Coulter: Hell Is 'Chris Matthews and Contessa Brewer Sneering at You for All Eternity for Not Believing in Evolution'
As NewsBusters has been reporting, Obama-loving media members have been on the warpath in recent months attacking conservative presidential candidates for their religious beliefs.
In her weekly syndicated column, Ann Coulter took a few of these hypocrites head on:
The definition of hell is being condescended to by idiots. It will probably be MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Contessa Brewer sneering at you for all of eternity for not believing in evolution.
Roughly one-third of my 2007 No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," is an attack on liberals' creation myth, Darwinian evolution. I presented the arguments of all the luminaries in the field, from the retarded Richard Dawkins to the brilliant Francis Crick, and disputed them.
But apparently liberals didn't want to argue back.
Despite Matthews' obsessive fixation on the topic, manifested by his constantly asking elected Republicans if they believe in evolution, in a one-hour interview with me on "Godless" -- the very book that is chockablock with attacks on Darwinism -- Matthews didn't ask me a single question about the subject.
No liberal did. Matthews doesn't even know what evolution is.
Just a year later, at a 2008 Republican presidential candidates' debate, Matthews asked for a show of hands of who believed in evolution. No discussion permitted! That might allow scientific facts, rather than schoolyard taunts, to escape into the world. [...]
Now that Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry has said there are "gaps" in the theory of evolution -- or "gas" as The New York Times originally reported, before issuing a correction -- we're in for another round of fact-free mocking of fundamentalist nuts.
With that as pretext, Coulter began tearing apart what she called "this mystery religion from the Victorian age":
If Darwin were able to come back today and peer through a modern microscope to see the inner workings of a cell, he would instantly abandon his own theory.
It is a mathematical impossibility, for example, that all 30 to 40 parts of the cell's flagellum -- forget the 200 parts of the cilium! -- could all arise at once by random mutation. According to most scientists, such an occurrence is considered even less likely than John Edwards marrying Rielle Hunter, the "ground zero" of the impossible.
Nor would each of the 30 to 40 parts individually make an organism more fit to survive and reproduce, which, you will recall, is the lynchpin of the whole contraption.
Coulter concluded:
Harvard population biologist Richard Lewontin said the Darwiniacs tolerate "unsubstantiated just-so stories" of evolution and ignore "the patent absurdity of some of its constructs" because they are committed to coming up with a theory that excludes God. "We cannot," Lewontin said, "allow a divine foot in the door."
Maybe if we called the Intelligent Designer "Louis Vuitton" to avoid frightening the Godphobics, they'd finally admit the truth: Modern science has disproved Darwinian evolution.
Whatever your views on this subject, you owe it to yourself to read the whole piece.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Every time I start
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 10:20am.
Every time I start destructing the 'science' of evolution on a blog, by the third exchange, the progs have already called me a creationist, knuckle-dragging idiot. I purposely never bring my faith into the argument. Evolution falls apart using god-less scientific principles. But it shows how libs and progs can't argue without immediately going to ad hominem attacks, labeling, and insults.
I Did!
Submitted by GeneralAl on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 10:33am.
I have read Ann's column and have to say it is one of her best! I am a creationist and darn proud of it. If I believed that evolution crap, I'd be a liberal!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
On Rush's show yesterday,
Submitted by Ed Gregory on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 10:41am.
On Rush's show yesterday, fill-in Mark Belling was talking about the "wussification" of America. I prefer to spell that with a P, but his point was that people in this country have become afraid in general, and especially of using tough language to stand up for their beliefs and for what's right. When we get our Republican president next year, I'd like him/her to appoint Ann Coulter either to a cabinet position or as a czar* in charge of telling it like it is. Few do it better.
*Pending congressional vetting, of course, unlike the way agent zero does it.
Solid proof
Submitted by seeker25801 on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 10:48am.
Ann Coulter is a delusional dumba**. Ignoring the plethora of evidence supporting evolution is insane. And gaps in the theory of evolution? Ok. So? Gaps don't disprove a theory. The ignorance of some people never ceases to amaze me. Just look around. The evidence of evolution is all around us. Things are changing in this world constantly. Archaeological evidence is overwhelming. Get your heads out of a book written by people that thought the Earth was the center of the universe, that the Earth was flat, that the moon actually produced light, that there was a solid shield on which stars "hung", that killing women, children, and animals actually appeased some invisible being in the sky. Educate yourself. And remember, if your mind isn't open, keep your mouth shut too.
Wow, didn't even wait until
Submitted by Ed Gregory on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 10:58am.
Wow, didn't even wait until the second sentence to lob an insult. Good job. You and your friends can continue to believe in infallibility of man and science all you want. In the end, and probably before that, they will fail you. I know the god who made me won't.
If you're going to make an argument for something, you might want to present proof. Coulter did. This doesn't cut it: "Just look around. The evidence of evolution is all around us. Things are changing in this world constantly. Archaeological evidence is overwhelming."
Also, maybe work on improving statements like this: "And remember, if your mind isn't open, keep your mouth shut too." That really doesn't do much for your position.
Calling all cars: 5150 on the Coulter thread.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 11:03am.
.
Another sleeper troll is activated.
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 11:34am.
I wonder how many of these plants are going to activate before the 2012 election.
These liberal trolls are like nascent tuberculosis infections.
Hundreds.
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 1:58pm.
Belay that. Thousands. And as my pal cajun would say, many will be of the sto'bought variety.
[An aside]. Hope you've been watching the news, Sam....You and cajun were spot-on re: the DSM thing. It's been on Fox, soon to be covered by the MsM, a week late and several dollars short.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
seeker
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 11:07am.
Do you also believe the scientists that say we are experiencing Global warming or since that HAD to be modified - Climate change?
How do you account for the one's that don't and there are many that think it is "part of the normal process"?
Also remember genius, these same people said not long ago we were COOLING and the world was going to end because crops will be wiped out.
Or are you also on their side when they AGAIN agreed that Killer bees were going to wipe US out and OUR food sources, again, NOT LONG AGO.
Any chance in your "made up mind", it is ALL JUST about grant and research money?
Start here dumbass. Then get
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 11:48am.
Start here dumbass. Then get back to us.
Thanks for proving my point
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 12:23pm.
Thanks for proving my point by call Ann a "delusional dumba**" in your opening sentence.
Seeker,
Submitted by packman on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 4:35pm.
You're not even qualified to carry Ann Coulter's dirty bath water...go back to troll headquarters....
"...Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread..." ~Thomas Jefferson
Tingles Matthews, You ARE The Missing Link
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 10:53am.
Dear Tingles,
Why are you so obsessed about the certainty of evolution?
1. Do you need an explanation for your extremely hairy back?
2. Do you lie awake at night wondering why you crave bananas 24/7/365?
3. Do you fantasize about a simpler life where you could swing from the trees while you scratch your nads?
Do tell, you frothing-at-the-mouth imbecile!
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
Not bad lookin' either
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 10:59am.
I don't KNOW or give rats ass if this woman was created or evolved I JUST KNOW that I respect her greatly and believe she is one of the smartest people in the room.
Matthews lacked the ba*** to ask her about it because she would have turned him into a pile of spittle and fat leftist goo.
Ooops, someone beat her too the punch.
"These people" talk about how Republicans don't listen to anyones views, sounds like these people shut out views that don't coincide with theirs...........
But we already knew that, being the "enemy" and all.
If nothing else, Ann says it
Submitted by Kenyon Schraeder on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 11:08am.
If nothing else, Ann says it like it needs to be said. People holding to differing beliefs is nowhere the near the problem that one group forcing its beliefs upon the rest is. Apparently, anyone who disagrees with the liberals' ideas is a dullard, a moron, a dimwit or an intellectual non-entity.
What I find interesting is that not one liberal weenie-whacker (Chris Matthews among others is implied) ever took on Ted Kennedy, one of the more vocal dyed-in-the-wool liberals, over being Catholic, which naturally means he believed in God, Creation, the Holy Trinity, Divine Providence, Salvation, Heaven and Hell. How come not one of them ever castigated Ted for attending Mass, receiving the Sacraments or for participating in the religion?
Good question, Kenyon. Here's
Submitted by Ed Gregory on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 11:18am.
Good question, Kenyon. Here's what I've come to believe about liberals: Above all -- and I mean ALL, because I've seen plenty of churchgoers who do this, including one at the office -- liberalism comes first. These are the people who think the Bible is all about socialism and social justice, when if you read the parable of the talents, it's anything but. That's why I think nobody ever laid a glove on Kennedy about being Catholic -- because they knew liberalism was his true religion.
Evolution and God and Science
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 11:49am.
About a hundred years ago, science was in the uncomfortable position of not being able to explain why atoms exist. When they combined classical electromagnetic theory with classical mechanics (Newton's Laws) - both of which were very well established empirically - their theory predicted that the electrons in atoms should just spiral into the nucleus in a split second. In other words, their theory predicted that atoms were fundamentally unstable. But of course, that isn't the case.
I suppose, at the time, scientists could have just thrown their hands up and said "well, I guess science will never explain the atom" and "maybe we should credit God with making atoms stable" but, being the annoyingly persistent folks they are, they didn't. They stuck with their approach and eventually developed a radically new theory called Quantum Mechanics which did explain the stability of atoms along with a ton of other things since which have all be verified empirically.
Who is to say that biology isn't in the same situation now as those scientists were a hundred years ago? Let's assume that all of the criticisms leveled against evolution are valid - and I'm certainly in no position to argue about such things - but let's assume they are and lets further assume that biologists decided that current evolutionary theory is fundamentally flawed and can't explain the origin and evolution of biological systems. Who can say that at some time in the future, the theory isn't altered or even replaced by a radically new theory which can account for all of the empirical evidence regarding the origin and evolution of life?
My main point here is that even if evolutionary theory is abandoned, that doesn't make creationism true by default.
Also, it seems that Coulter is suggesting that the obvious step is to incorporate God into science and that the only reason scientists don't is because they are a bunch of anti-religious bigots. If that is what she is suggesting - and please let me know if I'm wrong on that - then I have a simple question - what empirically verifiable properties does God have?
Science's approach to explaining things is predicated on the fundamental assumption that the agents and entities within scientific theories have to be amenable to empirical verification. Supernatural agents - like God - are, by definition, beyond the empirical.
If I incorporate a new agent into a scientific theory in an attempt to explain some phenomenon which hasn't been fully explained yet, I have to be able to attribute physical properties to it - so it can be tested empirically - and I have to be able to express those properties in a way which allows me to incorporate it into the preexisting theoretical structure of my field of study. Doing that allows me to make unique, potentially testable predictions.
How exactly would I do that with God? God follows no laws of science. God has no set empirical properties. By his very nature, God is not restricted in these ways. So how would I codify God in a way that would allow me to incorporate him into a scientific theory.
Honestly, if someone knows how to do this, please let me know. It would represent the most fundamental advance in the history of modern science.
The science of Man
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 12:16pm.
"Science's approach to explaining things is predicated on the fundamental assumption that the agents and entities within scientific theories have to be amenable to empirical verification."
In other words: the science of Man. If Man can't explain it, then it's only because Man hasn't looked hard enough, as if Man, more specifically, Man's perception, is the defining factor of what is or isn't real. That was Schrödinger's theory, wasn't it? That something isn't real until it's perceived by Man? Until man perceives something, it's merely theoretical? It isn't real until I verify it. That's a rather ego-centic way to view reality, isn't it?
Let me ask you this: if a theory proves to be false, does reality change, or does only your perception of reality change? Science, I believe, doesn't "prove" reality. It only "proves" one's perceptions of reality. The whole "scientific approach" is just an attempt to prove ones own perception of reality. It may be useful as an approach to "deal with," to move, build, to "change" reality, but it doesn't explain reality at all. It only explains how we perceive reality. It's a useful tool, nothing more and nothing less.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Not only Schrödinger, but...
Submitted by falcon on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 2:59pm.
...Heisenberg, too, postulated that something doesn't become "real" until we observe it, and until we do, there's no way to tell what state something is in. That's why transporters need Heisenberg compensators - because of the "uncertainty" of what we don't observe. :-)
Seriously, it's the old, "If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?" argument. If we don't see it, it isn't real. And that, in a nutshell, is how liberals and scientists (and sometimes I think they're one and the same) feel about God. They can't see him, so he isn't real. They ignore the evidence of their own senses - also created by God - that tells them that God is all around us, in the systems that convert sunlight to food for plants (photosynthesis), condense H2O from the air (condensation and precipitation) and convert CO2 to O2 (plant respiration) for us to breathe.
Without those systems, nothing on this Earth would long survive. And those are just the basics.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
falcon
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 5:07pm.
Your description of Heisenberg's view of Quantum Mechanics is, I think, incorrect. Your statement "there's no way to tell what state something is in" suggests that you believe that entities do, in fact, have all of their properties at any given moment but that we just don't know what they are unless we make a measurement. That's a "hidden variable" view of QM and as I understand it, Heisenberg held to a form of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
In that view, entities do not actually have all their properties at any given moment. A measurement of a particular property will force an entity to acquire one of the possible values for that property it's allowed to given its circumstances.
As for you comment about scientists and God ...
First, I hate to break it to you but being a scientist doesn't require you to be a liberal and it doesn't require you to be an agnostic or atheist. There are scientists who are people of faith and believe it or not, they don't make up some miniscule percentage of scientists. How do you explain that?
Second, if you see God in every flower and in the smile of every child, that's great. But unless you can explain to me how science can incorporate a supernatural agent into its models in a way that allows for the creation of empirically testable theories, science can't use God as an explanation for anything. Can you provide such an explanation?
I doubt it. I'm guessing it's easier for you to stick to your cartoonish view of what science is about since that allows you to feel all smart and superior about your own views.
If you start talking about perception, then I must ask...
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 3:51pm.
...just what type of perception are you referring to? On another thread, I mentioned that in my practice as a neuropsychiatrist I treat patients with significantly altered sensoria. Whatever nature has thrown at them, e.g. sensory deficits and alterations of other senses in compensatory fashion, significantly alters their perception of reality. It is impossible to know what many of these patients perceive and accept as their reality for the simple reason that we cannot experience what they do. Their reality is based on what they perceive and not provable or reproducible in a scientific context. Also, many of them are incapable of communicating what they experience as a reality because of impairments in speech/language, hearing, etc. We take for granted being able to communicate with each other based on what is nothing more than a common agreement of reality in a more or less standardized perception, though those who have what we term "functional deficits" in their sensorium experience and perceive reality quite differently. Their perceptions are no less valid or real to them. We attempt to treat these deficits best way we can in medicine, but often many of these patients (true deafness, autism spectrum disorders, ADHD, dyslexia) prefer their perception of reality. Who is to say we are the ones that are wrong?
As a physician, I integrate science and ethics to treat patients within the scope and limits of my medical specialties. Many scientists display a stark tendency to forget that much of the knowledge we have gained in human existence has been based on observations from people who did not perceive reality according to the common constructs accepted elsewhere.
CobraMan
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 4:45pm.
The fact that science is based on a study of empirical reality does not in any way imply or require you to accept the view that reality is only that which science can study.
Unless you can demonstrate for me otherwise, nothing I wrote suggests or, by logical necessity, requires that one adhere to that view and I personally don't hold to the view that reality is only that which science can study.
So congratulations on your straw man argument.
HydrodynDM
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 9:37pm.
The theory of evolution is science's current explanation for changes in a critter over time. Evolution is not an explanation for how life began. As such, evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. IIRC, Darwin wrote that his theory did not contravene, let alone negate, God.
None of us know the answer to these unknowns. This seems uncharacteristic of you, IMO, to decalre these unknowns so unscientifically and with such finality, especially in light of how you just explained how a lack of scientific knowledge in the atom should not, and thankfully did not, prompt premature conclusions and quitting.
You speak of science reformulating theories as new discoveries are made. The discovery of light as both a wave and a particle is one such correction to years old theory. Two comments concerning light and the ability to discern its properties more clearly.
stratman
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 4:02pm.
You are correct about the distinction between evolutionary theories and theories about the origin of life - I was careless in what I wrote.
I agree that the idea of evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. You can find a lot of folks - including folks in science - who hold to both views. And in fact, some years back, I posted a thing in the Off Topic forum area where I basically argued that point.
As for my characterizations of God - they are based on my understanding of how God is viewed within Christianity. Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't God viewed as an all-powerful being? If that is the case, then wouldn't that imply the things I said about God?
If God is obligated to follow the same laws and rules the rest of us and the rest of the universe follows, then I think he could, conceivably be incorporated into a scientific theory. But, again, unless I'm way off, I don't think that's the way most religions characterize God. Let me know if I'm wrong on that since I'm the first to admit that I'm no theologian.
I think your first point about light/God is a little off. Yes, scientists had to come up with new experimental techniques to test their new theory and new views about the nature of light, but the general method of testing via empirical observation was still the same. That didn't change. My point about God is that if he is supernatural, he is beyond such an analysis. Now I'll admit to the possibility that in the future, science might undergo some radical change which does allow for supernatural agents but at present, I couldn't even begin to understand how that would work. But hey, I don't own a crystal ball so who knows.
Regarding your second point - saying that something isn't amenable to scientific study isn't the same as saying that it doesn't exist or can't be experienced. I would say that currently, consciousness isn't amenable to scientific study but I'm constantly experiencing my own.
Edit: clarification
Crud! I just deleted the
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 9:32pm.
Crud! I just deleted the reply to you, so here comes a mash-up job of a post.
Glad to see you haven't closed off completely to the possible. I have not disputed the Scientific Method, but I am disputing your premise and/or approach while considering yourself an adherent to the scientific method. First, maybe your hypothesis is false. Why would someone who does not believe in God believe in infallible man to determine what is and isn't God in the first place? Second, it is good that you do not dismiss entirely that which can not be explained with current experimental techniques and equipment. It wasn't until Leeuwenhoek's microscope to prove the existence of bacteria. Ditto for improved resolution of the microscope with viruses. And Pasteur was able to refute spontaneous generation with his swan-necked flasks. In other words, a man of science needed to be open to possiblilities, even if current technology is unable to discern the hypothesis, if that hypothesis is valid to begin with. You have left the door open, if ever so slightly. Good.
The point about God and light reflected is spot on, though on a philisophical track which you deduced, one that I should have attributed to Einstein up front. It was meant as corollary in that it may be possible to "see" or understand God all around, though not directly, just like scientific theories. We do perceive light by its reflection onto other surfaces. If we are perpendicular to a column of photons in a vacumm, would we see the light? No, we need the light to reflect off something in order to perceive it. Unlike a column of light produced by a flashlight at night in our soup of an atmosphere, in a vacuum there is nothing for the light to reflect, scatter or defract. Maybe you should expand your hypothesis to include indirect methods of testing for God. Worked for the wave-particle duality postulate of light.
On your last point, I'll wager DrSam and thousands of clinicians and researchers will say that consciousness is amenable to scientific study.
stratman
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 08/27/2011 - 2:51am.
I'm glad I'm not closed off completely either.
Are you suggesting that as a guy in science I'm expected to be narrow minded about religion? I'm not particular smart when it comes to this stuff and I'm certainly not unique in acknowledging the limits of what is knowable and what isn't. That is to say, don't assume something about folks based on what they do for a living or what their theological stance is.
I never mentioned the "Scientific Method". It would be odd if I did since it's a bit of a fairy tale as far as how real science works.
In fact, as part of one of my introductory courses to incoming physics majors at my school, I actually present them with an argument about how science doesn't really follow it. But that aside...
As far as God is concerned - you are correct in saying I don't believe in him so on a certain level, I don't really believe anything about him or man's relation to him. As I said in my previous post, I was just assuming certain characteristics for God (on the assumption that he did exist) which I thought were consistent with what folks who do believe in him would accept. In particular, that he is all-powerful.
As an all-powerful being, wouldn't God transcend time and space and be able to disobey the laws of physics or even logic and so wouldn't that put him beyond what science can study?
I'm not saying that it isn't a possibility that God isn't all-powerful - but I'd be willing to bet that a lot of folks here might have an issue with that assumption.
I suppose I should ask you what characteristics you think God has and what that implies?
And thanks for complementing me on my open mindedness when it comes to the ontological status of things outside of science - either currently or ever - but I'm not unique in this as an agnostic or as someone who isn't religious. Not to sound like a jerk, but again you really shouldn't assume things about how people think just based on what they do.
I get your analogy about light and God (though it really isn't necessary for me to get what you are talking about). So I'll ask a simple question - can you provide me with an indirect method for testing for God?
"Are you suggesting that as a
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 08/27/2011 - 2:33pm.
The exact opposite when it comes to hypotheses or approaching an enigma. I think your bias got the better of you in your assuption of what I posted.
RE: Scientific Method -
You wrote
My bad if I mistook that for the Scientific Method. Speaking of... when did the Scientific Method get tossed? This is news to me, and probably to millions involved in research.
Concerning God's abilities/capabilities... who is to say God does not follow the laws of the universe? Why do you approach this question so rigidly? This type of thinking is aligned with those who denied the existence of bacteria. Our limited knowledge may be the reason we are unable to divine existence of God using the methods of science currently at our disposal. Maybe we are not asking the right questions, formulating the correct hypotheses, devising the appropriate tests or even recognizing the signifigance of data collected. Is it not possible we have not figured out enough of the universe yet to be able to scientifically examine the attributes of God?
And what if God does not need to follow all the laws of this universe -- does that mean there are no laws which God must or does follow? Couldn't we eventually study those laws, and therefore God, once we have the ability to do so? Is this not what scientists are trying to do with the events surrounding the creation of the universe, what scientists have always done once the ability to resolve a question has emerged?
My thoughts on God begin with Him as Creator. Beyond that, I am unsure of the how, the now or what lies in store for anyone or this universe. I do have a working hypothesis and have witnessed supportive empirical data (observational) that leads me to believe in the existence of God. What I've learned through science, my practice of medicine, and events in my life have provided indirect supportive data sufficient for me to not presume there is no God.
If I could provide you, and the world, a bulletproof method for testing the existence of God, do you think I'd be hanging out on the forum with you?
stratman
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 08/27/2011 - 4:18pm.
Regarding the Scientific Method - it isn't that it got tossed, it's more a case that it was never really used it in the first place. As I mentioned to bkeyser below, the way science progresses is a lot messier and more complicated than that suggested by the "Scientific Method". I guess on a certain level it's a nice and simple way to explain how science works to kids in school which kinda-sorta captures the overall idea of what science does. But the fact is, it's such a gross oversimplification that it doesn't really describe how science has developed over the years.
I'm not trying to be rigid about my characterization of God. As I mentioned in my last point, my view of God is based on what I've picked up on from people of faith. And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most religions view God as all-powerful? That to me implies that God would not be required to follow any rules or law - though, of course, I suppose he could if he wanted to.
If you want to entertain the possibility that God is, in fact, restricted to follow certain rules or laws (or has allowed himself to be restricted in this way) which would make him amenable to scientific study, I can accept that as a possibility. I can also accept the possibility that, if that is the case, then maybe we aren't asking the right questions or looking at empirical reality in the right way to see God or that we simply are not sufficiently advanced in our understanding of things to do this yet.
I accept all those as possibilities. And if you wish to interpret certain things you have seen and experience as indirect support for the existence of God, I don't begrudge that in any way.
My point in asking you if you knew how to incorporate God into science was to simply point out that even though you can speculate about a future where science does incorporate God into its theories and even though you (well, not you, but others) can criticize science for not doing so now, the fact is no one knows how to do that now given how science currently works.
I warmly embrace Science and
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 08/27/2011 - 6:30pm.
I warmly embrace Science and find much satisfaction in continuing to learn what Science reveals.
Sorry, going to have to throw out the BS flag on that.
I doubt most would get funding if they didn't have a question, a reasonable hypothesis, and some idea of at least initially going about testing their hypothesis. Plus, good luck on getting published if you can't put in words your work within the framework of the Scientific Method. Other people in Science kinda like familiar cohesive formating to the research they are reading. Provident findings, like the discovery of penicillin, are one thing, but behaving like a child with their first chemistry set and having no hypothesis to test or idea of initial methodological process before mixing stuff together is another.
Either we are thinking about 2 different things or "you've got sum splainin' ta do, Lucy". How is it the principles of the Scientific Method, question, hypothesis, testing, conclusion, are not used in science? What do people write on their forms when filling out research proposals for funding?
Asking me how to bring the Scientific Method to elucidating God was close to if not completely a strawman argument. It proves or disproves nothing. If no one sought to go beyond the commonly held belief at one time that the earth was flat, then further exploration and discoveries that advanced Man would not occur or been further delayed. You chose to believe in what others said, or what you believe is commonly held, on the attributes of God. That may be a reasoned starting place, but an inquisitive scientific mind would not stop there, instead looking for other possibilities. Is this not the essence of a scientific mind - the ability to think beyond or tangential to common thought?
I have no reason to not think you have a scientific mind. I do belive, however, from what you wrote that you have quit engaging, scientific or otherwise, in the examination of God. Maybe one day you will re-examine these quintessential questions from a different perspective. Afterall, that would be scientific.
stratman
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 08/27/2011 - 7:29pm.
The Scientific Method which I'm referring to is the sequence of steps which science supposedly follows in order to advance itself. That is observation leads to theory which is used to make predictions which are then tested via experimentation and new observation. If the observations agree with the theory, the theory is true and if it isn't, it's false.
As I mentioned, in some general sense, yes, this is sort of what goes on in science but the fact of the matter is that this description of science glosses over some important details and typically, from a historical stand point, fails to actually describe how real science has developed over time.
For instance, it's a fact that observations are theory dependent. That introduces problems since the way you interpret observations within an experiment will be very much dependent on the current set of theories which were used to set up the experiment in the first place. There's a bit of a circularity problem there.
Also, the path from observation to theory is often reversed in the sense that it is often the case that preexisting theories - often more than one - can, after the fact, be used to account or try to account for some new observation.
The step from observation to theory also has a problem in that, if the theory uses inductive reasoning (that is, makes general statements about the world) - and most scientific theories do - then the theory makes use of a non-logical step. Inductive reasoning isn't truth preserving.
Using observation to test a theory is problematic since observations can be misinterpreted. And if observation doesn't agree with theory, it's difficult to tell if the theory is flawed, if the theory was applied incorrectly of if the data is bad.
Beyond that, even if the experiment which was set up to test the theory agrees with it, that doesn't make the theory true - if for no other reason than the fact that it was probably put together using induction which introduced a non-logical step already. And on top of that, since theories are basically approximations to empirical reality, a theory might agree with some experiment but not with some other one done later on. So the criteria for judging theories are more complicated than suggested by the Scientific Method.
The fact that science doesn't really follow theis simplistic sequence has been recognized for a while and it's what has motivated guys like Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and a bunch of others to revise how we look at science at its development over time.
As an example, consider the discovery of Neptune. Once Uranus was discovered its orbit was tracked (new observation). That didn't result in the generation of a new theory. Instead, folks applied an existing theory - Newton's Law of Gravity - to Uranus to see if the theory agreed with observation. It didn't. According to the Scientific Method, the theory should have been judged as false and rejected. It wasn't because it had already been used successfully for a bunch of other things. At some point, someone suggested that maybe the disagreement came from the existence of another planet outside of Uranus' orbit. Some math was done, the position of that supposed planet was predicted, observations were made and yes, they found a new planet - Neptune. But even after finding it, and making measurements about its size and orbit, that still didn't account for the discrepancy in Uranus's orbit. So the same trick was applied again by a few different folks who, despite using the same theory, came up with different predictions about where this new planet should be. Turns out one was on the money and as a result they found Pluto. But it was discovered, years later, that the discrepancy wasn't because of Pluto but because of errors in some of the values used in the original calculations so the discovery of Pluto turned out to be pretty much an accident.
To me, that sequence of events doesn't seem to adhere to the scientific method except in some very general sense that science used empirical observation to test its theories.
OK, again, I'll gladly admit that it is possible that one day, science can be used to study God. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about that.
But I hope you can acknowledge that currently, nobody knows how to do that. Are there people trying to do this? I don't know. There are many scientists who are people of faith so maybe some of them are. But as far as I know, it hasn't amounted to anything.
Some might argue that Intelligent Design is such an attempt but there is currently debate about whether ID represents an actual science or just a form of Creationism. It currently has it's issues but who's to say they won't overcome them and introduce a first scientific step in that direction.
As an agnostic, I haven't "quit engaging... in the examination of God" - I've never felt compelled to start such an examination. On top of that, given that my current area of study is condensed matter physics, I have no real motivation to address the issue of God's existence from a scientific standpoint since I don't see what God has to do with the organization and structure of matter at the atomic level. We currently have theories which do a pretty good job of explaining that stuff without invoking God.
You have really tied yourself
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 08/27/2011 - 11:45pm.
You have really tied yourself into knots about the the Scientific Method presence in most if not all research, including theoretical research.
Now that we both agree on a general understanding of the Scientific Method - observation, question, hypothesis, testing, conclusion - we can test each other's theories of this process.
Observations do not need to be solely of the physical but may be of the theoretical. A question and its attendent hypothesis may be a distillation or combination, in whole or part, of other's work. Also, there is no requirement for these elements to be obtained one way or another - from actual physical observations or theoretical musings. Additionally, test data and the conclusions drawn from them are not necessarily an all or nothing proposition in their value towards supporting or negating the hypothesis, let alone their value in supporting another hypothesis. Your own example of Neptune bears proof of the elasticity of theories, data and conclusions. This is not to say a negative can be flipped to a positive arbitrarily, but that elements discovered within the course of research may be valuable to building a proper hypothesis, test and then valid result in the future. This is part and parcel of the march of Science. Linearity is not necessarily obvious or required.
I find your pronouncement "...it's a fact that observations are theory dependent." a bit one-dimensional. Newton didn't seek out the apple tree after coming up with his theory on gravity. Observation comes before question, which comes before hypothesis, which comes before testing (which includes additional observation), which comes before conclusion. Your statement is at best partially correct and at worst falsely bolsters your argument by its incompleteness.
There is no doubt that bias is built into the scientific method every step of the way, from initial observation to conclusion. But this does not necessarily mean invalidation. Yes, the observation biases the question which biases the hypothesis which biases the test which leads to bias in the data and then the conclusion. There can be more or less bias in any one of these steps for a number of reasons, but that still does not automatically equate with invalidation. Your example shows how bias can be surmounted with continued use of the Scientific Method until a valid hypothesis is resulted.
And not all hypotheses must be completely validated in order to be accepted as useful theories. Your example with Neptune demonstrates this as well. There is no uncrossable rule that tests must utilize proven modalities in order for a result to be valid. Theories can be accepted and still be works in progress waiting for more data to be discovered before further cementing their validity. Research into a unified theory of the universe is not only an example of a work in progress but also more than one work in progress that have acceptance, though none accepted universally by all experts. In other words, you go with what you got sometimes until better is available. A fudge factor does not automatically invalidate an hypothesis.
Without knowing any more detail on the discovery of Neptune than what you wrote, it is obvious that the scientific method was alive and well. Observation of the orbital path led to the question of why this path, which led to hypothesis and ultimately invalid result. Subsequent theories were articulated, tested and their results ultimately led to what is accepted, valid theory. Something was learned in each succesive attempt and incorporated (or not) into the next theory/test. That sounds like the essence and robustness of the scientific method at work.
You seem a decent guy and a good intellect with a fascinating linear rigidity not only in your approach, or non-approach, to the quintessential question of human existence - God - but also to the ubiquity, elasticity, and polymorphic employment of the Scientific Method. Still, you do have a cool occupation. Who doesn't like MRI's, crystals, and the Meissner effect. Now if you would bring over some liquid nitrogen and supercool my blast furnace of a home computer I'd be thrilled.
Just an aside, strat...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 5:28pm.
We do not "see" light. We see that which reflects light. Why is this impossible concerning God? Einstein didn't think it impossible.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/comment/reply/49883/1550825#ixzz1WAhTM3HJ
I'm not so sure about that. We see reflected light from certain objects--the earth's moon for example--which are not light sources. And we see the direct light from objects such as a lamp across the room or from a distant star, both of which are sources of light. And it also allows the observer to determine characteristics of the object in question such as size, shape, and color.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 6:14pm.
You are basically correct. In truth, everything gives off electromagnetic radiation but only objects above a certain temperature give off enough EM radiation in the visible range for us to see. For example, objects at room temperatures give off EM radiation mostly in the IR range.
Objects which don't give off enough of their own visible light will still absorb and emit such light. That emitted light (which in the common vernacular is described as "reflected light") is what we perceive when we "see" such an object.
Despite the error, I got what stratman was getting at so I didn't feel it necessary to get into what I just went into above.
But look at you getting all science like - it's kind of cute :)
Well, hydro, you hit upon the perfect phrase to sum up
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 6:30pm.
my level of proficiency in scientific matters: "it's kind of cute"
Gee, thanks Mr. Wizard. Next week will you teach me all about the Bunsen Burner?
;-)
Jer
Wavelength and Temperature
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 10:25pm.
Not everything must be a certain temperature in order to give off EM radiation in the visible spectrum Bioluminescence is one example that does not follow this model. Also, the temperature of a light bulb duplicated in certain metals, for instance, will not emit/reflect visible light.
And then there is the "color temperature" used in photography and computer monitors, for instance. Neither of these, paper and ink or monitor, need be above room temperature to reflect or scatter light of different wavelengths visible to the human eye.
This is an awfully large topic that has many pitfalls when attempting to simplify and condense. Best to let Jer count photons in his room and we go on our ways. When it comes to light and God, I'll stick with Albert Einstein and not you two Einstein Bagel Bros.
Maybe if perpendicular to a vacuum...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 11:02pm.
But, if a beam of photons from a light emitting source travels through a vacuum and is aimed directly at the human eye at the opposite end of the vacuum it should be visible, i.e. "seen" by the receptor, despite the absence of refracting, deflecting, reflecting or diffusing intervening "soup". I think.
But, sorry for the interruption. I'll count something somewhere. You two carry on.
Jer
That is a physical impossibility, Dr. Hawking...
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 11:14pm.
There is too much stuff in between.
Here's the pitch, swung on, belted, deep... deep... deep...
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 08/27/2011 - 4:17pm.
And it's over the wall!
"You two carry on." The
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 08/27/2011 - 3:20pm.
The counting has commenced.
stratman
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 08/27/2011 - 2:11am.
I did say "basically" didn't I? That was on purpose.
It wasn't my intent to imply that visible EM radiation is only generated by what is basically black body radiation.
Yes, there are other ways of generating visible light - bioluminescence is one example of that. So is florescence - like in older TV's and computer monitors. I could also mention Cherenkov radiation and Bremsstrahlung breaking. I could go on.
I won't.
Not sure what thing about Einstein you are referring to.
Did it again!
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 08/27/2011 - 3:18pm.
Deleted my response again. So, here goes a less refined response.
I read Wikipedia too and decided not to include every method of light generation since it was unnecessary in order to point out a potentially misconstrued understanding to your answer on "temperature". Wouldn't have been better to continue the paradigm of EM radiation wavelengths, that which our visual system recognizes and interprets, in your discussion instead of introducing another concept "temperature"?
Concerning Einstein, light, the universe and God -- from "Einstein and God" by Thomas Torrance:
The article from Torrance is a fascinating look into Einstein's thoughts on the physical and the metaphysical. Wasn't able to quickly find a link for you to the article, but I can post or make it available to you if you'd like.
stratman
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 08/27/2011 - 4:40pm.
Since my response was to Jer's post and since he was talking about things like moons and lamps, it made sense to me to talk about the main way in which EM radiation is generated by typical objects - and that has to do with their temperature.
Most of the light you see is the result of the interactions/collisions between atoms in systems above a certain temperature - the sun and manmade light sources, for example. In bringing up temperature, I was just trying to explain how the idea of visible light fit into the larger picture of EM radiation and how the characteristic EM radiation given of my most objects (not all, as in the other examples you and I have brought up) is, for the most part, dependent on their temperature.
Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the atoms in a system, which in turn dictates the strength of the interactions and collisions between the atoms, which in turn determines the characteristics of the EM waves/radiation given off by those atoms as their electrons become excited into higher energy states and then fall to lower ones. There's other stuff that happens in there, but I think you get my point.
If you don't dig my take on it, that's cool.
As for the quote from Einstein, I have to admit that it is unclear to me what he is trying to get across.
Honestly, I'm not very interested in Einstein's views on religion. He was a great scientist. I'm not sure how that makes him a great theologian. But thanks for the offer.
And by the way, not to sound like an arrogant jerk, but I don't need to look up the processes I mentioned in my previous post on Wikipedia. I actually studied those things as part of my training back in school - with equations and math and everything.
Hydro?
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 6:41pm.
Somewhat off topic, but it's true that most scientific theories begin as a hypothesis or pure guesswork, correct? I mean, other than accidental discoveries. Someone projects based on some predetermined or loosely predetermined set of directives/goals/ideas and then sets out to prove illegitimacy or validity of the guess. Fair statement -generally speaking?
If so -and I know it's impossible for you to put a realistic number on it- if you had to guess on the percentage of hypothesis proven correct vs. those proven false, what do you think it would be?
bkeyser
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 08/27/2011 - 3:46am.
I wouldn't say it's guesswork. All theoretical research in science is, from a practical standpoint, driven by trying to come up with models or theories which agree with experimental results. In other words, when you enter whatever field of science you've decided to work in, you have in mind what problems you are going to try to tackle.
So you basically have a goal that you are working toward. On top of that, you don't go into a research field and start from scratch - you work within the framework of the preexisting theories of the field you happen to be in. It's that whole "standing on the shoulders of giants thing" since the level of knowledge we have now about the physical world is so advanced and takes so much time to understand that a person literally couldn't start from square one and get to where we are now in their life time - even if they were a mega genius.
I'm sure some of the armchair scientists here will disagree or call me a pessimist for saying that but my response would be... prove me wrong and do it yourself. That aside...
So you either try to expand or modify preexisting theory or maybe, if you are ambitious, try to introduce something knew which replaces some overarching set of theories (but which will still exist within some larger, more fundamental set of theories).
In the course of doing any of that, chances are you will try a bunch of stuff that ends up leading nowhere. After enough work, maybe you will come up with something that has some value. What counts as "value" depends on what you are doing. Maybe you will come up with a better way of applying a theory that already exists (this is an aspect of research that folks outside of science don't seem to get and which makes them dismiss "stupid" studies which appear to prove obvious things). Maybe you will come up with a new and "better" theory that accounts for what is already is known. Maybe you will come up with a new theory that actually predicts something that no one has ever seen before (that's actually pretty rare).
Your criterion about hypotheses being "proven correct" doesn't actually apply to science. Scientific theories can't be proven correct. They can only be supported by empirical evidence. Because of that, I can't really answer your question.
But to address what I thing you were getting, no one gets a paper published based a theory with is obviously wrong. Well, maybe that does happen, but it shouldn't if people are on top of things and they aren't the totally corrupt buttholes Liberallies suggests scientists are. In other words a theory, at the very least, needs to be able to account for what is already know empirically - something which I will admit is easier to do in physics than maybe in some other areas of science. Past that, if a theory proposes stuff which hasn't been tested yet, then it's an open question until someone tests it.
I went through all that to make a point. What counts as a good theory (as opposed to a "proven" one) kind of depends. The fact is that there are a lot of papers published which are crap. And many that are published that have some stuff in them which aren't 100% right but which introduce stuff that might be useful to others. And some that do actually do a good job of trying to describe some bit of experimental data but which still aren't 100% right. And once in while you get something which is fundamentally important to some area of science.
Any you are correct - I have no idea how to put a realistic number on any of that.
hydro
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 08/27/2011 - 11:41am.
So, I'd say you validated most of my premise by saying the aim of the scientist is to corroborate or solve a problem along a predetermined set of goals. We're in agreement here. What I was getting at is kind of a "batting average." In baseball, you're outstanding if you're successful 3 out of 10 times. What I'm wondering is, how does science in general (not individual scientists because too many factors surely come into play to judge a single, hand-picked scientist a success or failure based upon the number of new theories he or she has given the world) stack up?
You said: "And once in while you get something which is fundamentally important to some area of science." Before that, you noted: "In the course of doing any of that, chances are you will try a bunch of stuff that ends up leading nowhere." I would also note that throughout the ages, much of what we (humans) thought was empirical evidence later was overturned based upon newer information.
As it relates to the discussion on this thread, I would have to say -and this is not to disparage science or scientists- that the success rate (probably much less than 30%) and the frequency over time in which established scientific models must be re-examined and corrected due to either unexpectedly changing data (something Reuters knows a lot about -haha) or new discoveries renders science much more a fledgeling operation than something worthy of the reverence with which so many assign to the industry. Just within the last decade -with all that is and has been available in the form of technology on top of "the shoulders of giants", scientists discovered a new element: Uus 117. Just now, in the 21st century. A new building block in nature; previously undetectable; unknown. FoxNews.com put it this way:
And yet, though all of the failures, and all that has yet to be discovered, some folks [albinopony] have determined that the science of evolution is settled. The science of global warming is settled. God doesn't exist and humans are in control of the earth's atmosphere. (Funny how politics plays such a strong role in both of these settled sciences...) I'm not a person of strong religious faith. I don't practice any particular form of Christianity though I was confirmed into the Lutheran Church at age 13. The last time I attended a church service that wasn't a wedding was in boot camp in 1986. But one thing I do believe is that science doesn't have all the answers -for if it did, there would be no need for new scientists. And while science could never prove God because of the lack of empirical evidence, it is man that has placed that rule; not God. Science will never prove God because it won't allow itself to, even if God had no say in the matter.
I assume that certain scientists can have faith; though certainly not those out to prove evolution. And I would hazard a guess that the number of active scientists who believe in God is quite low. Similarly, I would suspect that the number of scientists out to prove something in which they do not believe, is quite low as well. (Seems counter-intuitive, wouldn't you say? To work to disprove your own belief system.)
The reason I addressed you on this is because of your status as the resident scientific guru; I'm not finding fault with your positions or intent.
bkeyser
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 08/27/2011 - 3:52pm.
I wasn't sure where you were going, but I think I get your point.
Yes, the progress of science is slow and has lots of dead ends or even mistakes. Add to that the fact that new advances in technology and experimental techniques means you end up sometimes having to go back to theories which were thought to be good in order to reevaluate them.
The view of science as a steady, unerring march toward the truth isn't even close to being true and everyone who actually works in science knows that.
The term "fledgling" implies immaturity and lack of development - I wouldn't use that word. I would say the progress of science is a lot messier than most folks realize and that, because of the interplay of theory, experiment and technology, it's constantly undergoing self revision. But the one thing that keeps it grounded is the fact that theories which are clearly in conflict with experimental results - assuming the experimental results are interpreted correctly, which is another issue that complicates things - are flagged as either incomplete or incorrect (and very often it's impossible at any given moment to know which is the case).
Your other point about theories being settled points to another misconception about science. The fact is that every theory, at some level, is an approximation. There really is no such thing as a settled theory. From my stand point, science attempts to develop models which mimic empirical reality. But a model of a thing is not the same as that thing and so will always be different from it in some ways.
Having said that, you have to distinguish between empirical reality and a theory which attempts to describe it. I think in many cases, the word "settled" isn't used to describe a theory but is instead used to describe what is thought to be empirically the case. As an example, our current theory of gravity - General Relativity - isn't a complete theory and isn't "settled" in the sense of being seen as being 100% accurate but the phenomena which it tries to describe - the behavior of systems under the influence of what we call "gravity" - is settled in the sense that we see such interactions directly. For example, there is no dispute that the Earth orbits the Sun - that is settled.
Extending this to evolution, I think when some folks say that evolution is a fact, what they mean is that the actual physical process actually did and does happen, despite the fact that the theory which attempts to describe it has flaws or might, at some point in the future be replaced by something else. Same with AGW. Whatever the merits of the theories used to describe it, I think to AGW proponents, it's a fact that it is happening in real life.
I personally don't think either are justified in asserting this with 100% confidence. The one attempts to make a statement about something in the past which takes (supposedly) such a long time that it could never be observed by humans directly and the other makes predictions about the future and so can't be checked until that future comes.
I believe some scientists make statements about the soundness of their theories which they shouldn't.
As for evolution and faith - you are incorrect. I have met scientists who are people of faith and who do work with and accept evolutionary theory. I, and others on this site, have made the argument that evolution and faith in a higher being are not incompatible.
As for what percentage of scientists are people of faith - well, based on a survey reported in Physics Today about a year or so ago, I think something like 30 - 40% of scientists declared themselves to be people of faith. I don't consider that to be "quite low".
I think what you are suggesting is that since scientists aren't, for the most part, people of faith, they will never look for God in their studies and so will never include or find God in their studies.
This is incorrect. The fact is there are many scientists who are people of faith. The problem with trying to incorporate God into science is that it can't be done given how science works. How do you incorporate a supernatural entity - which, by definition, has properties which go beyond what can be codified empirically - into a theory which requires empirical verification in order to be tested? If you know how to do that, please let me know because as far as I know, no one else does.
What a lot of folks don't seem to get is that science isn't just some search for "the truth" - it is a self restricted study of that part of reality which is amenable to empirical study. That restriction dictates what kinds of agents and entities science can talk about. God - and all supernatural agents - fall outside of that.
As a final note - about the new element which was "discovered" - that element wasn't really "discovered" in the sense of being some big surprise. Elements are built up by simply building larger nuclei - with more protons and neutrons. It basically just amounts to adding more boxes to the periodic table. The thing about elements is that above a certain size, nuclei become unstable and break apart. The motivation for building a new element - assuming you get to the point where current technology allows for it - is that it provides a new system which can be studied and used to test the prediction of different theories.
Couple things hydro
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 08/27/2011 - 7:55pm.
First:
It is either fact and has and is happening, or it is wrong and will be replaced later on. It cannot be both unless evolution occurred and has ceased. Furthermore, I agree that proof of evolution -if it ever occurs- does not disprove God. I don't hold to the literal translation of the Bible; I believe that God could have created man in a way that science seems to affirm. But when most people speak of evolution, they tend to omit the possibility of a supernatural role. I would disagree that 30-40% faithful isn't quite low given the 90% or greater rate of faith in the rest of civilization. I'd also question the validity of the 30-40% claim- though that's not really germane to the overall discussion. Again, regarding facts: no one is rubber-stamped to create their own.
Second:
How science works? What you said proves my point; science refuses to address God because God is a concept that scientists cannot scientifically rationalize- under the rules set forth by scientists. These supposed and self-appointed experts whose success rate is likely quite abysmal in the grand scheme of things.
Some surely will accuse me of being anti-science. Of course that's ridiculous; it would be like saying that if I don't like my neighbor, I'm anti-human. Progressives do this all the time- "you don't believe in AGW, you're anti-science. You believe in God, you're anti-science." It's nonsense. Of course we've learned that the earth revolves around the sun. I also understand the process by which 117 was determined; I shouldn't have used the word "discovered".
bkeyser
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 08/27/2011 - 8:23pm.
I'm not sure what you meant by "It is either fact and has and is happening, or it is wrong and will be replaced later on." Maybe you could clarify?
I find it interesting that you omitted the rest of what I said after my comment about how science works since that's where I tried to explain why science can't incorporate supernatural agents into its theories.
Let me ask you - if a soccer player decided to grab the ball with his hands and throw it into the goal and the ref calls a penalty on him, would you describe that as the ref "refusing" to give that player the point? No, I think you would agree that, given the rules of the game, the ref has no choice but to penalize the player.
Scientists don't refuse to address God - they can't. Given how science (currently) works, scientists literally do not know how to deal with a supernatural agent like God within a scientific context. If you want to call that "refuse", go ahead. But that word implies that they could, if they wanted to, but just choose not to (no doubt because they are just stubborn or perhaps simply anti-religious).
Let's say that I want to try to explain some physical phenomenon by suggesting the existence of some new particle which interacts via a previously unknown interaction. In order to incorporate that into a scientific theory, I would have to express the properties of that particle and the characteristics of that interaction in a quantified manner, using the type of language which already exists within the preexisting set of theories I am working with. I would have to specify things like the mass, charge and spin of the particle. I would have to specify the nature of strength of the force. Once I do that, I can incorporate these things into the theory and use the theory to make unique predictions which could be tested experimentally.
Given that, how would I do that with God?
The issue, hydro
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 08/27/2011 - 10:40pm.
from my perspective, isn't that science should come down on the side of God or be able to scientifically quantify God. The issue is that many in the scientific community simply claim that God cannot exist because He cannot be quantified under the current laws of science, as set forth by scientists.
Scientists set the rules based on what they have learned and what they believe they can prove. Fine. But human comprehension is limited. Many scientists, while striving to learn what is yet unknown, flatly deny that God can exist in the same breath. Understand?
You seemingly cannot allow yourself to think outside of the preconceived notions that guide your research. To borrow a line from a movie:
I'm not asking that science prove God. I'm not even asking that science acknowledge God. I'm simply saying that science should not discount God simply because they cannot prove Him; regardless of whether they can conceive of a rule under which God could be proven or not. Science should say, "There is much we do not know. There is much we may never learn. There is much we may observe and never understand. And while we currently cannot fit the supernatural into any of our known equations, we cannot categorically affirm that the supernatural does not exist. It may. We just can't comprehend it." Is that not an accurate representation?
bkeyser
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 08/27/2011 - 11:34pm.
Science (in its current form) has nothing to say about God or his existence. It can't even comment on supernatural agents let alone comment on whether they exist or not. Do you agree with that?
Individual scientists - as human beings with their own opinions - are free to believe in God or not. As I mentioned, something like 30-40% of scientists self-identify as people of faith (and I can look up the article if you want). So some will express a belief in God while others might express an atheistic or (as I do) and agnostic view. And some might just keep their traps shut about it.
However, to assert that God doesn't exist because science can't talk about him is not a view inherent to science. To hold that view, you would have to also defend the assertion that the sum total of all reality is that which can ultimately be studied via the methods that science uses. That is not, by any means, a universally accepted view and it isn't one that I hold.
I know some scientists believe this but so what? The fact that some folks who work in science happen to have this view (and I honestly would be surprised if that was anywhere close to a majority) isn't a comment on science itself (since science doesn't entail it) and it certainly isn't a view required of those working in science.
I've seen and heard priests make the argument that evolution isn't possible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics - an argument which is, without questions, incorrect. Should I judge all clergy negatively because of these particular individuals or judge the church itself negatively because of this?
No, of course not.
I know you don't accept the idea that a something like 30-40% of scientists are people of faith since it undermines your basic argument. If there are that many people of faith in science, wouldn't you expect them to be open to the idea of incorporating God into science and wouldn't you expect them to maybe try to expand on science in a way that might incorporate God?
I would. The fact that it has not happened supports my argument that scientists don't know how to do such a thing and the fact that there are a reasonably large number of people of faith in science (believe it or don't) seems to suggest that it isn't because scientists are just a bunch of stubborn, narrow minded anti-religious bastards. (I know you didn't use that term, but I'm on a roll here).
Don't make the mistake of stereotyping scientists and don't make the mistake of assuming that being a scientist requires you to hold to certain views when it comes to God. It doesn't.
As I mentioned to stratman in this thread, I have no problem acknowledging the possibility that science might, in the future, end up incorporating God into its theories. I'd be willing to bet more scientists than you think would acknowledge that as well. But it would require a fundamental change to what science is - more extreme than anything that has happened to science in its entire history.
Let me ask you - how many scientists do you know? How many have you actually sat down with and talked to about this kind of stuff?
(Edit: oh, by the way, nice Men In Black quote - I recognized it without having to look it up - good movie)
Hydro
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 11:21am.
You're so rigid. I guess that's a partially a condition of your profession and studies, and partially a character trait -which may in fact be quite helpful in your profession- I don't know. But you're missing the larger point. Or maybe I'm too obtuse in explaining it.
First and foremost- my comments are not a reflection of you. I clearly don't know you well enough to judge you, nor am I qualified to judge. When I speak of science and scientists, I'm speaking in general terms. Your personal beliefs, non-beliefs, or non-interest in the the subject of belief are irrelevant in the course of this particular discussion -meaning, they are yours and you are entitled to whatever makes you tick. I hold no qualm with your beliefs.
Second- the difference between the faithful and the unfaithful is the undying belief in God, and more importantly, no need for someone to prove His existence. Some take that belief and extend it to "the word of God" -the Bible- and assume it was as it is written. I find that a bit naive but again, whatever it takes to get you through the day with morality and no threat to others is fine by me. So if a Priest preaches the Word and stands by it as unbending truth, he is spreading a good and moral message, even if it lacks absolute accuracy. Call him Aesop, if you like.
Third- while I find it unlikely that western scientists believe in God at the rate you mentioned, when you consider that no demographic was defined in that statistic, I'd guess you're probably right. Add in the number of Asian and Southeast Asian scientists, and the fact that many -or most- scientists aren't in the business of proving man is the highest being, then surely 30-40% would be a reasonable expectation. I still think that's a mighty low percentage compared to the rest of society -which I'd guess has something to do with the education process a science major follows. But more specifically, I was speaking of evolutionary scientists/biologists. If your chosen path is to fill in the many and vast holes in Darwin's theory of evolution, a steadfast belief in God is likely an impediment. In fact, it might actually confuse or bias your findings. I wasn't stereotyping scientists, I've been speaking entirely of those in the study of evolution, with a small jab at AGW propagandists. I'm sure there are a great number of God-fearing chemists.
Finally, as I said in my last comment- I'm not asking that science incorporate or even acknowledge a God. All I'm saying is give peace a chance. No. Wait. I got carried away there. ;-) All I'm saying is that given so much that we don't know, science should not categorically deny God based on the rules they set for themselves. Evolutionary scientists by and large, do exactly that. There may come a time when we learn enough to alter the rules. There may come a time when observation cannot be explained by anything we've learned or developed while inhabiting this earth. "There must be an explanation" is a worthy goal, but if there truly is a God, we'll only solve it if He wants us to.
And no, I don't have a personal relationship with anyone in the field of science. But I've never been to Mars either, yet I'm pretty confident it's there. And as an architect with a deep and practical knowledge in structural engineering, I wholly respect the sciences; if not all those serving in the field.
BK
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 08/28/2011 - 12:30am.
Plenty of what is now considered natural phenomena today was once considered supernatural or impossible in the past. The intersection of science with the so-called supernatural is as simple as having the appropriate hypothesis and test. The difficulty is developing those constituent parts.
Ann
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 12:23pm.
Ann, no legitimate scientist wants to respond to you because your "understanding" of evolutionary science is rooted in long debunked "theories" and that horse is tired of being beaten. Behe's theory of irreducible complexity has been so thoroughly destroyed, I'm shocked that anyone even has the gall to pretend that it should be taken seriously at all. Ann should be ashamed for publishing such an absurd article in 2011. His "Protein Science" article authored with Snokes is a disgrace. Numerous examples abound where his theory has been shown to be a flat-out falsehood, yet Creationists still insist on citing him. It's hard to be taken seriously when your claims are based on fiction. Frankly, I'm surprised Coulter weighed in on this since she's clearly about 15 years too late to the debate.
Behe has been thoroughly (and clearly) debunked on his arguments about the development of the eye (see Mollusks), vertebrate blood clotting cascade (Doolittle body-slammed this myth using dolphins, zebrafish, and puffer fish), and yes, bacterial flagellum. For an easy to read debunking of Behe's "science", I would suggest Kenneth Miller's article, "The Flagellum Unspun": http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
Sorry, if you believe in Creationism (aka Intelligent Design) then you are just being willfully ignorant. Ann, stick to lampooning liberals and avoid science. It only makes you look foolish.
That explains the "scientists...
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 12:29pm.
"Ann, no legitimate scientist wants to respond to you because your "understanding" of evolutionary science is rooted in long debunked "theories" and that horse is tired of being beaten."
Well, that explains the 'scientists" rejection, but what about the rest of us "non-scientists" who just may be interested in what she has to say? Should we all just reject her opinions because she's not a "scientist?"
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
No Cobra, you should reject
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 12:32pm.
No Cobra, you should reject her opinions because it's a fact that her examples are nonsense. It's a fact that bacterial flagellum are not "irreducibly complex." So if you want to listen to her spout off long debunked junk science, than feel free, but I prefer to base my opinions on reality.
Who says they're nonsense?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 12:38pm.
Who says they're nonsense? Some scientist who's "disproved" another scientists theories?
Talk about being "willfully ignorant!" How are you any different that someone who believes in creation? Just as with the religious beliefs, YOU'RE taking someone else's word for what is real or isn't. In this case, the word of one or more scientists over that of another. You couldn't prove the latest theory to be "real' any more than I could.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra, I'm not taking
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 1:05pm.
Cobra, I'm not taking anyone's word, I'm looking purely at cold, heard, provable facts. Bacterial Flagellum are not irreducibly complex. This isn't a case of believing one scientist over the other, this is a case of believing reality over fiction. I listed three examples in my original post where Creationists examples of irreducible complexity have been shattered, but you seem to want to ignore this.
You need to read up on this topic because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Cobra, before you respond, at
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 1:09pm.
Cobra, before you respond, at least read the article that I attached in my original post so you have a more clear understanding of the topic at hand.
The topic at hand
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 1:30pm.
The topic at hand, as far as I'm concerned, is how you describe someone else's opinions and beliefs as "thoroughly debunked" or "willfully ignorant" and your own as "fact" when, in fact, there's no way for you to actually determine if ether is "fact" or not. You can only take someone else's word for it. Just as I explained to hydro, it's all based upon your own perceptions. Well, different people have different perceptions. What makes your perceptions any more "real" than someone else's?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra, sorry but you are
Submitted by PaleHorse on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 4:04pm.
Cobra, sorry but you are wrong. This is not a postmodern conversation. Behe has made numerous claims about specific examples that he deems to be irreducibly complex, such as the bacterial flagellum referenced by Coulter, and he has used these examples as the foundation of his "theory". It has been PROVEN that these examples do not illustrate irreducible complexity. Thus, Behe is wrong and anyone continuing to espouse his nonsense is wrong. It really can't be any more clear than that. Again, these are facts. The mollusk eye is NOT irreducibly complex. There's no other way to say it. To continue to pretend that it is irreducibly complex renders one willfully ignorant, like an ostrich with its head in the sand.
You ask what makes one's perceptions more real than another's? When those perceptions are firmly grounded in demonstrable facts and reality. You have seriously got to be kidding me with your approach to this topic.
Cobra, sorry but you are talking to a retread.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 9:34pm.
His name is 007memo. He goes by the name of girlyman, 007milquetoast, the lying sissy, and Loser. He was the second most prolific liar here. He is now back to give a run for the money to be most prolific.
Still waiting for you to answer up for one lie milquetoast. Been over a year now.
The complete list of 007memo's 110 LIES, NB's most prolific liar.
Agreed, Vet, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 1:23am.
but I swear that the Ashen Equine and Satchmo, post-wise, are brothers from the same clutch.
Or, if you prefer, litter.
MD
Matthew, isn't this cute.
Submitted by PaleHorse on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 11:49am.
Matthew, isn't this cute. Another meeting of the Paranoid Posters club. Who keeps the minutes?
Whoopie doodles.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 12:12pm.
Now don't make a mistake and start repeating one of those 110 lies. Mmmmmkay trollie?
Say. Who was the Vice President under the great great great George W. Bush? Tell us trollie.What was his name and why was he so great as well?
Vet, who was vice president
Submitted by PaleHorse on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 1:05pm.
Vet, who was vice president under George W. Bush? Is that a trick question. Dick Cheney of course. I don't know if he was great, but I certainly appreciated his frankness and willingness to go after those who unfairly attacked him.
Vet, why do you lie
Submitted by PaleHorse on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 11:40am.
Vet, why do you lie constantly? You always accuse people of being other people. I am not 007memo. If it makes you feel better to push this lie than have at it, but I wouldn't want to walk around being a liar if I was you.
Sorry what?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 12:16pm.
007memo: Why call me a lying sack of dren, when that's a lie, JWF? You've called me a liar, but you have never proven me a liar.
Izznotta troll mizzer. Juz thin that throwing around diz liarz wurd 4 or 5 tinez in a post will magically mish it truffiez.
On a side note Vet, I checked
Submitted by PaleHorse on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 11:45am.
On a side note Vet, I checked your link and it's really creepy that you stalk and monitor people like that. Don't you have anything better to do with your time than police a website?
No Freakshow.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 12:27pm.
I get PAID to stalk and monitor internet predators like you. Yeah, you play it off like you ain't cold busted. Mmmmkay 007milquetoast? No similarities at all. Boy I sure did make a mistake. Maybe I ought not get paid this week. Oh wait....
Look at the posts of 007memo, hmmmm he also uses the name of a poster in the first sentence of a post. hmmmmm. Now who else does that? hmmmmm ---
To mike76 --- Earth to Mike76, you do...
To General Company --- Wow, That's an authentic Racist, General!!!
To General Company --- Source your wing nut facts, general.
To Restless1 --- Are you really this obtuse or jus't kidding, restless?
To Cool Arrow --- Has it been 7 weeks already Cool,...
To MrShy --- ...fail in Iraq and Afghanistan, mr shy?
To Cool Arror --- Cool Arrow - CNN Reports...
To JWF --- JWF - Take your psuedo-patriotism....
To JWF --- JWF, you uncover so many conspiracies
Whoops. You can change your name but you can't change your brain.
To JWF --- We have a lying liar like JWF, lying about things
To me HERE ON THIS PAGE --- Vet, why do you lie constantly?
To matthewdeand HERE ON THIS PAGE --- Matthew, isn't this cute...
Yeah poor little trollie. I surely got the wrong guy.
Iz wurd bulliz gottza wrong trolliz. honext. Croxx both trollis heartz.
Vet, you get paid to be
Submitted by PaleHorse on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 1:03pm.
Vet, you get paid to be wrong, use profanity, and insult regular posters? That's a great job. I wish I could find one like that.
Sorry, but you're wrong about my identity. I don't know 007memo and I have no idea what JWF means. Again, this is my first and only account. I don't know what to tell you. You can continue to claim otherwise but that just makes you a liar. Quite a sad display.
Your denials, Pale Horse---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 6:43pm.
may well be worthwhile.
You may not be 007memo.
You are, however, a troll.
You post like a troll, whine like a troll, complain like a troll, and smell like a troll.
You are also a putz.
Strictly my opinion, that..
You do understand that my opinion carries no weight with anyone but me, correct?
If it makes you feel better, throw in an occasional comment about my use of profanity, being wrong, and tendency to insult "regular" posters.
Anyone claiming you are a re-tread troll is venturing an opinion, which is not necessarily the same as lying.
As far as what is a "sad display", I do believe you have confused The Vet's posts with your own.
MD
matthewdean is correct.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 9:57pm.
The link is strong enough and your trolling is bad enough, I get the right to make the comparison. We will see if you can avoid repeating one of the 110 lies. But so far, yeah, not looking good. You have a long history of insulting both people here and in the media just like 007memo. You have his posting style. Inclinding the Lollies and triple bangers.
The onus is now on you to prove you are indeed not 007memo. The evidence is that clear.
And playing stupid is not going to help you. You recognize every single name up there as an actual user name but you want to play stupid when it comes to the guy that got you banned last time?
Vet, I haven't insulted
Submitted by PaleHorse on Wed, 08/31/2011 - 10:49am.
Vet, I haven't insulted anyone, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Think I'm some guy called 007memo if that makes you feel better. Fact is, you have no basis in fact to make that accusation and I'll expect an apology for your slandering once your realize your mistake.
Well now, Leon LIES right in our face. RIGHT IN OUR FACES.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/31/2011 - 11:12am.
Leon AKA Jonathan Goldwater LIES: I haven't insulted anyone.
You are not talking about your old retread accounts, you talking about this one? Wrong. YOU LIE.
Let's see all the people YOU INSULTED.
Who is a moron? - Maher. the government. The Five show.
Who is dumb? - Herman Cain.
Who is a liar? --- Scuba Dude aka Captain Conspiracy. cajun2. Carly Fiorina.
Who is an idiot? - Everyone running America. Gov. Rick Perry
Who is a stalker? - Scuba Dude.
Who looks and talks just like Scuba Dude? - SickofLibs.
Who is angry? - SickofLibs. Unsane. The Vet.
Who makes bizarre posts? - SickofLibs. Unsane. cajun2. bkeyser.
Who is trying to destroy America? - the government.
Who tanked the market? - the government.
Who manufactured the market crisis - the government.
Who is blind? - Scuba Dude.
Who acts like a child? - Rep. Allen West.
Who throws temper tantrums and is weak and thin skinned and needs to act like a man? - Rep. Allen West.
Who hazes newbies here? - Scuba Dude.
Who is stupid? - politicians.
Who tows NewsBusters party line? - Scuba Dude.
Who drinks the Kool-Aid? Scuba Dude.
Who has no money in the market so they can't complain? - Scuba Dude.
Who is paranoid? - Restless1.
Who is not rational? - Anyone that cannot see government manufactured debt/market/financial crisis. Rep. Allen West.
Who is riled up? - people.
Who is/looked whiny? - Rep. Allen West.
Who is petty, thin skinned, and immature? - Rep. Allen West.
Who picks on Mormons? - Christian Newsbusters.
Who gave President Obama a victory in 2012 already? - Republicans and/or conservatives.
Who is for big government? - Rep Bachmann.
Who is a joke? - Rep Bachmann.
Who spins and spins and spins? - bkeyser.
Who is a loon? - Rep. Bachmann.
Who is a hypocrite? - Rep. Bachmann.
Who likes Palin? - bkeyser.
Who is weak? - Everyone but Mayor Bloomberg.
Who is insane? - Unsane.
Who is pathetic or beyond pathetic? - Unsane. Christine O'Donnell.
Who is obstructionist? - the Tea Party.
Who is unhinged? - The Vet.
Who is schizophrenic? - The Vet.
Who is a word bully? - The Vet.
Who is a strange man? - The Vet.
Who harasses people? - The Vet.
Who is erratic? - The Vet.
Who is out of touch with reality? - hard core posters here.
Who is not serious? - Bachmann, Palin, O'Donnell.
Say Leon, tell us all about Sarah Palin and her taxes. Tell us all about how much you love Sarah Palin. Tell us who the mother of Trig is. Tell us all Leon.
Rode the Ashen Equine hard,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 09/01/2011 - 1:04am.
raked him with spurs adorned with very sharp rowels, and put the horse's arse away wet.
M-mm-mmm.
MD
matthew, the sexual innuendo
Submitted by PaleHorse on Fri, 09/02/2011 - 12:29pm.
matthew, the sexual innuendo in your post is palpable and quite disturbing. Paging Dr. Freud!
Pale Horse,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 09/03/2011 - 3:26am.
Ashen Equine, Horse's Patoot.
While I may have an affinity for tagging trolls with silly variations of their username, you named the account; not I.
People who infer sexual innuendo where none is intended would do well to look inward, especially when using the label 'palpably' when referencing said innuendo.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
Paging old Sigmund would be about as beneficial as all of your posts here have turned out to be.
Freud is long dead, meat.
MD
The Leon retread troll is an idiot.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 09/03/2011 - 3:57am.
The troll with the moniker that contains the word horse is too stupid to recognize an idiom when it stares it in the face.
Oh Leon retread, hello, it is an idiom idiot.
"rode hard and put up wet" refers to the practice of abusing a horse by immediately stabling it after a hard ride.
matthewdean was saying you were abused.
But yeah, you read sex into every little thing like the stupid lying retread troll you are. Mmmmmkay?
Idiot.
Wow. Looks like you just got rode hard and put up wet again.
Idiot.
Retread.
Back for more abuse.
Idiot.
matthewdean~
Submitted by GG_NB on Sat, 09/03/2011 - 9:29am.
You are a witty one!
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Vet, that is an impressive
Submitted by PaleHorse on Fri, 09/02/2011 - 12:26pm.
Vet, that is an impressive amount of work. I have no idea what you are talking about. It's certainly an interesting strategy to accuse me of being previous posters, but the more you do so, the more insane you look. First I'm 007memo, then I'm Satchmo, and now, I'm someone called Leon. Keep digging my friend.
I'll repeat it for the final time. This is my first and only account. Feel free to continue to lie while looking creepy. I'll be ignoring your antics from this point forward so have at it!
Whatever Leon.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 09/02/2011 - 9:42pm.
Cold busted you in yet another lie. Yeah, you never insulted nobody here. Oh, wait, you mean today right? Sadly I don't feel very insane. Only trollies that get cold busted in lies usually call me that. Everyone else..... Yeah, not so much.
When did I call you satchmo lying little sissy troll? Huh? Or you thinking of an account of yours that was banned a few weeks back for the hostility you show others here?
Oh, creppy too? Hmmm. Nah, no one calling me creppy but you. Oh, lots of banned trolls called me creppy. LOTS of banned trolls. But live accounts? You and Dead Zippers. That's it. And Dead Zippers ain't showed up yet with his 28th account yet. So, sorry if I take the creppy talk with a grain of salt there troll.
Whoops. You didn't insult me did you? Huh? You don't insult nobody. You are a good fairy troll. Full of light and rainbows.
You willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 09/01/2011 - 8:35am.
Because Miller is a fool, and Matske may be much worse.
Here, Miller's arguments are destroyed one by one. His "indirect pathways" argument is pure bullshit. It requires more faith than is contained in a universe sized nunnery.
Get a clue. Either prove your claim, or skate.
I guess you've conceded the point.
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 1:26am.
You see, Miller is a hack. He doesn't comprehend the meaning of irreducible complexity or the the premise if intelligent design.
Let's break it down for you, as I doubt you get it either. Irreducible complexity states that a system cannot function, if missing even one component, for it's INTENDED FUNCTION. Get it. TTSS is not the INTENDED FUNCTION of the flagellum. Add to that the fact that the flagellum PRECEDED the TTSS, as a secretory system would not have been beneficial in an environment lacking plant and animal pathogens, then Miller is completely misguided in his argument.
Consider also that intelligent design does not purport to prove that intelligence intervened at any level of evolution, but that evolution IS the design, and you have to come away with the opinion that Miller is a complete moron.
RESTLESS 1, You bring up mouth..
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 3:29pm.
Maybe the random chance-en folk can explain how a mouth can be, updated, while the organism, misses out on food intake for a few million years?
Mouths are also used as a defensive device, "oh please wait don't attack me I'm evolving".
Maybe there a cosmic welfare program, that cares for updating organisms, undergoing mouth argumentation that we have not discovered as of yet.
You Didn't Build That.
That's easy, UCW
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 12:25pm.
They had a big breakfast. :/
Not so fast...
Submitted by InSixDays on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 7:33pm.
You hold, by faith, the position that the bacterial flagellum came into existence by purely naturalistic causes.
If you insist this view is not “by faith”, then prove it. Winning a debate with Behe is insufficient. This has not “proven” anything except perhaps that his statement that the flagellum is “irreducibly complex” is flawed. (As for Miller’s arguments, the TTSS is believed by some evolutionists to have evolved millions after the flagellum. That hardly seems like a pre-cursor.)
For more on the flagellum, see http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html where Millers arguments are “thoroughly debunked” and conclusive proof is given that it is you who are “just being willfully ignorant”.
Ok, that last remark was “tongue in cheek”. I think neither side can “prove” what happened in the past. All sides of the “origins” debate, it seems to me, exercise reason, faith and bias.
"Luge strategy? Lie flat and try not to die." C. Boyle (Olympic Luge Gold Medal winner 1996)
InSixDays, I hold by concrete
Submitted by PaleHorse on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 11:43am.
InSixDays, I hold by concrete evidence that the bacterial flagellum came into existence by purely naturalistic causes. I've clearly stated that Ann and Behe are wrong when they argue for irreducible complexity, and I've already backed up my statement with articles and examples. I did prove it. I'll definitely check out your article when I have a bit more time. It's a long one! Thanks for sharing it though.
The Theory of Evolution is a
Submitted by Edhenry on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 1:30pm.
The Theory of Evolution is a wonderful theory. Like Darwin, I would like to see the proof.
Darwin helps the Godless avoid the devine truth & individual responsibility. Which eliminates the "Creator" - see below.
Global "cooling", oh wait "warming", oh wait I mean "climate change" gives them the vehicle to grab all power, destroy the rights of individuals (again these are inalienable rights from our "Creator" - but again , no Creator.. no inalienable rights) and move to the collective. I thought we tried this agian and again and again with the same results.
All tyranny, mass killings, destruction of religion, destruction of individual rights, the military industrial complex and misery comes from centralized power. Fight all attempts to centralize power in the collective, no matter the rational (helathcare, the environment, or the illusion of job creation). We will perish if they win.
The "problem" with opposing "theories."
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 1:52pm.
The "problem" with different theories only arises when one theory contradicts another. If two opposing theories tend to work, we end up arguing which theory is "real." But it's just an intellectual exercise that has very little bearing in the "real' world.
Take the "theory" of the spinning Earth, as an example. For thousands of years, the prevailing theory was that the stars revolved around the earth in a cyclic predicable pattern,. This theory was sound enough for us to develop working models that allowed us to use those spinning star in which to navigate the earth. Even though that theory was proven "wrong" thousands of years later, I can, using that original "wrong" theory create a working model that would allow me to use those spinning star in which to navigate the earth, and with the same precision that I would have if I used the "new" theory of a spinning Earth. So, here we have an example of a "wrong" theory that actually works in the "real" world.
The question is, based upon this "working theory" situation, which theory is actually "real?" Both theories work in the real world, don't forget, so what does it matter what theory is "correct" or not?
The same situation arrives with "Creation" verses "big bang" theory, or even "evolution". Both theories work in the "real" world, for example Man was breeding animals long before "evolution" theory existed, both can be used to create models that can be effectively applied to the 'real" world, so which theory is "real?"
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
CobraMan
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 5:35pm.
You bring up an interesting point and one that has been around for a while in the philosophy of science.
Your comments reflect what I think is called the pragmatic view of science and scientific theories. In that view, you don't worry about whether a theory is an accurate reflection of some objective reality since we are limited in our ability to observe or perceive or interpret that reality.
Instead, you judge theories based on how well they seem to agree with observations which can be made and the extent to which their predictions agree with observations - both of which will depend on the current level of technology and experimentation.
Because scientific theories are rooted in only talking about that which is observable (at least in principle), judging two competing theories is (again, in principle) straight forward. A more straight forward way of saying this is - as you have suggested - the theory that lets you do more is the better theory.
But how do you test a theory like Creationism? I'm not being snide in asking this, I really am curious.
Theory testing...
Submitted by InSixDays on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 7:41pm.
I think creation, like other historical events, fall outside the realm of "testing". All tests occur in the present. Can you, for example, describe a test for the "evolution of flight"? You will solve a long running dispute between the arborial and cursorial theories, (and others?) if you can.
"Luge strategy? Lie flat and try not to die." C. Boyle (Olympic Luge Gold Medal winner 1996)
InSixDays
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 8:35pm.
I don't work in a biological field so I'm not in a position to comment on the evolution of flight or the details of how a theory which attempts to explain its origins would be tested.
However, with regard to your larger point about testing historical events, I can make a comment about how physics does it. Take the Big Bang for example. A direct test of the actual event can't, as far as I can tell, ever be performed. However, if someone creates a theoretical model of that event, they can use that model to make predictions about empirically observable events or characteristics which can be tested today. In other words, the theory can be extrapolated to the present time and tested that way.
For Big Bang, that includes things like the existence and characteristics of a background radiation which fills space, estimates of how quickly objects like galaxies are moving away from each other and the relative abundance of things like Hydrogen and Helium (among other things).
If these predictions are verified experimentally they, of course, don't prove the theory but they do lend support to it. The more verification, the better the theory is seen to be.
InSixDays, what do you mean
Submitted by PaleHorse on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 11:47am.
InSixDays, what do you mean when you say "describe a test for the evolution of flight"? Are you asking how a person could argue that natural selection created the ability to fly? If so, that's a tremendously easy answer.
Arguing is not testing
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 09/01/2011 - 5:14pm.
I would imagine InSix meant exactly what InSix posted.
Evolution vs Creation
Submitted by 76United on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 2:05pm.
Another way to distract the population whilst they are being screwed by politicians and corporations.
Believe what you want to believe, don't worry about converting others and remember to fight the real enemies: politicians and corporations!
Retread on this thread~
Submitted by GG_NB on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 3:07pm.
.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Go ahead and flame me...I believe in evolution
Submitted by gopcongress on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 3:44pm.
I'm an atheist and believe in cause and effect, the same laws that apply to conservative economic principles, delayed gratification to ensure longevity of principle, taking care of my health, etc. I do not believe in God, and can reasonably ascertain the general level of science that includes a Big Bang over 12 billion years ago relative to our time.
To that end, is it a prerequisite to believe in God which, by definition, cannot be ascertained through scientific edict? I happen to agree that religion was actually derived from a highly socialistic method of human interaction; namely, the relative few who "knew" certain rational thoughts that perpetrated a myth of creationism to the many. This is not liberal claptrap, but sound historical research.
Part of my own conundrum is that since I don't believe in God, does this make me hypocritical to my own non-religious conservative principles? The fact this country was founded with heavy religious overtones does not necessarily call it a fact.
Now, I recognize that modern religion is not about control of the populace, as that societal process has evolved to nation states, then nations, then groups of nations, and hopefully will devolve to a global nation where we can go from one nation to another just like we go from one US state to another. Rather modern religion is, ideally, about how we commit our lives to living as peacefully and productively as we can with the communal help of others who have the same faith. All well and good, but to call it a fact when it cannot be proven as such, is just like the socialists claiming global warming is fact when THAT can't be proven as such.
So go ahead and flame me. If others take offense at my stance, I have no apologies. I don't begrudge anyone's religious beliefs, but it's not something I can adhere to.
The bottom line is that there are more of us in the conservative movement, but we have to be careful as the left would like NOTHING BETTER than to use my religious disbelief as a wedge to split the conservatives apart. But that won't happen with me. Idiots are idiots, and the left is generally bereft of any semblance of societal concerns for anyone but their own pleasures at the expense of producers.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
gopcongress
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 5:37pm.
Amen.
Like Ann Coulter there aint no way I came from
Submitted by RD King on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 3:53pm.
no GD'd ape. Common sense either works for people or it doesn't.
For evolution to be real you would see it all around you today and it wouldn't be pretty.
Can't prove it, don't ask me to pay for it.
Submitted by Al Teal on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 6:17pm.
I haven't absolute proof of God but I am a Christian and I do not demand that anyone else believe in my religion.
The problem with global warming and evolution is those who believe demand that everyone else bow down and believe.
Despicable liberals demand everyone pay money to support their religious beliefs: global warming and evolution. You will find no Christian who will demand that non-believers pay to support their Christian beliefs.
That is the difference.
Christianity is good and Christians make good neighbors. Liberal religions are anything but good and liberals use the government to extort money from those who do not believe.
Liberals and Evolution
Submitted by Pahlavan on Fri, 08/26/2011 - 7:55am.
Liberals are proof positive that Darwinian Evolution is a flawed theory. As Coulter quotes Darwin, himself:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
quod erat demonstrandum