The Like/Hate Thread

[Josh]

True, but many of the fathers of modern science were Christian and used their cosmological understanding of the universe as declared by the Bible to assist them. If I can find my examples on my PC I'll put them up, however I do recall that the Big Bang theory met heavy resistance from atheist scientists at the time because it presupposed a "beginning" of existence, which didn't fit well with metaphysical conceptions.

Nuuuuu~ I don't think so.

I'm sure many of them were christian, but that's simply window dressing. It wasn't Christianity that made them good scientists. The Renaissance, Age of Reason, and Enlightenment were a result of people moving away from the Church and an explosion in science.

The Bible does not a science text make.

[Orion]

Nuuuuu~ I don't think so.

I'm sure many of them were christian, but that's simply window dressing. It wasn't Christianity that made them good scientists. The Renaissance, Age of Reason, and Enlightenment were a result of people moving away from the Church and an explosion in science.

The Bible does not a science text make.

If I can find my stuff I'll put it up, but I'm definitely not arguing your last sentence. In no way is it a scientific text.

[Sigfried Hunin]

Whether or not the Bible has furthered humanity is not even a question. It has, over many times and occasions sparked curiosity and compassion. Then again, it may have sparked so much more violence or atrocities, but that's not what I'm here to say.

What I'd like to point out is that no matter what it has done or where it has led us, we cannot allow these things to blind our judgment of its truth or untruth. It is this sideways mudslinging that confuses the issues that man faces today. None of it matters at all. We allow our temperaments and emotions to get in the way of our intelligence and logic, and these associated topics will only ever blind our eyes to looking at the issues for themselves.

In the end, it doesn't matter in the slightest what Darwin said on his deathbed, because the evidence of the phenomenon wouldn't change based on that. One way or another, there is evidence to prove or disprove it, and those are the things we should be bickering about.

[Ashe]

Psyren:

Sigh im sorry I cant beleive in the theory of evolution when the man who made it famous (Charles Darwain.) even on his death bead said it was a load of hogwash.

No, he didn't. That is what we call quote mining, where we dig through a list of things said and find a way to take something out of context to make it fit the claim we are making. Belle posted the full quote.

The interesting part is that this doesn't mean anything, even if he did or did not. There is no disputing that Darwin was wrong about a great many aspects of evolution that we have discovered today. Every scientist will tell you this, just like every scientist will tell you that we live in a Heliocentric Solar System, but this doesn't mean that the Ptolemaic proposal of Geocentrism did not contribute to our modern perspective. Despite the fact that his use of epicycles is now practically a curse word among astrophysicists of today.

Many people have contributed many thoughts to the field of science over the course of history and later had their contribution proven either dead wrong (while still sending us in the right direction) or not entirely accurate. This is what science does - it takes ideas proposed, tests them, retests them, continues to retest them, offers them for peer review (where other scientists of a high caliber also commit to testing and making sure of the accuracy of the results) until it can either A - Support the hypothesis being tested or B - Correct or dismiss the hypothesis being tested. Another example is the Einstein's Theory of Relativity being a near replacement for Newtonian Gravity (though this is not a 100% situation).

So we know that Darwin had many inaccuracies about his proposal. We would expect that after 100 years of continued new information about the subject that he did not have access to. This does not mean that because we now have new light on the subject that the initial idea is useless.

Example: I propose to you the unthought of idea that holding onto a parachute and blowing into it will let me fly. By the end of my life span I realize that I haven't succeeded, thus "invalidating" my idea of balloon flight. Someone else with a more modern day knowledge of physics realizes that theoretically, my proposal could work if the air contained within were expanded through the use of heat. He makes it work. If the idea had been discarded due to me not quite having a fully fine tuned idea, then we wouldn't be where we are. This is what we do - we refine ideas over time which allows us the many things we have today.

However, you are welcome to contest this.

EDIT: Sorry, I meant to say this. This isn't actually directed at Psyren since I know he stepped out. This was a contribution to the general discussion that was prompted from Psyren's comment. So any mentions of "you" are the generic use, not a specific individual.

[Rem-13]

There are plenty of great thinkers who were Christians, and among those plenty who site the source of their scientific fervor their desire to know the machinations of the universe God created. Science and Religion can coexist pretty easily, and have, its only when People get it in their head that they are right, this makes them superior, and and everyone who is wrong needs to be kicked in the balls. I guess what I'm saying it I hate the Papacy and teenage atheists in equal measure.

[Ashe]

The thing I like about science is that it doesn't say "This is how it is, that's it" and never recheck. They constantly reevaluate the information and check it for errors and make sure that it stands up to modern day information. If something proves wrong, then they correct it, but only after enough testing proves that.

[Sigfried Hunin]

I'm technically an agnostic in the most literal sense. a (without) gnos (knowledge). It is a literal impossibility to fathom the existence or non existence of an all powerful being. To think you can is stupid. I simply have never seen any reliable evidence to support the presence of such a thing.

It's like bigfoot. You can't PROVE he's not out there. But, I mean, I don't leave bigfoot treats out in hopes that he won't toss my trash every morning.

[Jarka]

But, I mean, I don't leave bigfoot treats out in hopes that he won't toss my trash every morning.

Like: Knowing that Sigfried actually does leave bigfoot a nice array of treats every night. Why else would he use that as an example?

[Sigfried Hunin]

Dude, me and my buddy have always wanted to go bigfoot hunting. Like, fully guile suits and soak ourselves in gorilla piss. We'd have like, these massive overpowered rifles and spend months in the woods of Washington state. And then, one day, we'd shoot the bastard and strap his body to our car, driving him through town and hootin and hollerin.

There would be no question.

[Pinky]

There are plenty of great thinkers who were Christians, and among those plenty who site the source of their scientific fervor their desire to know the machinations of the universe God created. Science and Religion can coexist pretty easily, and have, its only when People get it in their head that they are right, this makes them superior, and and everyone who is wrong needs to be kicked in the balls. I guess what I'm saying it I hate the Papacy and teenage atheists in equal measure.

I'd put Dawkins in the "teenage atheist" circle. I tried getting into some of his stuff but it was so angsty it reminded me of people I knew in junior high school. When I saw him in Ben Stein's movie/documentary, and he assented to the possibility that life on Earth may have been engineered by sentient beings elsewhere, but then said that those beings certainly had to have evolved without intervention I lost any linger respect for him.

Great biologist, sure, but he's no philosopher-king. Also, this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-cho...81095.html

[Ashe]

I'm technically an agnostic in the most literal sense. a (without) gnos (knowledge). It is a literal impossibility to fathom the existence or non existence of an all powerful being. To think you can is stupid. I simply have never seen any reliable evidence to support the presence of such a thing.

It's like bigfoot. You can't PROVE he's not out there. But, I mean, I don't leave bigfoot treats out in hopes that he won't toss my trash every morning.

There are four stances (and most believe three).

The three that people misunderstand are "agnostics aren't sure if they believe or not", "atheists believe he doesn't exist", and "theists believe he does". This is incorrect and defines the first two wrong.

Gnosticism is stance of knowledge (falling back to the root word) and Theism is a stance of belief (again falling back to the root). "a-" means "without", not "no".

This means that you have four stances. Agnostic Atheism - "Lack knowledge and lack belief", Gnostic Atheism - "Knowledgable and lack belief", Agnostic Theism - "Lack knowledge and hold belief", and Gnostic Theism - "Knowledgable and hold belief".

The thing is, given that a deity cannot be tested under the laws of the physical world (leaving the TAG argument to be what it is), we are all agnostic. We do not have irrefutable knowledge as to whether a deity does or does not exist. No one is absolutely certain in either direction. You can't prove a negative, so the fact that no one has ever seen one doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means that its rational to take a stance of not professing an active belief that it does. (This works for anything you haven't seen, from invisible unicorns, deities, extra terrestrials, lesbian lizards that breed sexually. It is rational to not put your money on any of these things existing. It is not rational to assume otherwise without having seen evidence that they do. That being said, despite correctly not believing that a lesbian lizard exists that breeds sexually, that doesn't mean that you can actively state that they don't, because you simply lack evidence either way and a negative cannot be proven. Which leaves you with this - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/na...rds14.html)

The stance of atheism or theism is a situation of believing regardless of knowledge. Being atheistic to something does not mean "You believe it doesn't exist" so much as "you lack belief that it does exist". This isn't necessarily semantics because you are atheistic about many things, but don't put forth a belief one way or another about its existence. If I were to state that I owned a computer store, should you rationally believe it? No. All you have to believe me is my word. Should you tell people "He doesn't own one"? No, you don't have a reason to believe that either. So you simply lack a belief that I own a computer store until you see more evidence.

[Ashe]

I'd put Dawkins in the "teenage atheist" circle. I tried getting into some of his stuff but it was so angsty it reminded me of people I knew in junior high school. When I saw him in Ben Stein's movie/documentary, and he assented to the possibility that life on Earth may have been engineered by sentient beings elsewhere, but then said that those beings certainly had to have evolved without intervention I lost any linger respect for him.

Great biologist, sure, but he's no philosopher-king. Also, this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-cho...81095.html

There's a reason why Ben Stein cut the scene of Dawkins comment so short.

That said, what he is answering is more along whether its possible that we specifically were created. And it is possible. Everyone acknowledges that it is. He's saying that any number of things could have engineered many other creatures, in the same way that we have done it with crossbreeding and such. Its not a leap to think that someone could possibly tamper with dna to produce a race with certain characteristics. He's not saying "Yes, I think we were created but our creators evolved", he's saying "Its possible that we were, if you insist that, but somewhere down this line of races creating new races, there would have to be a race that evolved on its own." This is the same as saying "Yes, the domestic house cat could have been engineered. But most likely the race that did this evolved on its own." Ok, so we did it, and we assume we evolved. Perhaps we didn't and WERE engineered, but that doesn't mean that somewhere down the line of infinite creation that the originator didn't evolve by its own path.

He's more or less trying to point out the "You can't have the argument that 'something must have created this, it requires a creator' and then say 'MY creator has just always been there, no creator required'."

[Rem-13]

The thing I like about science is that it doesn't say "This is how it is, that's it" and never recheck. They constantly reevaluate the information and check it for errors and make sure that it stands up to modern day information. If something proves wrong, then they correct it, but only after enough testing proves that.

That's how its supposed to work but there are plenty of scientists who treat 'established' theories and such as religious doctrine. Challenging conventional wisdom is seen as career suicide. The scientific community is pretty brutal in its inner politics. Its not as inflexible as Catholicism obviously, but then Religion is not in the business of flexibility.

[Ashe]

That's how its supposed to work but there are plenty of scientists who treat 'established' theories and such as religious doctrine. Challenging conventional wisdom is seen as career suicide. The scientific community is pretty brutal in its inner politics. Its not as inflexible as Catholicism obviously, but then Religion is not in the business of flexibility.

I think this depends. Is the person challenging an "established" theory with evidence and a set of experiments to give him reasonable grounds to argue his case or is he just standing there arguing with claims that were debunked/have no strength to them or is otherwise just insisting its wrong without having any real reason.

[Rem-13]

Obviously weak theories and pseudoscience are rebuked, but so are things that only seem to be as such, or are never allowed to crawl out of those theory-ghettos because of overconfidence in established doctrine. Such is human nature. I can't cite examples because this is just stuff I've read about over the years so feel free to disregard.

[Pinky]

There's a reason why Ben Stein cut the scene of Dawkins comment so short.

That said, what he is answering is more along whether its possible that we specifically were created. And it is possible. Everyone acknowledges that it is. He's saying that any number of things could have engineered many other creatures, in the same way that we have done it with crossbreeding and such. Its not a leap to think that someone could possibly tamper with dna to produce a race with certain characteristics. He's not saying "Yes, I think we were created but our creators evolved", he's saying "Its possible that we were, if you insist that, but somewhere down this line of races creating new races, there would have to be a race that evolved on its own." This is the same as saying "Yes, the domestic house cat could have been engineered. But most likely the race that did this evolved on its own." Ok, so we did it, and we assume we evolved. Perhaps we didn't and WERE engineered, but that doesn't mean that somewhere down the line of infinite creation that the originator didn't evolve by its own path.

He's more or less trying to point out the "You can't have the argument that 'something must have created this, it requires a creator' and then say 'MY creator has just always been there, no creator required'."

wish i could find a link to this, but google fails me.

i was impressed by an evolutionary experiment had began as an accident. flies are commonly used as test subjects in various experiments because they breed quickly, and in an unrelated study a group noticed that the flies were changing (normal, this is evolution at the lowest order; breeding causes change, those changes branch out making a slightly different kind of thing). but, after a while it was noticed that the flies would not diverge beyond a certain point. a new experiment was held specifically to test the limits, and iirc the flies wouldn't move beyond Genus. this stop-point is evidence of limitation.

the favored talking point of hardcore naturalists is that it takes too long to trigger the event but then it happens too fast to leave a trail in the fossil record. explaining away the lack of evidence is a red flag in my book, and it's painful when there's evidence of limitation. like rem mentioned, there is a culture of hostility.

not that i blame all of it. hard sciences like mathematics are straight-forward. applied sciences (engineering, chemistry, etc) are softer, but it's still results-based. evolutionary biology seems as much philosophy as anything else, and the position "im right and UR STOOPID DERPA DURR" is not helping.

[Orion]

Great biologist, sure, but he's no philosopher-king.

OMGWTFBBQ agreeing with Rod here. He should just stay with what he knows.

[Ashe]

That's pretty interesting and I wouldn't mind seeing the source at some point.

Beyond that, I could understand a limitation being placed upon genus for changes this late in an evolutionary path. That's somewhat something I would expect. But then, I guess that is relative as well.

Something I always find interesting is how people so adamantly fight things like (as an example) "its total bullshit that fish could have grown legs and walked the earth over a series of a few thousand/million years!" This is funny because even ignoring the mudskipper, there are numerous other fish with legs such as the tripod fish and ... I can't remember the name, but it is another current day fish with a full set of four legs. I'm not sure if they have any amphibious properties to survive on land however. Another interesting point is the flying fish.

Another example of evolution is taking place right now. Now, keep in mind that the process takes many many many years to solidify and gradually change, so this is a pretty interesting situation, but in Australia there is a race of skink that is beginning to abandon egg laying in favor of live birth. Here is the article if you are interested.

[Waffuru]

I don't understand the complaint on the fossil record... you know how rare it is for fossilization to even occur? It often requires a natural disaster and that also usually results in gaps of time between fossils. It's not like every animal that died left a fossil for us to find, and even then we've found a very limited number of these fossils. Most animals that die are subject to scavengers and decay leaving nothing to be fossilized.

[Ashe]

I'm really trying to find the link to one of his older lecture series that I mentioned earlier (full series) that really focuses more on evolutionary biology from back in the 80s (meaning some of it is likely now known to be wrong) but failing at it at the moment.