, making up easily refuted
> statements about scientists being just as religious as those who argue
> from lack of evidence.
You always sound so arrogant, but in this case you are simply wrong,
sorry, and this time I have quite clear references. For example:
http://amasci.com/weird/end.html
It is a well-known fact that it was more or less a consensus in the
scientific community of the late 1800's that almost everything that there
is to know about physics is already known.
> > arrogant attitude they don't only extrapolated that, but they stated that
> > it must be the only Truth, and that physics is complete. We know everything
> > there is to know.
> Show me where they stated that? Or are you just making up crap or
> repeating what ignorant friends have told you?
I urled to quotes above.
> I probably know more about the Bible too, is the sad part.
More than who?
> > Many arrogant scientists struggled for decades, fighting against the new
> > evidence. They couldn't admit being wrong.
> You're so full of crap.
You are being unusually rude today.
> Bohr came up with the first workable(*) model of
> how an atom is arranged internally in 1911. Einstein won a Nobel prize
> ten years later for explaining that Bohr was wrong and quantum physics
> was right.
And that somehow disproves the claim that a large amount of scientists
strongly opposed Eintein's and others' theories at first?
> > Finally they had to submit and admit that perhaps physics was not complete
> > and that there might be something else to it than what they thought.
> Unlike religious people, who never admit that.
First you say that I'm full of crap, and now you write as if what I said
was indeed true. Make up your mind.
And why do you bring up religion into this?
> > They were wrong. Nowadays scientists assume that they can simply deduce what
> > happened millions of years ago, without actually going there. But this must
> > be the Truth.
> So you propose, instead, that dinosaurs were around 6000 years ago,
> living with man, and Adam eating the tree of knowledge led to the
> creation of weeds and the changing of dinosaurs and lions into carnivores?
Where have I proposed that? Why do you insist in bringing religion
into this?
> Yes, the infamous "Et tu" logic. My religious beliefs are arrogant and
> make me think I am omniscient. My religious beliefs tell me what
> happened back when the world was young. However, scientists also are
> arrogant and think they're right, so they can't be any righter than I am.
> Like I said, illogical.
You certainly sound arrogant.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
