My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

[_SteelHead]

Actually there is all kinds of empirical evidence supporting the big bang theory, and the theory of evolution. That you do not undertand the methodologies, theories, and evidences which form their basis, a personal failing.

There is 0 evidence you can point at by which to support your world view. Any one can theorize any wild idea and present it on the interweb. Unsupported conjecture is not going to "rise to the top".

Prolific does not equate to valuable.

[_Franktalk]

Actually there is all kinds of empirical evidence supporting the big bang theory, and the theory of evolution. That you do not undertand the methodologies, theories, and evidences which form their basis, a personal failing.

There is 0 evidence you can point at by which to support your world view. Any one can theorize any wild idea and present it on the interweb. Unsupported conjecture is not going to "rise to the top".

Prolific does not equate to valuable.

Are you assuming that man can not be wrong? Is man now at a stage where what man thinks is correct and nothing will ever come along to turn over the ideas of man? That is great news Steelhead. I guess we no longer need to investigate anything that may be new in the universe. We surely do not want to run the risk of wasting our time. You know, since what we think about things today can never change. Thanks again. Now to close down all research as a complete waste of time and money.

How many ideas we now embrace were at one time considered nuts? Just about every single one of them.

[_SteelHead]

Nope, I never assumed that we can not be wrong. In fact I never said that. Scientific methodology does not claim to be proof from error, but rather has mechanism for correcting error.

Compare this to religion in which certain pronunciations are viewed and promoted as absolutes.

[_Franktalk]

Nope, I never assumed that we can not be wrong. In fact I never said that. Scientific methodology does not claim to be proof from error, but rather has mechanism for correcting error.

Compare this to religion in which certain pronunciations are viewed and promoted as absolutes.

So who is more wrong, someone who imagines a reality or someone who says they have proof of one but are proven wrong?

[_jo1952]

Actually there is all kinds of empirical evidence supporting the big bang theory, and the theory of evolution. That you do not undertand the methodologies, theories, and evidences which form their basis, a personal failing.

There is 0 evidence you can point at by which to support your world view. Any one can theorize any wild idea and present it on the interweb. Unsupported conjecture is not going to "rise to the top".

Prolific does not equate to valuable.

Many quantum mechanics scientists believe in "God". I suppose they believe in "God" as the explanation for what they are observing which is not explainable to them in any other way. They give credit to the "God" of the religious because they have most likely not considered any other option for the unseen force they can't explain. In other words, "God" is the explanation because that is another option they are familiar with which happens to be taught by religion.

OTOH, as shared in another thread on this website, Albert Einstein wrote:
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man,” Einstein wrote. “In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naïve.” This was not a profession that he believed in the "god" of religion; rather, it was a departure from what the world thought its options were. In other words, it was another option which he was brave enough to present.

I think both the quantum mechanics "god" believers, as well as Einstein, are pointing toward the same source/force/spirit; and it is the one I now believe. Now, those scientists who don't believe in "God" will generally poo poo the scientists who do. They will say those who believe in something unseen are not as smart as those who don't believe in anything unseen. Even so, it was one of the most brilliant minds of science (Einstein) who basically said that those who don't believe in "some spirit" are actually not seriously in the pursuit of science.

Meanwhile, one of the basic tenets of science is to keep an open mind while observing. Yet, it is also science who contradicts this tenet. In fact, with all of the regulations and systematic use of peer review, a pure pursuit of open-minded observation which also allows for the unseen is cut short. Additionally, along with peer review are the attached sources of funding for further research. Should someone discover something which goes against or brings into question already standing and accepted theories, it is only the very few and brave who will buck the system. Often, they are ostracized; and even aren't recognized as having presented something that should have been considered until they are dead. The very real threat to their livelihood, to their status, and the power and glory they enjoy by their fellow scientists, leaves little incentive to dare giving up what they now enjoy. How open-minded can this system really be? When only allowing themselves to see within the parameters set which don't allow for the unseen, then how can other possible theories have a chance?

[Guest]

I'm sorry, jo1952. All you have really demonstrated in your last post is your abject ignorance and contempt for the scientific process and how it really works. It is not nearly as self-limiting as you suggest. Nor are scientists as stubbornly opposed to new ideas and insights and ideas that honestly challenge what we now know or think we know as you think they are. In fact, scientists who reject out of hand and/or do not eagerly look forward to examining new evidence that challenges what they now know are not doing science correctly and don't deserve the appellation "scientist." Lawrence Krauss is one of the best explainers of this and how science actually works. here is another discussion about the hypothetical "limits" of science. It seems to me that there is really no approach to discerning actual reality less limiting or more honest than properly and honestly applied science. Unlike most religions, science allows for the possibility of being mistaken and having to reevaluate even one's most deeply held convictions.

No one I know explains the importance and the contributions of science better than Neil deGrasse Tyson. His Cosmos series, now available on Netflix, was more enlightening and inspiring to me than anything I ever learned from religion. I strongly urge you to watch the whole series.

[_Franktalk]

I'm sorry, jo1952. All you have really demonstrated in your last post is your abject ignorance and contempt for the scientific process and how it really works.

This sounds so familiar to me. I think I have read it many times. Let me change the subject and see if it fits.

All you have really demonstrated in your last post is your abject ignorance and contempt for the correct interpretation of the scriptures and how it really works.

Yep, I knew I read that somewhere. Some worship a god in heaven and some worship nature. It is amazing how similar the two groups are.

[_SteelHead]

There is no such thing a correct interpretation of scripture. As you and Jo demonstrate they mean whatever one wants them to mean.

Aliens!

[_Franktalk]

There are some who tell me that science adds new observation to old and science moves along building upon itself. I have rejected that idea. Here is a short video which describes how science actually works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cp6pEzx3uw

[_Franktalk]

There is no such thing a correct interpretation of scripture. As you and Jo demonstrate they mean whatever one wants them to mean.

Aliens!

Then there is no correct way to interpret the forces of nature. One can believe that scientific systems progress towards truth or they don't. One can believe that religious interpretation of the scriptures moves towards truth or they don't.

It is still a belief system no matter which camp you are in.