If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WorldNetDaily)   Humans have been to space while chimps just sling poo, therefore evolution is bogus. Now buy this book   (wnd.com) divider line 408
    More: Obvious, straw man, scientific laws, Cell Biology, evolution, Carl Gallups, magic, superstitions  
•       •       •

3856 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jun 2012 at 9:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



408 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-13 10:32:33 AM  
That some are still not convinced of evolution is proof that we are merely and truly apes.
 
2012-06-13 11:10:58 AM  

randomjsa: And I as I read further...

There's something else here that demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of evolution and natural selection. Evolution and natural selection favor the species that is most able to reproduce successfully. Whether that species is advanced enough to build communications satellites or of such limited ability that it operates like an insect means nothing. Assuming that evolution favors advanced intelligence is like assuming it favors large size or the ability to digest wood. Now being intelligent certainly does give you some advantages, rather huge ones in fact, but this author seems to think that the end all goal of evolution and natural selection is to produce human like levels of intelligence when its not.


While you are mostly right, one thing to take into consideration is that as the evolution moves forward, more complex organisms have the opportunity to come into existence. That doesn't mean less complex organisms cease to exist, an amoeba and humans have still been evolving for the same amount of time and are equally adapted to their respective environments. What is means is that some niches can[t be filled until a certain level of complexity is reached, and intelligent civilization ends up turning things on their head by able to create their own niches by changing the environment on a large scale.

So while evolution isn't a race to civilization, the possibility for it happening increases over time and once it happens the sapient specie can stick around for quite a while (or permanently if it successfully colonizes other star systems)
 
2012-06-13 11:36:32 AM  

Gwyrddu: randomjsa: And I as I read further...

There's something else here that demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of evolution and natural selection. Evolution and natural selection favor the species that is most able to reproduce successfully. Whether that species is advanced enough to build communications satellites or of such limited ability that it operates like an insect means nothing. Assuming that evolution favors advanced intelligence is like assuming it favors large size or the ability to digest wood. Now being intelligent certainly does give you some advantages, rather huge ones in fact, but this author seems to think that the end all goal of evolution and natural selection is to produce human like levels of intelligence when its not.

While you are mostly right, one thing to take into consideration is that as the evolution moves forward, more complex organisms have the opportunity to come into existence. That doesn't mean less complex organisms cease to exist, an amoeba and humans have still been evolving for the same amount of time and are equally adapted to their respective environments. What is means is that some niches can[t be filled until a certain level of complexity is reached, and intelligent civilization ends up turning things on their head by able to create their own niches by changing the environment on a large scale.

So while evolution isn't a race to civilization, the possibility for it happening increases over time and once it happens the sapient specie can stick around for quite a while (or permanently if it successfully colonizes other star systems)


OK, that last claim is totally unfounded. We've been using 'civilization' as our strategy for a few thousand year and only have the one sample, yet somehow its some game changing thing that will last 'a long time'?
 
2012-06-13 11:47:00 AM  

Mr.Tangent: I ain't never seen a monkey give birth to a man.

I love that old chestnut, cracks me up every time.


i0.kym-cdn.com

An argument so stupid they named an award after it.
 
2012-06-13 11:55:38 AM  
What have I learned here?

If I get laid off I can write an anti-evolution book and make money from the all the science-fearing fundamentalists. I can throw in some specious statistics, and they will eat it up.
 
2012-06-13 11:56:27 AM  
Is it possible that theists like the guy in the article simply can't grasp the oceans of time that elapsed between abiogenesis and the multitude of species that have come and gone since?

To put this into perspective, let's look at approximately how many times lightening has struck the earth since life formed here.

There are roughly 100 lightning strikes on Earth every single second. That means that there are roughly 8,640,000 strikes per day.

Ignoring leap years that means that there would be 3,153,600 lightening strikes per year.

Single celled organisms have been dated back to approximately 3.8 billion years ago here on earth.

That means that since life formed here, lightening has struck roughly 11,983,680,000,000,000,000 times since then.

I bet all the money in the world that people who don't believe in evolution can not process a number that large. And I would propose that it is this inability to process numbers (and time) on such a large scale that has left them unable to accept reality itself...
 
2012-06-13 12:00:03 PM  

erstwhileplanet: I've always been curious, do other faiths have a problem with evolution? I mean, evolution doesn't necessarily jibe with Buddhist or Hindu or Zoroastrianism but I can't say that I've ever heard Hindus demand that schools teach the cosmic dance of Shiva as an alternative to the Big Bang theory. Of course, not living in India so I could be completely wrong, but a couple of google searches yeilded no results.

I suspect that the furor over evolution is a particularly American Christian phenomenon, though I wouldn't wager against some fundamentalist Muslims somewhere with the same viewpoint.


Catholics believe in evolution. Pope John Paul II said as much in a speech on October 23rd, 1996.

// Granted, that was a looooong time after evolution was proven but it is still evidence that real Christians don't need to stick their heads in the sand when science discovers something interesting...
 
2012-06-13 12:06:10 PM  

Archae hippy: We SHOULD be talking about the fact that Chuck Norris is predicting for a border invasion. derp


No, we should be ignoring that, too. He's a karateman who participated (I hesitate to say acted) in some movies and TV shows; his opinions are invalid.
 
2012-06-13 12:16:04 PM  

Ned Stark: OK, that last claim is totally unfounded. We've been using 'civilization' as our strategy for a few thousand year and only have the one sample, yet somehow its some game changing thing that will last 'a long time'?


The claim is obviously hypothetical, but there is plenty of reason to believe it is true. Humans have already adapted most of the planet to their needs and there becomes less and less from nature that could wipe our species out as time goes on. Once humans has colonized other star systems we will effectively become immune to global catastrophe and it would take an organized genocidal campaign by a more advanced species to wipe out the human race. The same arguments could be applied to any alien civilizations out there as well.
 
2012-06-13 12:19:47 PM  

Farker Soze: A two-year-old human child is infinitely smarter than any chimp on the planet, and the child's life represents the ability to literally change the future of the planet and history. Not so with the smartest of chimps

That's today. There were times when there was 3 or 4 different intelligent primate species on the planet at the same time. Homo sapiens shared Europe and lived side by side with intelligent tool and fire using Neanderthal only 30,000 years ago. What if they wiped us out? Would there be Thrag instead of Jesus?


I may be wrong here, and they may be citing different research (assuming either side is citing real research), but the "monkey rights" groups as people call them argue that adult higher primates and dolphins have similar spatial reasoning ability to that of 5 year old children, and as such there should be a degree of sovereignty afforded to these animals. That's not to say that they are equally "smart", just that there are a handful of mammals that are just as capable of observing a novel situation and coming up with a solution without trial and error as a kindergartener. Might not seem like much, but for quite a while in history this was considered the difference between man and beast (after we realized plenty of species used tools.)

Not going to dispute that our beefy frontal lobes have us at the top of the list for smartest creatures on Earth by a decent margin, but as more and more research is done we are able to see more and more behavior that we used to identify as uniquely human occurring in the animal kingdom, and we have to adjust our perception of how wide a gap there is accordingly.
 
2012-06-13 12:25:44 PM  

TFerWannaBe: fozziewazzi: The point is science will never be able to push aside religion completely. There will always remain very basic fundamental questions of existence that science will never be able to answer satisfactorily. Beyond that If someone is poor and in poor health with no prospect of every seeing anything better in this life, religion is better positioned to provide that person with hope and purpose. All science would offer is "you're going to live a miserable life, and then die. Sorry". Not a powerful message. Religion will remain.

I was with you until you said "All science would offer is . . . " That's complete bullshiat. Science gives us tools we can use to improve our lives, reduce human suffering, make the world safer and expand our knowledge of the universe. Science gives us medicine, food that grows in adverse conditions, technology that allows family to communicate long distance, and lesbian porn. How can you claim that science can only offer the knowledge of a miserable life?

One could argue that science also gives us the means to cause suffering - but since religion often provides the reason for doing so, you aren't going to get much traction there. The truth is that science gives the human spirit the means to achieve its greatest dreams. Religion- at best - merely guides the dream.


If you're poor and afflicted with a serious disease..is Mr. Science going to come to you and offer free medical care? No? Because at least Mr. Religion will come and while he won't lift you out of poverty and cure your disease, he will tell you that you're loved, that you count and a better life waits for you.
 
2012-06-13 12:32:18 PM  

mamoru: Bigdogdaddy: There is no intelligent life on this planet. We prove that daily.

Uhhh... The mice would like to have a word with you.


Yes, but they paid for it.
 
2012-06-13 12:32:49 PM  

mamoru: fozziewazzi: The point is science will never be able to push aside religion completely. There will always remain very basic fundamental questions of existence that science will never be able to answer satisfactorily.

Such as? And before you drop that old canard "Why are we here?" please be ready to answer the counter questions "Why do think there has to be a reason?"and "Why do you think that is a question that science will never be able to answer?".

Beyond that If someone is poor and in poor health with no prospect of every seeing anything better in this life, religion is better positioned to provide that person with hope and purpose. All science would offer is "you're going to live a miserable life, and then die. Sorry". Not a powerful message. Religion will remain.

And science is in a better position to actually make that person's life better. Scientific advances leading to medical advances lead to easier, cheaper, medical treatments that can (and many people believe should) be made available to all via social programs. Such social programs themselves are not necessarily science or religion dependent, but things like basic universal healthcare would be building off the fruits of science, not religion.

And, if science can be said to imply or inspire any overall messages about life, "you're going to live a miserable life and then die. Sorry" couldn't be further from the truth.

Science says "Hey, even you, poor miserable person, can learn to understand and appreciate the awesomeness of the Universe, because Science will not tell you that there are things you are not allowed to know or attempt to learn. Science itself cannot make your life automatically better, but it can say, 'hey, here are some tools. You now have the the means to do your best to make your life better. Best of luck to you.' And what will religion tell you? 'Hey there, it's OK to suffer and be miserable now, because things will be much better after you die. So, don't bother trying to better you ...


You're thinking at the macro level. I'm talking real life at the individual level. If you're a poor paraplegic with Parkison's in the slums of Paraguay, what is science going to do for you? What good is knowledge of the material world to this person who will likely never know anything but poverty and suffering? Religion on the other hand may give him purpose and hope, maybe even happiness.

In a perfect world with unlimited resources religion might have less appeal. But that's not happening in any forseeable future and because of that, religion will always have a place.
 
2012-06-13 01:10:57 PM  

eraser8: clowncar on fire: Creationist here- God gave the breath of life

What are you basing that on?

The greatest argument in favor of a god or gods is the need for a designer. But, since evolution by natural selection eliminates that need, why keep a god in the equation? What does a god add?


He used the Holy Ambu Bag; God is a certified EMT.
 
2012-06-13 01:16:52 PM  

fozziewazzi: TFerWannaBe: fozziewazzi: The point is science will never be able to push aside religion completely. There will always remain very basic fundamental questions of existence that science will never be able to answer satisfactorily. Beyond that If someone is poor and in poor health with no prospect of every seeing anything better in this life, religion is better positioned to provide that person with hope and purpose. All science would offer is "you're going to live a miserable life, and then die. Sorry". Not a powerful message. Religion will remain.

I was with you until you said "All science would offer is . . . " That's complete bullshiat. Science gives us tools we can use to improve our lives, reduce human suffering, make the world safer and expand our knowledge of the universe. Science gives us medicine, food that grows in adverse conditions, technology that allows family to communicate long distance, and lesbian porn. How can you claim that science can only offer the knowledge of a miserable life?

One could argue that science also gives us the means to cause suffering - but since religion often provides the reason for doing so, you aren't going to get much traction there. The truth is that science gives the human spirit the means to achieve its greatest dreams. Religion- at best - merely guides the dream.

If you're poor and afflicted with a serious disease..is Mr. Science going to come to you and offer free medical care? No? Because at least Mr. Religion will come and while he won't lift you out of poverty and cure your disease, he will tell you that you're loved, that you count and a better life waits for you.


And that's the problem. How can lying to someone ever be considered medicinal?
 
2012-06-13 01:17:29 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: "There is no 'supreme being' in heaven who reached down to create life on Earth or human beings. Nor is that being answering prayers. There is no soul. There is no everlasting life. Science tells us all of these things with complete clarity. God is imaginary."

Bullshiat. Scientists don't even pursue those lines of investigation.

Just once, I'd like to hear from a Creationist who actually understands science. But, if they did they probably wouldn't be Creationists.


Yeah, that was a quote from an atheist site. Even knowing Fark atheists, they probably weren't making it up.

/Stupid\asshat people adhere to any train of thought. The question is what the good people involved do, not what the dumbasses do.
 
2012-06-13 01:21:18 PM  

Stibium: There can be no argument. Macroevolution has been studied, observed, and repeated in the laboratory.


That's all well and good. But, the argument was about biblical literalists believing in evolution by natural selection.

You might have noticed that I didn't say 6,000 years is insufficient time for evolution by natural selection to occur. I said, quite specifically, that 6,000 years was insufficient time to produce changes "that would catch the notice of young earthers."

Do you really think the evolution of bacteria is something that would catch their notice? Hmmmmm?

The fact is that young earthers are likely to regard any change within Prokaryota as being negligible...even if the active genes of two examples are more dissimilar than those between, say, humans and chimpanzees. I know this to be true because I've actually heard young earthers make that specific argument.

So, yeah, didn't need your lecture. In fact, it was completely unresponsive to my post.
 
2012-06-13 01:21:58 PM  

Ringshadow: Forgive me if this is an illogical argument, however...

I always find it interesting when people who do not believe in evolution will own specific breeds of animals. Logically, the selective breeding of the ancestor of dogs has led to many, many breeds that look nothing like each other.

[retrieverman.files.wordpress.com image 640x473]

Chihuahua and a Great Dane. Yes, they're still the same species and they COULD still interbreed but dear god, would you want them to? Could they even do so without assistance? A male Great Dane would likely kill a female chihuahua and a male chihuahua would need a stepladder to get to a female Great Dane.
It could also be stated that some breeds of dogs, such as English Bulldogs, can't even naturally breed anymore. A genetic dead end.



The Chihuahua/Great Dane example is a very good one. Upthread, (2012-06-13 12:18:31 AM) mamoru noted that the concept of "species" is really a matter of convenience for us, rather than a "fact of nature." The Chihuahua/Great Dane example shows the "gray area" between "same species" and "different species."

As you note, a Chihuahua and a Great Dane are prevented from breeding by purely "mechanical" barriers of size, but they are "the same species" because it is possible for Chihuahua genes to get into the gene pool of Great Danes and vice versa indirectly (e.g. Chihuahua mates with beagle, offspring of beagle mates with Airedale, offspring of Airedale mates with Great Dane). If the "intermediate sized" dogs became extinct, Chihuahuas and Great Danes would instantly be separate species, without either of them changing one bit.



The selective breeding for traits we find desirable could be said to mirror what nature inflicts on animals, which eventually leads to a species split where animals can no longer successfully interbreed. We just haven't driven any animals quite that far yet.

/have we?


Yes, we have! Fat tailed sheep and domestic turkeys cannot reproduce with their wild relatives. (They can't reproduce at all without human assistance, and their wild relatives won't let us get close enough to assist.)

We have also done it several times with plants (bananas and breadfruit are my favorite examples, because they are delicious).



mamoru:

The simple solution to this (and to the "Mules don't reproduce, but are clearly alive" arguments) is that the cells of their bodies and your bodies do reproduce by mitotic division. Therefore the usual definition still applies. ;)



Yeah, I know this and you know this. I just wanted to see if he knew this. When people start talking about the boundary between "life" and "not life," my taxonomy-sense starts tingling. ;-)
 
2012-06-13 01:25:54 PM  
Science (the creation and testing of a hypothesis) is an unavoidable and innate human experience.

IMHO placing it in contrast to mythology is absurd. Likewise, replacing religion with science is also ridiculous.
 
2012-06-13 01:28:05 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: I like beer.


I like the way that you apparently weren't permabanned for threadjacking about two months ago, when you didn't take your meds and posted the same thing repeatedly for ten or so hours.

Been lying low, have we? Been posting under an alt?
 
2012-06-13 01:41:40 PM  

Corporate Self: Ishkur:
That's not science's current answer. You are arguing from a position of improbability. Science makes no such claim that abiogenesis happens by random chance. It is undirected, yes, but it still adheres to basic fundamental preferences and behaviors in bio-chemical logic.

Then why have we found no life outside of Earth? Surely if its a natural undirected process, it would be everywhere in the Universe right?

If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?


This one earned you the (un)coveted "Retarded Red" coloration.

Jim_Callahan: Corporate Self: If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?

You invented a way to detect small quantities of complex organic molecules from several light years away? Because the rest of us can barely manage to tell if there's a simple three-atom molecule on the moon without creating a giant explosion in the specific area we think exists.

Or are you getting this magical ability to search places outside Earth using your mutant power of teleportation? Because I hate to break it to you, but science doesn't have that either. All we've checked so far for life is a vanishingly small section of a very limited chemical range of an arbitrarily selected bit of Mars and an even smaller bit of the moon. If you want to make stupid assertions about how we've looked everywhere and haven't found anything you're going to have to wait another four or five centuries at minimum, right now we can't even get to most of the planets we know about, much less explore them in detail.


Like I said, "retarded red"

bobsixpack: I was going to read this, but I got distracted and disturbed by Joseph Farah's mustache. He should shave it off before it crawls up his nose and eats his brain.


It's too late for that...
 
2012-06-13 01:50:18 PM  

FloydA: Gwendolyn: I had a sixth grade teacher who told us evolution wasn't real because if it was monkeys would keep having babies. That made about as much sense as this guy.


wat

That doesn't even make sense in a nonsense kind of way. Did he think that monkeys don't reproduce? Where did he think they come from?


I think the idea was monkeys would be having human babies if evolution were true, therefore it must be false.

Teacher does not understand the theory.
 
2012-06-13 01:51:20 PM  

fozziewazzi: What good is knowledge of the material world to this person who will likely never know anything but poverty and suffering? Religion on the other hand may give him purpose and hope, maybe even happiness.


So you suggest religion is some sort of opiate for the masses?
Seriously, though, it sounds like you're advocating delusion as a method for dealing with problems. Frankly, if the person in your example realized that there wasn't some sort of celestial mandate that they be sick, and survival wasn't in "god's hands" then perhaps they'd fight harder to survive, or even advocate for better health care for others in similar situations. Putting your life in the hands of a fictional god and giving up because it brings a sense of peace is stupidity and self-harm.
 
2012-06-13 01:55:30 PM  

RedVentrue: FloydA: Gwendolyn: I had a sixth grade teacher who told us evolution wasn't real because if it was monkeys would keep having babies. That made about as much sense as this guy.


wat

That doesn't even make sense in a nonsense kind of way. Did he think that monkeys don't reproduce? Where did he think they come from?

I think the idea was monkeys would be having human babies if evolution were true, therefore it must be false.

Teacher does not understand the theory.


To put it mildly!
 
2012-06-13 02:02:39 PM  

Pharque-it: FloydA: wildsnowllama:

Viruses are not life because they can not reproduce on their own. They must hijack the systems of living organisms to reproduce.

My father could not reproduce on his own. He had to "hijack the systems" of my mother in order to produce me.

Which one of my parents would you say is not alive?

And your mother hi-jacked a couple of incomplete cells from your father. But they reproduce as a spieces. Thus are they both living. Both are needed.
The living cell does not need the virus to reproduce, but the virus need a cell, not another virus.


I would argue that though virus (viruses or virii?)and bacteria behave in very different ways, both are alive. Perhaps the virus had an altogether different beginning independant from bacteria.

What I'm trying to say is that you are comparing apples and oranges and concluding that oranges must be bannanas because they are unlike apples.
 
2012-06-13 02:23:42 PM  
where did black people come from?
 
2012-06-13 02:25:40 PM  

clowncar on fire: So why bother calling it the "theory" of evolution then? Strongly supported? Yes. Proven fact? Maybe not so much.


img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.


Corporate Self: Since we don't have billions of years to wait for life to spontaneously generate in sterile conditions, I would say that believers in that theory need to go on faith.


Confuses probabilisitic inference from priors with premises unjustified by priors. (Or of one's devotional relationship with the Ultimate Reality°, or perhaps other elements of Cannon's "Six Ways" framework. Whichever.)

Corporate Self: To me science's current answer that "a billion monkeys" gave way to the complex coding of life is much less believable than some unknown intelligent entity had a hand in it.


Probably because you've not studied enough math; particularly, the branch associated with computational complexity, formal languages, and automata theory. Difficulty with understanding exponential and logistic curves also seems pretty common.
 
2012-06-13 02:35:31 PM  

mamoru: Corporate Self: Deal in truth or go home.

I'll take the "educated guesses" based on extrapolations of observed phenomena and observed very well supported explanations of nature of science over the wild-ass evidence-free guesses that you propose.

You do not deal in truth at all. You deliberately distort how science even approaches the question of abiogenesis, making non sequitur "million monkeys" arguments and you provide no evidence or even logic for your own suggestion that some unknown, unobserved intelligent entity did it so science must be wrong. You present this as an argument from disbelief, and it is presumably based on faith.

Science isn't claiming truth. Science isn't claiming to be right. Science is positing and testing as well as it can explanations based on evidence. Science accepts an explanation as provisionally true if the current body of evidence supports it, it is testable, it has not been refuted, and it explains more than the previous explanation which it is replacing. Science does not hide these aspects of how it works. Science does not claim truth. And science is not dishonest in how it tries to explain the universe.

Accepting something as provisionally true based on evidence and extrapolation from known phenomena is not the same as the faith you are using to believe that $Unknown_Intelligence did it because I can't understand the complexity involved. You are being dishonest for even suggesting that the two are equivalent.

You want to deal in truth? Physician, heal thyself.


You're right science doesn't claim anything, but Scientologists like Sabyen91 claim to know everything.

I guess Sabyen91is God then.
 
2012-06-13 03:07:27 PM  

Mongo No.5: where did black people come from?


When a mommy and a daddy really love each other, they do a special kind of grown up dancing, and that makes a baby grow in the mommy's tummy.
 
2012-06-13 03:14:05 PM  

FloydA: Mongo No.5: where did black people come from?

When a mommy and a daddy really love each other, they do a special kind of grown up dancing, and that makes a baby babby grow in the mommy's tummy.


I updated your post using the parlance of our times...
 
2012-06-13 03:45:23 PM  

Corporate Self: Since we don't have billions of years to wait for life to spontaneously generate in sterile conditions, I would say that believers in that theory need to go on faith.


Faith and Belief are not the same as Trust

I hope I don't have to explain this further...
 
2012-06-13 03:54:37 PM  

IntertubeUser: When confronted with Hume's "Problem of Induction" (white v. black swans), science gracefully sidesteps the issue.


Philosophy of science, however, does not have to. Taking as an axiom that experience has a pattern (defined mathematically), something like Occam's Razor can be derived as a theorem; and something looking remarkably like the scientific method results as a pseudo-algorithmic expression of that theorem.

Science just deals with what happens next, implicitly dependent on the few axioms required.

It's possible to take refutation of any of the few axioms required, but those tend to leave one unable to tell crap from crawdads, unable to count to three, or other crippling philosophical limitations.

daveUSMC: Maybe I will have to revise some ideas that I have about my faith along the way, as new scientific discoveries come out.


How about mathematical discoveries? Do you allow those to impact your faith?

erstwhileplanet: I suspect that the furor over evolution is a particularly American Christian phenomenon, though I wouldn't wager against some fundamentalist Muslims somewhere with the same viewpoint.


Examples exist, yes.
 
2012-06-13 03:58:18 PM  

Perlin Noise: Corporate Self: Since we don't have billions of years to wait for life to spontaneously generate in sterile conditions, I would say that believers in that theory need to go on faith.

Faith and Belief are not the same as Trust

I hope I don't have to explain this further...


What do you mean by 'hope'? I'm confident you don't mean 'conviction'.

//although it would hard to say with any surety
 
2012-06-13 04:00:10 PM  
Christians who don't believe in Evolution do it for a simple reason, the idea they are related to black people in Africa and *gasp* an animal like an ape flies in the face of their racist superiority complex.
 
2012-06-13 04:03:26 PM  

abb3w: Confuses probabilisitic inference from priors with premises unjustified by priors.

Perlin Noise: Faith and Belief are not the same as Trust


...po-TAY-toh, po-TAH-toh....
 
2012-06-13 04:08:37 PM  

abb3w:

[Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example....cold
.


There is no such thing as cold. Only a lack of heat.
 
2012-06-13 04:16:21 PM  

abb3w: ...po-TAY-toh, po-TAH-toh....


hmmm, not sure I follow
 
2012-06-13 04:24:32 PM  

Corporate Self: Since we don't have billions of years to wait for life to spontaneously generate in sterile conditions, I would say that believers in that theory need to go on faith.


I've never understood the point of this little bon mot. What's the end game to this argument?
 
2012-06-13 04:27:43 PM  

Mongo No.5: where did black people come from?


Well, considering that all humans on earth are descended from black people, the better question would be "where did white people come from?"
 
2012-06-13 04:32:10 PM  

Nick the What: What do you mean by 'hope'? I'm confident you don't mean 'conviction'.


I guessed that in the future I may have to explain my statement. It was something I did not want to do. Therefore I recited a tiny prayer to Joe Pesci that he might somehow stop this event from coming to pass. I did this not because I lack an explanation, but because I would have to type a bunch of words that the person for which they were intended would ultimately not agree with anyway.

Instead, I find myself explaining my use of the word "hope". Although my prayer seems to have worked, I am left with the notion that Joe Pesci works in mysterious ways.

Also, what are you trying to say again?
 
2012-06-13 04:33:39 PM  

sno man: timujin: Ennuipoet: This thread is missing someone...someone important, it's an evolution thread so who is supposed to be here but isn't? I am sure it will come to me.

Don't do it, there's still the possibility of this being a rational, adult conversation.

There is an ignore button, used sparingly, will save you many brain cells.


Oh, I'm aware, and I've used it to good effect on a very, very select few. It's not the user, though, but rather that once that user intrudes the whole conversation gets taken in whatever direction they seem to want.
 
2012-06-13 04:36:01 PM  

Ed Grubermann: I've never understood the point of this little bon mot. What's the end game to this argument?


That's because it does not make any sense. You don't "believe" in a theory... that's just silly.
 
2012-06-13 04:40:58 PM  

abb3w: IntertubeUser: When confronted with Hume's "Problem of Induction" (white v. black swans), science gracefully sidesteps the issue.

Philosophy of science, however, does not have to. Taking as an axiom that experience has a pattern (defined mathematically), something like Occam's Razor can be derived as a theorem; and something looking remarkably like the scientific method results as a pseudo-algorithmic expression of that theorem.

Science just deals with what happens next, implicitly dependent on the few axioms required.

It's possible to take refutation of any of the few axioms required, but those tend to leave one unable to tell crap from crawdads, unable to count to three, or other crippling philosophical limitations.


But mathematics is analytic and is only capable of telling us things that are true by definition. A mathematical equation is like saying, "All bachelors are unmarried." On the other hand, science takes those "definitions," makes synthetic statements, and then tries to tell us about the world, akin to saying, "All bachelors are bald." That may or may not be true; the best that science can strive for is, "All bachelors that we have seen have/have not been bald."

And saying that "just deals with what happens next" contains presuppositions that run aground of the "Problem of Induction" because our ability to observe is limited and even the act of observation presupposes a myriad of other assumptions (Quine's Two Dogmas). Trying to elevate scientific statements to the level of math via the Verificationist Theory of Meaning proved impossible for Carnap and the Positivists.

The aim of science is (and should be) to give us information that hasn't been proven false, which is the best that we can hope for. Anything that tries to give you more than that is lying to you.
 
2012-06-13 04:53:03 PM  
You know how Word has underlines for spelling mistakes? Couldn't we invent a system that does the same for logical fallacies?

I guess in the mean time we could just use something like this:
http://markup.io/v/xfpb785kkggt
 
2012-06-13 05:57:28 PM  
Intelligent design folks need to think twice about what they're saying. Look for a moment at the utter stupidity that is the human race. Look at the absolutely crazy ass things we do. Look how totally farked up our world is. THIS is the best your god could do? Granted, he only had seven days, but still...
 
2012-06-13 06:27:19 PM  

Nick the What: There is no such thing as cold. Only a lack of heat.


More or less.

Perlin Noise: hmmm, not sure I follow


Same thing, said two different ways. You're probably more comprehensible.


IntertubeUser: But mathematics is analytic and is only capable of telling us things that are true by definition.


Or more precisely, are inferred as abstractly true in consequent of the starting axiomatic premises. EG: "2+3=5" isn't true because it's defined as true, but as a consquent of the other underlying axioms taken; and does not necessarily follow for systems where sufficiently bizarre alternate axioms hold.

But that's just a quibble.

IntertubeUser: That may or may not be true; the best that science can strive for is, "All bachelors that we have seen have/have not been bald."


Actually, no. The math also allows (given the data set, and aforementioned axiom) inferring whether or not the description based on "all bachelors are bald" is more probably correct than some alternate competing description basis.

IntertubeUser: And saying that "just deals with what happens next" contains presuppositions that run aground of the "Problem of Induction"


Sigh. It's specifically the mathematical resolution of that problem that I'm talking about.

IntertubeUser: because our ability to observe is limited


Which affects what data set is inferred from, but not the validity of inference as to which effective production is most probable.

IntertubeUser: even the act of observation presupposes a myriad of other assumptions (Quine's Two Dogmas).


There's a few; however, the premise that there is a pattern to experience (the general result of observation) packs them up. Also, some of the problems Quine presents are mathematically simple once you hit them with a hammer circa ω-ordinal size. Wikipedia also makes it look like he's complaining about the non-empirical nature of set theoretic mathematics, and possibly the incompleteness problem. The former just means that it's not a myriad assumptions, but a bit under a dozen involved (not counting optional extras only taken for notational efficiency); the latter looks to be a standard philosophical confusion between being unable to answer all questions with some particular question being unanswerable. Quine seems not entirely wrong about the holistic nature of science as a body of knowledge, though.

It's probably worth noting the theorem in question post-dates Quine.

IntertubeUser: The aim of science is (and should be) to give us information that hasn't been proven false, which is the best that we can hope for.


Science can do marginally better than "not proven false"; to wit, "most probably true". Popper's falsification is a sub-result of the theorem I mentioned, but not the general. Popper also noted the use in science of Simplicitly/Parsimony -- which is a more general result. Though perhaps correct about why it was used in science as anthropological practice, Popper appears to have been in error about the philosophical basis to justify it.
 
2012-06-13 07:03:26 PM  

WinoRhino: fozziewazzi: What good is knowledge of the material world to this person who will likely never know anything but poverty and suffering? Religion on the other hand may give him purpose and hope, maybe even happiness.

So you suggest religion is some sort of opiate for the masses?
Seriously, though, it sounds like you're advocating delusion as a method for dealing with problems. Frankly, if the person in your example realized that there wasn't some sort of celestial mandate that they be sick, and survival wasn't in "god's hands" then perhaps they'd fight harder to survive, or even advocate for better health care for others in similar situations. Putting your life in the hands of a fictional god and giving up because it brings a sense of peace is stupidity and self-harm.


Well, but you say that like fozzie's hypothetical slumdwelling paraplegic Parkinson's victim has the money, resources, education and backing to do what you suggest, even if he was made aware that God didn't really want him to be sick. Religion IS an "opiate for the masses" in situations where the masses are poor, powerless, disenfranchised, and unable to fight harder or advocate for others. Getting off your paralyzed ass and working for the common good is very difficult if your primary concern is where you're going to get enough food to make it through the day.

Religion isn't a single factor in making people give up. People often turn to religion as an alternative to giving up. You'll notice that people who genuinely work for change (and sometimes even overthrow governments for change) are usually led by a cadre of people who are: well-off, educated, integrated into the power structure, physically healthy, and often young. It's not a coincidence that revolutions often start among students, who THEN throw off their parent's religion in favor of some ideology that lets them ignore God's Will. The Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, numerous communist uprisings around the globe. successful military coups, etc., are never led by poor, desperate or ignorant people; they are always begun by people with the wherewithal to revolt. Then the poor, desperate religious people are swept up into their fervor.

Before then, or until then, all poor downtrodden people have is a hope of a better life after they die. It was true in Medieval Europe and it's true today. Telling that crippled old man in the slums of Brazil that his problems are medical and God didn't do that to him may well be true, and he may even acknowledge it; but it's not going to un-paralyze him and give him money and a better life today. People become very selfish when focused on their next meal, and telling that old man he should throw off the chains of his religion and work for a better tomorrow is only possible if he already has a better today.
 
2012-06-13 07:07:16 PM  
"If one wants to talk about REAL 'magic,' consider the evolutionist's proposition that all of life, all twenty million species of life and all their subsystems and sub-sub systems, originated (says the atheist) from an accidental, random, unpurposed, unplanned conglomeration of chemicals conjoining in a mystical, magical pool of mud, billions of years ago," said author Carl Gallups.

"This pool of mud and its magical mixture has never been observed or replicated ... In over 150 years of human attempts at replicating this accidental process, we have not even come close to doing so - even with OUR intelligent input involved!"


Carl Sagan's Cosmos, Episode 2 "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue", 5 October 1980 did, in fact, demonstrate this exact thing, creating organic molecules under laboratory conditions of a "young" Earth (young when it was actually young, not when fundies imagine it was young).

It is a reproduction (reproducibility is fundamental to verifying scientific theories) of the Miller-Urey experiment, conducted in 1952. That, again, produced that "magic mud" from a "random ... conglomeration of chemicals".

Why lie?

Well, because you're either completely uneducated on the subject and therefore not fit to speak on the topic, or human dogshiat, that's why.

/Carl Sagan also talks like Agent Smith.
 
2012-06-13 07:26:08 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: /Carl Sagan also talks like Agent Smith.


No doubt
 
2012-06-13 07:32:09 PM  

Perlin Noise: I recited a tiny prayer to Joe Pesci


Perlin Noise: Also, what are you trying to say again?


I don't know, you said it. How the fark should I know! You said it.

What am I here to amuse you?!

//was trying to be funny
///like a clown
 
Displayed 50 of 408 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report