 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfsp amfr> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 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.
I understand *why* so many atheists so vehemently oppose christianity
in particular, while having a much milder attitude towards other religions.
However, my point is that that kind of attitude is hypocritical.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <473### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom
says...
> Warp wrote:
> >
> > Regardless of whether evolution is true or not, that's one of the thi
ngs
> > which always make me laugh. Anti-christian atheists always consider so-
called
> > microevolution (eg. wolves and dogs having a common ancestor species) t
o be
> > the same thing as macroevolution (everything on Earth evolved from one
> > single living cell). Accepting the former but doubting the latter is
> > considered contradictory.
> I don't know if you ever read the origin of species, but for me the main
> point in it revolves around the concept of a species. I think the point
> where the devout christian Darwin turned away from a literal
> interpretation of the bible is in the story of Noah's ark. While
> thinking of the concept of a species and the definition of it he was
> gradually forced to admit that there is no such concept as a species.
> Undoubtedly a dog and an oak are not the same species, but that does not
> imply that for every two individual plants or animals you can decide
> whether they are the same species or not, not even a supernatural being
> can do that. Hence there is no way that Noah's story can be true. After
> taking that hurdle Darwin freed himself from the literal interpretation
> of the bible and was able to take all the other steps.
> I am an atheist (though not an anti-christian one, some of my best
> friends are Christian) and indeed I think that microevolution and
> macroevolution are the same thing. Because the distinction is based on
> the concept of a species, which may be handy concept in everyday live,
> but scientifically it is fundamentally flawed. It is possibly comparable
> to using Newtonian physics. Handy in normal live, but we know that in
> the end, nature is not like that.
> > Regardless of what is the truth, that logic is flawed.
> True, if you believe that 'species' is a well defined concept then it is
> indeed possible to believe one and not the other.
>
Yes, there are two things you could call species - A) What looks
different enough to call it one, and which is naturally separated enough
by inclination, territory, etc. to remain separate or B) Things too
different to interbreed. The first one is the traditional
interpretation, while the second is a more strict version that doesn't
work for about 90% of what we deem "species", at least in categories
like cats, some birds, etc. Its a sloppy term. The joke of course is
that the ID people muddle things even more, by inventing the term
"kinds", which means little more than, "Things that look a lot alike, so
must have all micro-evolved from one goat/horse/sheep/turtle/rabbit/etc.
Though, I have to wonder, wouldn't someone have noticed if, within the
unbelievably short time it would have needed to happen, billions of
different colors, shapes and sizes of all those animals started popping
up to fill in the gaps in the ecosystem all over the world? You would
think *someplace* you would find a comment like, "Yesterday I had two
rabbits, with brown fur and short ears. Today I have 12, some with sandy
hair, some with floppy ears, some with puffy tails, some with larger
than normal feet, and a myriad of other differences." lol They seem to
forget that it would have taken time for all those species to spread
across the globe, and change, and that there where **people** around to
see all those stuff happening, so it had to have either happened in a
really long time *before* any flood, so as to avoid the glaring lack of
mention of sudden rapid changes being observed or it would have all had
to have happened in literally days after they reached land again (with,
again, no one noticing any of it), in order for there to be this many.
Otherwise, by their own argument, if it took all of 6,000 years to do,
then we, or someone in the last 6,000, should have seen new species just
*popping* into existence to fill incomplete parts of the grand plan
every day.
You can't have it both ways. It can't take time to diverge, but have the
only time available to do that be **while** people where around to see
it, or take no time at all for the entire planet to get filled up with
billions of species, and have literally **no one**, including Noah and
family, notice those billions of species popping into existence right
and left to make it happen that way. Both are absurdly silly (not in the
least because if the first version where true, they would have a damn
hard time claiming we didn't observe anything evolve).
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> There's no law in science which says that you must have an alternative
> theory in order to reasonably doubt an existing theory.
No, but there *is* a "law" that says you have to have some contradictory
evidence. :-)
Now, if you're saying "Evolution isn't complete because it doesn't
explain X", then sure, that's a reasonable doubt.
> "I don't know an explanation for this, and this presented explanation
> seems too implausible to me" is a perfectly valid way of thinking, even
> scientifically. You don't need an alternative theory to be able to do
> that in a completely rational and valid basis.
Sure. You can "doubt" it, but without another theory, all you're really
saying is "I don't understand this well enough to know why everyone else
is convinced."
"Implausible" implies some degree of probability calculation. "I have no
explanation for these photographs of people standing on the moon, but
the presented explanation seems too implausible to me."
> Take any unsolved question in science, which science has yet not an
> answer to, and present the theory "it happens because invisible gnomes
> do it from inside the Earth". Even if the scientist doesn't have any
> alternative theory to that, it's still completely valid for him to doubt
> that presented theory.
Right. That's because there's no evidence in *favor* of gnomes, either.
There are literally countless theories that could explain something
unsolved, and until you show how that explains something else also, or
how you could do an experiment to show it's wrong, then it doesn't make
sense to work strenuously towards the theory. It seems like a perfectly
reasonable question to ask "why gnomes, and not unicorns?"
> Is this some kind of philosophical question now? Do you get an
> existentialist crisis if there's something you don't know how and
> why it works?
You were talking about evolution, to start with, tho. We know there are
theories that aren't complete. We know there are unanswered questions in
every scientific theory. But most stuff tends to be refinements of what
we already know in realms we couldn't measure before. Even quantum and
relativity didn't overthrow newtonian physics - we still use that to
shoot space probes.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> 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?
Because you used symbolized expletives where none was really needed,
and your overall tone was quite strong. Fanatics tend to shout and use
expletives when having a "discussion" with someone they disagree with.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Regardless of what is the truth, that just seems to be mocking for the
> sake of mocking. "Hahahaa! Look at all those idiots!"
I will point out that without the mocking, this long thread discussing
scientific theory and practice would not have occurred. :-) Hence, the
mocking obviously had some use here, getting some of the more religious
people trying to defend their beliefs in some small way.
--
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 <473d189a@news.povray.org>,
pte### [at] thecommononethatstartswithYcom says...
> Warp wrote:
>
> > Regardless of whether evolution is true or not, that's one of the thing
s
> > which always make me laugh. Anti-christian atheists always consider
> > so-called microevolution (eg. wolves and dogs having a common ancestor
> > species) to be the same thing as macroevolution (everything on Earth
> > evolved from one single living cell). Accepting the former but doubting
> > the latter is considered contradictory.
> > Regardless of what is the truth, that logic is flawed.
>
>
> Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, makes a claim that neoDarwini
an
> processes could not have brought about irreducibly complex processes such
> as formation of an eye. He actually came to speak at a conference my
> church put on. I asked him about whether a process of "change through
> descent" could bring about speciation. He said yes, he believed it could
.
>
> My 15 seconds of fame in the evolution debate.
>
lol Self contradiction much? Behe is an example of someone who has a
degree, but is clueless anyway. Every time he comes up with something
*irreducible*, someone quotes a paper clearly showing how the mechanism
arose from reducible processes. But the gem is, how can you get species,
which in this case implies an irreducible result, via a process that
can't produce irreducible systems?
Even sillier though is that several people, though I don't remember any
of the links at the moment, have created simple computer programs that
use random selection to produce irreducible function. Its very easy to
get such a thing.
--
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:
> Every time he comes up with something
> *irreducible*, someone quotes a paper clearly showing how the mechanism
> arose from reducible processes.
And even if it didn't, there's at least four or five other plausible
ways of getting irreducible genetics into organisms that have nothing to
do with God at all. So as a religious offering, "Evolution is wrong"
doesn't really pan out.
--
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:
> Do you doubt that the fundamentalists think you're crazy and deserve
> scorn if you don't believe what they do?
Why should I care about what some fundamentalists think? I was not
talking about fundamentalists. And if they think like that, why should
I care about that either?
> > 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.
And that's exactly the idea I'm not comfortable with: That it's ok to
make fun of people if they are obviously wrong.
That's an attitude which may be fit for small children, but IMO it's not
an attitude fit to civilized adults.
Mocking and loathing is not constructive. It only makes animosities
stronger.
> >> 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.
I disagree. The world is not getting any better with disrespect, mocking,
ridicule and loathing. It's only making things worse.
> > Valid for what purpose? It certainly isn't constructive and can only
> > make things worse.
> In what way?
In that it only deepens the animosity between the groups.
> You're not going to change the mind of the religious
> person.
So let's make things even worse and make him hate you?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
