The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science

[BlackTerrel]

I don't agree with everything here but this is a fascinating article. I love psychology.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney


"A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." So wrote the celebrated Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger (PDF), in a passage that might have been referring to climate change denial—the persistent rejection, on the part of so many Americans today, of what we know about global warming and its human causes. But it was too early for that—this was the 1950s—and Festinger was actually describing a famous case study in psychology.

Festinger and several of his colleagues had infiltrated the Seekers, a small Chicago-area cult whose members thought they were communicating with aliens—including one, "Sananda," who they believed was the astral incarnation of Jesus Christ. The group was led by Dorothy Martin, a Dianetics devotee who transcribed the interstellar messages through automatic writing.

Through her, the aliens had given the precise date of an Earth-rending cataclysm: December 21, 1954. Some of Martin's followers quit their jobs and sold their property, expecting to be rescued by a flying saucer when the continent split asunder and a new sea swallowed much of the United States. The disciples even went so far as to remove brassieres and rip zippers out of their trousers—the metal, they believed, would pose a danger on the spacecraft.

Festinger and his team were with the cult when the prophecy failed. First, the "boys upstairs" (as the aliens were sometimes called) did not show up and rescue the Seekers. Then December 21 arrived without incident. It was the moment Festinger had been waiting for: How would people so emotionally invested in a belief system react, now that it had been soundly refuted?

At first, the group struggled for an explanation. But then rationalization set in. A new message arrived, announcing that they'd all been spared at the last minute. Festinger summarized the extraterrestrials' new pronouncement: "The little group, sitting all night long, had spread so much light that God had saved the world from destruction." Their willingness to believe in the prophecy had saved Earth from the prophecy!

From that day forward, the Seekers, previously shy of the press and indifferent toward evangelizing, began to proselytize. "Their sense of urgency was enormous," wrote Festinger. [b]The devastation of all they had believed had made them even more certain of their beliefs....

A lot more at the link.

[TheeJoeGlass]

The comment section was amazing.

[Ray]

And this is why it's near impossible to convince anyone that a non-interventionist foreign policy is the best thing we can do to protect ourselves :/

[Theocrat]

Consider a person who has heard about a scientific discovery that deeply challenges her belief in divine creation—a new hominid, say, that confirms our evolutionary origins. What happens next, explains political scientist Charles Taber of Stony Brook University, is a subconscious negative response to the new information—and that response, in turn, guides the type of memories and associations formed in the conscious mind. "They retrieve thoughts that are consistent with their previous beliefs," says Taber, "and that will lead them to build an argument and challenge what they're hearing."

In other words, when we think we're reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing. Or to use an analogy offered by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt: We may think we're being scientists, but we're actually being lawyers (PDF). Our "reasoning" is a means to a predetermined end—winning our "case"—and is shot through with biases. They include "confirmation bias," in which we give greater heed to evidence and arguments that bolster our beliefs, and "disconfirmation bias," in which we expend disproportionate energy trying to debunk or refute views and arguments that we find uncongenial.

Evolutionists do that, too, when their hypotheses are challenged. All scientific evidences are filtered through predetermined assumptions about how nature functions and the expectations for it to function.

[Sola_Fide]

Evolutionists do that, too, when their hypotheses are challenged. All scientific evidences are filtered through predetermined assumptions about how nature functions and the expectations for it to function.


Exactly. Evolutionists presuppose the truth of their position at the outset, and then filter all the "proof" they find through that governing and controlling presupposition.

Darwinism is an utterly and blatantly religious worldview.

[BlackTerrel]

Evolutionists do that, too, when their hypotheses are challenged. All scientific evidences are filtered through predetermined assumptions about how nature functions and the expectations for it to function.

I agree. That was my thought as I was reading the article - the author was injecting his own views into the study.

That said - we all do this, and I find the article fascinating. I fear I engage in this as well.

[sl7yz0r]

I recently wrote a short paper on this very topic,

For anyone interested............


Social Science is the quantification and observation of human behavior. Hoover/Donovan and Feyerabend produce conflicting theories about science and the application of it to human behavior. Hoover and Donovan argue that the application of scientific methodology to understanding human interactions is practical. Feyerabend rejects this idea; stating that human interaction and behavior is far too complex to understand or solve.

Hoover and Donovan state that science is both practical and compelling when applied to useful social knowledge because it offers a clear and valid medium to communicate knowledge. Thus, the quantification and observation of social knowledge can be used to improve society. The constant accumulation of knowledge through science continually improves human understanding and provides solutions to social problems. Hoover and Donovan claim that scientists can remain objective while applying ‘reasoned judgment’ to the collection and evaluation of scientific evidence.

Feyerabend criticizes science because it requires unachievable immaculate objectivity. Not only is perfect objectivity unattainable, but the process of science further corrupts any attempt to achieve it by enforcing the rules and guidelines of science to the study. These rules restrain a scientist’s imagination (by excluding such things as religion, metaphysics, or humor) and his conclusions “cease to be his own.” Thus far, science has consistently contradicted itself by blatant contradiction between scientific studies and data, theories, and conclusions; while failing to produce even one unbreakable law in nature. Therefore, it can be concluded that the universal rules of science are vastly unequipped to (and further hinder) predict or influence complex human behavior and problems

It is a lack of uniform rules and guidelines that promotes innovation and an observer’s very ability to think ‘outside of the box.’ By simplifying reality into quantified domains; science is unable to effectively, objectively, or confidently present all applicable solutions to a social problem. Science compromises this goal even further through the promotion of one idea as ‘fact’ over another. The disregard for ‘unscientific’ or ‘unproven’ ideas can result in a lack of interest in pursuing these ideas. Science conditions uniformity and restricts innovative thinking by promoting standard rules within each domain.

----------“Just as a well-trained pet will obey his master no matter how great the confusion which he finds himself, and no matter how urgent the need to adopt new patterns of behavior, so in the very same way a well-trained rationalist will obey the mental image of his master, he will conform to the standards of argumentation he has learned,” - Feyerabend

By factually claiming any idea to be false due to contradictory scientific data, motivation to pursue these ideas is lost. A compelling idea based on scientifically drawn conclusions renders the opposed principled argument unable to dispute compelling ‘facts’ and ‘data.’ Instead, the opposition is forced to resort to scientific propaganda as well… thus flooding the intellectual marketplace with inaccurate (and thus worthless) data.

The general belief that scientifically drawn conclusions are superior to conclusions based on principles enables the possibility that these ideas might be forever discredited or pushed into an eternal minority. For these reasons I agree with Feyerabend in the claim that universal standards suppress liberty, innovation, discovery, and the preservation of ideas. A system of anarchism where each idea is left to compete against one another in the marketplace of ideas is the most reliable method of understanding and adapting to social problems.

[libertybrewcity]

Exactly. Evolutionists presuppose the truth of their position at the outset, and then filter all the "proof" they find through that governing and controlling presupposition.

Darwinism is an utterly and blatantly religious worldview.

Right...so the bacteria that lives around Chernobyl that just magically adapted to feed off of the radiation was just the work of God's magical hand in the past couple decades.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17136-chernobyl-fallout-could-drive-evolution-of-space-plants.html

Scientific evidence can't prove anything because it is just pure evil. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Sola_Fide]

Right...so the bacteria that lives around Chernobyl that just magically adapted to feed off of the radiation was just the work of God's magical hand in the past couple decades.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17136-chernobyl-fallout-could-drive-evolution-of-space-plants.html

1. What does this have to do with species becoming different species?^^^

2. You proved my very point in the post of mine that you quoted. You assume the truth of Darwinism at the outset, and then interpret the "evidence" in light of your unproven presupposition.

Like I said, Darwinism is a religious viewpoint.

[libertybrewcity]

1. What does this have to do with species becoming different species?^^^

This has everything to do with it. Bacteria lived around Chernobyl previously to the accident, but the species adapted to their surroundings. Those that were not able to adapt perished, but those that could survive did just that. It's called parapatric speciation. The bacteria surrounding Chernobyl were genetically modified via external and natural forces (eg radiation). Other bacteria not near the disaster likely retained their genetic makeup, but as a result they split off into two species. This is an example of evolution.

Darwinism explains how different types of speciation occurs. Let's say you have a population of birds on one island that are very similar. Because of the shifting earth crust, the island splits off into three different islands and they move away from each other. Let's say that one of the islands has a large amount of plants that have small seeds, and another island has plants are have large seeds. The seeds are the bird major source of food, but the seeds on the first island are too small for some of the birds because their beaks are too large. Just as humans come in all shapes and sizes, birds of the same species will have different beak shapes and sizes as well. The birds that have small beaks will survive, and the birds with large beaks with die off, therefore forming a small niche within that population. This occurs in all aspects of the bird population from external and internal environmental factors such as disease and drought, among many many others.


2. You proved my very point in the post of mine that you quoted. You assume the truth of Darwinism at the outset, and then interpret the "evidence" in light of your unproven presupposition.

Like I said, Darwinism is a religious viewpoint.

In the end both evolution and Christianity are just theories. Evolution can be disproved if their is evidence to back it up. Just calling it a religion doesn't convince me. As for my example, I am presupposing nothing. I am merely looking at one reference (chernobyl area with bacteria) and applying cause and effect, radiation and genetic modification. Christianity on the other hand presupposes that God exists and the bible is truthful and not just a mixture of stories passed down orally over the course of centuries that were translated into numerous languages and potentially differing from the original oral tradition.

[Sola_Fide]

This has everything to do with it. Bacteria lived around Chernobyl previously to the accident, but the species adapted to their surroundings. Those that were not able to adapt perished, but those that could survive did just that. It's called parapatric speciation. The bacteria surrounding Chernobyl were genetically modified via external and natural forces (eg radiation). Other bacteria not near the disaster likely retained their genetic makeup, but as a result they split off into two species. This is an example of evolution.

Darwinism explains how different types of speciation occurs. Let's say you have a population of birds on one island that are very similar. Because of the shifting earth crust, the island splits off into three different islands and they move away from each other. Let's say that one of the islands has a large amount of plants that have small seeds, and another island has plants are have large seeds. The seeds are the bird major source of food, but the seeds on the first island are too small for some of the birds because their beaks are too large. Just as humans come in all shapes and sizes, birds of the same species will have different beak shapes and sizes as well. The birds that have small beaks will survive, and the birds with large beaks with die off, therefore forming a small niche within that population. This occurs in all aspects of the bird population from external and internal environmental factors such as disease and drought, among many many others.



In the end both evolution and Christianity are just theories. Evolution can be disproved if their is evidence to back it up. Just calling it a religion doesn't convince me. As for my example, I am presupposing nothing. I am merely looking at one reference (chernobyl area with bacteria) and applying cause and effect, radiation and genetic modification. Christianity on the other hand presupposes that God exists and the bible is truthful and not just a mixture of stories passed down orally over the course of centuries that were translated into numerous languages and potentially differing from the original oral tradition.


Like I said, you assume the truth of Darwinism at the outset, and then interpret the "evidence" in light of your unproven presupposition.

You can't even prove "adaptation", since it is just as reasonable to assume that certain strains of bacteria already had a higher resistance to radiation, and those were the ones that survived while the others died off (assuming everything in the article is accurate). No new genetic information was added at all.

I am no biology major, but just from a philosophical or rhetorical standpoint, your argument is not cogent.

Even your bird analogy is nowhere near what you have to show (i.e. that animals become different animals). Birds that develop bigger beaks are still birds. Birds don't become elephants, or anything else. There are genetic codes in every animal and plant that prevent it from changing too much out of its kind.

[libertybrewcity]

Like I said, you assume the truth of Darwinism at the outset, and then interpret the "evidence" in light of your unproven presupposition.

You can't even prove "adaptation", since it is just as reasonable to assume that certain strains of bacteria already had a higher resistance to radiation, and those were the ones that survived while the others died off (assuming everything in the article is accurate).

Nor can you prove that God exists or that evolution DOESN'T occur. There is much more evidence supporting genetic modification, random genetic errors, and speciation than some spirit zapping you into existence or a women growing out of a man's rib. Like I said, these are just theories and they can be disproven given enough convincing evidence. Faith does not exist in science and with good reason.


Even your bird analogy is nowhere near what you have to show (i.e. that animals become different animals). Birds that develop bigger beaks are still birds. Birds don't become elephants, or anything else. There are genetic codes in every animal and plant that prevent it from changing too much out of its kind.

I am not talking about birds turning into elephants. I am talking about the slow process of evolution that occurs over millions of years. How do you know what the limits to changes in genetic code are? What are the limits of humans for say a million years, or twenty million years? Or birds for that matter? What is to say that a small flying bird that eats insects couldn't evolve to become a land bird that eats low lying berries, and then become a flying bird after the introduction of a predator, all over the course of thousands of years. Or what is to say that lizards that move into caves lose their eyesight over many generations because it is not needed? Or primates gaining opposable thumbs to grasp objects needed for survival or even climbing trees. There is no limit to the worldwide ecosystem. Everything is changing all time, slowly but surely. Even basic knowledge of genetic modification seems more believable than anything based on faith alone.

[Sentinelrv]

This pretty much talks about the same thing I do in the article I posted here on the forum (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?272747-We-Need-to-Change-Our-Strategy-for-Influencing-or-Converting-Others-(New-Short-Version!))a couple months ago. Very crazy how the mind works!

[BarryDonegan]

I have always felt that the belief that specific scientific theories are definitely true(which is RARELY supported by science -- science doesn't even claim to provide lots of universal truths or laws) requires a level of faith that rises to the point of being a religion.

[ClayTrainor]

"The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science"

lol @ self-destructing title... what's next.... The art of why we don't believe in art? The economics of why we don't believe in economics?

[Sola_Fide]

I have always felt that the belief that specific scientific theories are definitely true(which is RARELY supported by science -- science doesn't even claim to provide lots of universal truths or laws) requires a level of faith that rises to the point of being a religion.

Not only that, it is logically impossible to argue from particular experience to a universal truth. This is what is called the problem of induction.

Inductive reasoning is ALWAYS fallacious. You cannot EVER derive a universal truth from experience.

Truth is axiomatic and revelational. Deductive arguments are the only valid arguments you can make. This is why arguments using the "scientific method" are fallacious before they are even made.

[nobody's_hero]

One of my all time favorite quotes whenever the scientific and religious communities lock horns:


"Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame." — Albert Einstein

[SWATH]

"The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science"


I don't believe it!

[Pericles]

To summarize: Real science has predictive value. It lets us be able to successfully predict what will happen.

Evolution theory is a series of after the event explanations. Science tells me that transfusing type A pos blood to a recipient that is O neg is going to go bad, and it will go bad 100% of the time. Science yields useful information on which we can base decisions.

[Fox McCloud]

I think nothing exemplifies this more than the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics...

Pretty much everyone is guilty of rationalization--regardless of how religious or irreligious they are or the context of the situation.

[Fox McCloud]

You can't even prove "adaptation", since it is just as reasonable to assume that certain strains of bacteria already had a higher resistance to radiation, and those were the ones that survived while the others died off (assuming everything in the article is accurate). No new genetic information was added at all.

I would like to point out that there is adaptation and it is provable, but you're generally on the right track here. Sometimes an organism "adapts" to a certain environment by losing the ability to process a certain chemical or loses something that's affected by an environmental variable--that said, if you take some of these "adapted" organisms and toss them in with the original species and let them openly compete again, the predecessor usually wins out, as the adaptation usually means they've lost and important function that would aid them in survival in regular life.

Creationists don't argue that the world is "fixed" or unchanging---or even that adaptation/speciation doesn't occur; they merely argue that there's no new information generated and that broad, long term evolution doesn't occur (ie: the whole bacteria gradually involve into modern man over billions upon billions of years). A prime example is that they believe that most if not all dog species (possibly foxes and a few other speciated canines) all descended from a common dog...that said, they don't believe that there was necessarily something prior to this original dog.

[Sola_Fide]

Yes^^^

[Mach]

Science, attacked by religion again...... :o

[low preference guy]

You know, I really don't get why the issue of evolution is so controversial. I see it mentioned in a lot of threads but rarely jump into the discussion. Some say that Christians believe in evolution but not long-term evolution. If that's so, then some people just have a disagreement about long-term evolution. Who cares?

[pcosmar]

You know, I really don't get why the issue of evolution is so controversial.

Because "evolution" is a theory presented as fact.
Creation is a theory presented as a belief.

[Sola_Fide]

Science, attacked by religion again...... :o

^^^Yet again, we see this meme that "Darwinism equals science".

You really have to question the level of religious absurdity it takes to say something like this. You have to wonder if people who say this understand that Newton discovered gravity and Galileo discovered the earth was a globe while they were outspoken creationists.

The scientific revolution itself would have been impossible without the Christian worldview that gave a basis for the regularity of natural laws in a universe that was sustained by the Creator.


Darwinism has given nothing to the world except a firm grounds for the mass murder and oppression of people who the elites declared are "not developed enough" or "not fully human". Darwinism is intellectually responsible for the worst tyrannies in history...eugenics, genocide, and mass murder.

[low preference guy]

Darwinism has given nothing to the world except a firm grounds for the mass murder and oppression of people who the elites declared are "not developed enough" or "not fully human". Darwinism is intellectually responsible for the worst tyrannies in history...eugenics, genocide, and mass murder.

Ok, so Darwin stated that long-term evolution occurs, therefore mass murder and oppression of people took place.

Dude, don't be so ridiculous.

[Theocrat]

^^^Yet again, we see this meme that "Darwinism equals science".

You really have to question the level of religious absurdity it takes to say something like this. You have to wonder if people who say this understand that Newton discovered gravity and Galileo discovered the earth was a globe while they were outspoken creationists.

The scientific revolution itself would have been impossible without the Christian worldview that gave a basis for the regularity of natural laws in a universe that was sustained by the Creator.


Darwinism has given nothing to the world except a firm grounds for the mass murder and oppression of people who the elites declared are "not developed enough" or "not fully human". Darwinism is intellectually responsible for the worst tyrannies in history...eugenics, genocide, and mass murder.

You're only saying that because the electrochemical processes in your brain force you to come to that conclusion.

[low preference guy]

You're only saying that because the electrochemical processes in your brain force you to come to that conclusion.

Nah, he is saying it because in His Plan, God decided he would say exactly that.

[nate895]

You know, I really don't get why the issue of evolution is so controversial. I see it mentioned in a lot of threads but rarely jump into the discussion. Some say that Christians believe in evolution but not long-term evolution. If that's so, then some people just have a disagreement about long-term evolution. Who cares?

This reminds of the atheists who say "we just believe in one less God than you." That's just a ridiculous argument. Yeah, the question of whether we evolved from pond scum or were divinely created by God is just a silly little debate over a petty distinction. But the income tax in the U.S. is of the utmost importance.

[low preference guy]

Yeah, the question of whether we evolved from pond scum or were divinely created by God is just a silly little debate over a petty distinction.

What if that pond scum was created by God? A very large number of Christians believe exactly that.

[Sola_Fide]

You're only saying that because the electrochemical processes in your brain force you to come to that conclusion.

You point out a very interesting feature of reasoning: that predestination in some form is an inescapable concept.

Christians believe that a loving and just God is governing His creation and atheists believe that they are determined by genetics, random chemical processes, environment, etc.

In atheism, there is actually no freedom of thought or agency. How can a sack of meat be free to think or do anything else but react to the random chemicals and forces it encounters? Atheism provides no basis for rational thought.

[nate895]

What if that pond scum was created by God? A very large number of Christians believe exactly that.

Then we have the problem with God creating via death and destruction. Evolution feeds off of death. How can a just God create via death and destruction? What grave sin did dinosaurs commit to deserve being wiped out?

[low preference guy]

Then we have the problem with God creating via death and destruction. Evolution feeds off of death. How can a just God create via death and destruction? What grave sin did dinosaurs commit to deserve being wiped out?

Maybe God works in mysterious ways?

[nate895]

Maybe God works in mysterious ways?

What do you expect me to reply with? That God doesn't work in mysterious ways? Why do you argue with Christians when you either don't know what we believe or unwilling to debate honestly? God working in mysterious ways does not mean he ever violates one of His attributes (in this case, justice, love, mercy, etc.).

[low preference guy]

Why do you argue with Christians when you either don't know what we believe or unwilling to debate honestly?

I'm not debating dishonestly. I disagree with you that the issue matters a whole lot, and many Christians do. I also don't see any contradiction with the nature of God if he exists and evolution, just like millions of Christians. Evolution doesn't "feed off" anybody, it's just a process. If evolution is true, it just determines which type of organism exists at which point in time, there isn't anything sinister about it.

ETA: It's funny to see that you still can resist reading my awesome posts, despite having me on your ignore list.

[nate895]

I'm not debating dishonestly. I disagree with you that the issue matters a whole lot, and many Christians do. I also don't see any contradiction with the nature of God if he exists and evolution, just like millions of Christians. Evolution doesn't "feed off" anybody, is just a process. If evolution is true, it just determines which type of organism exists at which point in time, there isn't anything sinister about it.

You cannot seriously say evolution does not feed off of death when the entire process demands death. How else does natural selection operate on genetic mutation? Magic? God does not work in irrational, unintelligible ways. He is reasonable, but His reason goes beyond ours (hence, it can be mysterious). We cannot understand His ways all the time because He knows better about everything.


ETA: It's funny to see that you still can resist reading my awesome posts, despite having me on your ignore list.

I forgot why you're on there. I think it's because most of your posts are annoying one-liners that contribute absolutely nothing.

[low preference guy]

You cannot seriously say evolution does not feed off of death when the entire process demands death. How else does natural selection operate on genetic mutation? Magic? God does not work in irrational, unintelligible ways. He is reasonable, but His reason goes beyond ours (hence, it can be mysterious). We cannot understand His ways all the time because He knows better about everything.

Even without evolution, death occurs, so what's so bad about the existence of a mechanism that relies on something that already is a part of existence?

[nate895]

Processes don't demand anything. Processes just occur. Even without evolution, death occurs, so what's so bad about the existence of a mechanism that relies on something that already is a part of existence?

Death only occurs as punishment for sin. It is not a natural part of existence. Yes, everyone dies (well, with a couple of Biblical exceptions of being taken up into heaven), but that does not mean it is part of God's original creation. Adam sinned, and through sin came death (Romans 5:12).

Also, the fact that you would say that evolution "just happens" means you are plainly ignorant of how evolution works. Evolution requires the change of gene frequencies over generations. This can only occur with the death of older generations and the less desirable traits in the younger ones. Otherwise, evolution does not have a reason to occur. There is no stimulus for it, and therefore, it cannot happen.

[low preference guy]

Death only occurs as punishment for sin. It is not a natural part of existence. Yes, everyone dies (well, with a couple of Biblical exceptions of being taken up into heaven), but that does not mean it is part of God's original creation. Adam sinned, and through sin came death (Romans 5:12).

Is the main objection that if evolution is true, then Adam wouldn't have existed? Is that necessarily so?

[Mach]

Well, it started off as a good thread, I don't argue religion too much anymore, it's like logic arguing with emotion.... read the article.

I don't pretend to know what happened, but I do have some general evidence all around me on a daily basis.

[nate895]

Is the main objection that if evolution is true, then Adam wouldn't have existed? Is that necessarily so?

No. There are some theistic evolutionists who believe in Adam. However, there is an objection in that death did not (and could not) occur in a perfect world. Death in the Scripture is not some natural occurrence that God intended for the human race, but rather a penalty for sin. For evolution to occur, God would have had to exact punishment before there was a sin to punish (animal death is plainly part of the curse as well). That sounds more like the God of Minority Report than the Bible.

[idirtify]

How perfect! The OP's article correctly blames religious conviction as the main obstacle to clear thinking and uses the irrational religious argument against evolution as a prime example, and look what happens in the comments: a barrage of religious posts swamp the thread and argue against evolution and perfectly demonstrate the point.


“We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.”

What a genius analysis of the irrational behavior that has so impeded the universal education that is so desperately needed to popularize individual liberty. Not only do those whose identities are heavily invested in religious beliefs reject any outside information that refutes their beliefs, but they actually see the info (and the messenger) as an attack and react accordingly – complete with the adrenalin-infused panic and all.
(Actually this is not all new to me, since I have pointed out this behavior in this forum many times, as the source of religious aggression – only short of spotting the classic fight-or-flight reaction.)

[BlackTerrel]

This part is interesting


Another study gives some inkling of what may be going through people's minds when they resist persuasion. Northwestern University sociologist Monica Prasad and her colleagues wanted to test whether they could dislodge the notion that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were secretly collaborating among those most likely to believe it—Republican partisans from highly GOP-friendly counties. So the researchers set up a study (PDF) in which they discussed the topic with some of these Republicans in person. They would cite the findings of the 9/11 Commission, as well as a statement in which George W. Bush himself denied his administration had "said the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda."

As it turned out, not even Bush's own words could change the minds of these Bush voters—just 1 of the 49 partisans who originally believed the Iraq-Al Qaeda claim changed his or her mind. Far more common was resisting the correction in a variety of ways, either by coming up with counterarguments or by simply being unmovable:

Interviewer: [T]he September 11 Commission found no link between Saddam and 9/11, and this is what President Bush said. Do you have any comments on either of those?

Respondent: Well, I bet they say that the Commission didn't have any proof of it but I guess we still can have our opinions and feel that way even though they say that.

And this


So is there a case study of science denial that largely occupies the political left? Yes: the claim that childhood vaccines are causing an epidemic of autism. Its most famous proponents are an environmentalist (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) and numerous Hollywood celebrities (most notably Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey). The Huffington Post gives a very large megaphone to denialists. And Seth Mnookin, author of the new book The Panic Virus, notes that if you want to find vaccine deniers, all you need to do is go hang out at Whole Foods.

Vaccine denial has all the hallmarks of a belief system that's not amenable to refutation. Over the past decade, the assertion that childhood vaccines are driving autism rates has been undermined by multiple epidemiological studies—as well as the simple fact that autism rates continue to rise, even though the alleged offending agent in vaccines (a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal) has long since been removed.

Yet the true believers persist—critiquing each new study that challenges their views, and even rallying to the defense of vaccine-autism researcher Andrew Wakefield, after his 1998 Lancet paper—which originated the current vaccine scare—was retracted and he subsequently lost his license (PDF) to practice medicine. But then, why should we be surprised? Vaccine deniers created their own partisan media, such as the website Age of Autism, that instantly blast out critiques and counterarguments whenever any new development casts further doubt on anti-vaccine views.

I'm going to guess that most on this forum will nod knowingly with the former and try and dispute the latter. Most important however is this:


In other words, paradoxically, you don't lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance.

Something to consider when we go about trying to win elections.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Something to consider when we go about trying to win elections.

How do you suppose we could go about using this info to reach the hearts and minds of potential voters?

[tpreitzel]

This whole subject is encapsulated in the cliche, "Blinded by Science". In other words, the human mind is fried by a government-funded indoctrination machine. The assumptions underlying this indoctrination machine, e.g. the sensory system of humanity, are rarely considered in science's postulates. The author * of the book, "Future Science", finally exposes some heretical assumptions underlying the "scientific" method. For most of my life, I've viewed the science of human consciousness with significant reservation and "Future Science" just reinforces my reserved view of it. Although likely a significant improvement on the state of "scientific" assumptions, even the concepts in "Future Science" are likely to be limited to "better" describing our sensory "reality".

* Maurice Cotterell ... Always read critically as Cotterell delves into subjects like reincarnation and astrology, but does so from an electromagnetic viewpoint. Others have adopted parts of this view, e.g. the idea of torsion physics....although these concepts are naturally rejected by the "scientific" community. ;) I don't agree with everything that he writes, either. The fact that Cotterell didn't know the story of Melchizedek on his recent C2C appearance demonstrates his general ignorance of Protestant canon. He lumps all religions together in one BIG mess simply because parts of the narrative of these religions are the same which is very likely a BIG mistake based on a BIG assumption. ;)

[JCLibertarian]

This is why I am a Creationist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

[KurtBoyer25L]

This is why I am a Creationist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

The prickly pear is, by contrast, why I am an agnostic. It tastes delicious, but there are spines to remove and the entire plant must be rubbed with a hard brush to get rid of the painful inner glochids. The fruit must be peeled, cleaned of spines, and the seeds must be removed. Even if you mash it in a blender you still have to strain the thorns out. I feel unable to conceive of a God who would design tasty food this way. Therefore, God may or may not exist, because the prickly pear is inconvenient. Except in Mexico where they raise/sell them...those satanic jerks

??????? (!)

[idirtify]

This is why I am a Creationist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

You are joking right? This video isn't serious, right? You do realize it better serves as an example of the point in the OP's article, right?

[fisharmor]

To summarize: Real science has predictive value. It lets us be able to successfully predict what will happen.

Evolution theory is a series of after the event explanations. Science tells me that transfusing type A pos blood to a recipient that is O neg is going to go bad, and it will go bad 100% of the time. Science yields useful information on which we can base decisions.

Not exactly - and this is the problem with science.
As far as I've learned, all science correctly tells you is that "in 100% of cases where we have injected type A blood into an Oneg recipient, it has gone bad".
Science does not tell you "when you inject type A blood into O neg it will go bad".
And these are not the same statement.
The first is the foundation of a scientific law. The second is a statement of belief.
Newton's laws stood for quite a while, but they're not really laws anymore. New data showed that they are not applicable in 100% of cases. Everyone thought they did before.
Any scientist isn't a scientist who doesn't accept the possibility that new data or ideas will sometimes trash old systems.

Evolution makes too many unscientific statements for me to take it seriously.
Do humans and chimpanzees share most of their DNA? Yes. Is the experiment which determined this verifiable and repeatable? Yes.
Do humans and chimpanzees look alike? Yes. Is the experiment which determined this verifiable and repeatable? Yes.
Did humans descend from chimpanzees? YES, NOW STOP DOUBTING YOU THEIST BARBARIANS! Is the experiment which determined this verifiable and repeatable? Um... sure. Says so in the state mandated textbook. Right on page forthrity frug.

This isn't the way the world works. This is axiomatic. Truth doesn't conform to your worldview - it simply is. If we based other sciences on the same kind of assumptions that pervade in evolution and climate science, half of us would be dead from our houses collapsing on top of us.

To address the OP, we don't really believe evolution because there is no market for it. Sorry, but there's a bigger market for religion. Which is why evolution has had to move into the religion market segment in order to thrive.
Getting the state to put a gun to our heads and threaten to take away our homes unless we indoctrinate our children in evolution is the only way it has been able to gain its market. The chief consumer of the evolution product isn't people: it's the state. This is why evolution has been used as an excuse for the state's enormities.

I'm not going out on a limb for creationism today. I'm pointing out that evolution is a tool of oppression for the state. If it was more scientific, I'd nevertheless be more in favor of it. But it's got two very serious strikes against it, and to tell you all the truth, those are all I need to be totally done with looking at the evidence.

[Sola_Fide]

Not exactly - and this is the problem with science.
As far as I've learned, all science correctly tells you is that "in 100% of cases where we have injected type A blood into an Oneg recipient, it has gone bad".
Science does not tell you "when you inject type A blood into O neg it will go bad".
And these are not the same statement.
The first is the foundation of a scientific law. The second is a statement of belief.
Newton's laws stood for quite a while, but they're not really laws anymore. New data showed that they are not applicable in 100% of cases. Everyone thought they did before.
Any scientist isn't a scientist who doesn't accept the possibility that new data or ideas will sometimes trash oold systems.

Evolution makes too many unscientific statements for me to take it seriously.
Do humans and chimpanzees share most of their DNA? Yes. Is the experiment which determined this verifiable and repeatable? Yes.
Do humans and chimpanzees look alike? Yes. Is the experiment which determined this verifiable and repeatable? Yes.
Did humans descend from chimpanzees? YES, NOW STOP DOUBTING YOU THEIST BARBARIANS! Is the experiment which determined this verifiable and repeatable? Um... sure. Says so in the state mandated textbook. Right on page forthrity frug.

This isn't the way the world works. This is axiomatic. Truth doesn't conform to your worldview - it simply is. If we based other sciences on the same kind of assumptions that pervade in evolution and climate science, half of us would be dead from our houses collapsing on top of us.

To address the OP, we don't really believe evolution because there is no market for it. Sorry, but there's a bigger market for religion. Which is why evolution has had to move into the religion market segment in order to thrive.
Getting the state to put a gun to our heads and threaten oto take away our homes unless we indoctrinate our children in evolution is the only way it has been able to gain its market. The chief consumer of the evolution product isn't people: it's the state. This is why evolution has been used as an excuse for the state's enormities.

I'm not going out on a limb for creationism today. I'm pointing out that evolution is a tool of oppression for the state. If it was more scientific, I'd nevertheless be more in favor of it. But it's got two very serious strikes against it, and to tell you all the truth, those are all I need to be totally done with looking at the evidence.



Agree, great post.

[juleswin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH8LOQAu-5I

[libertybrewcity]

Not exactly - and this is the problem with science.
As far as I've learned, all science correctly tells you is that "in 100% of cases where we have injected type A blood into an Oneg recipient, it has gone bad".
Science does not tell you "when you inject type A blood into O neg it will go bad".
And these are not the same statement.
The first is the foundation of a scientific law. The second is a statement of belief.
Newton's laws stood for quite a while, but they're not really laws anymore. New data showed that they are not applicable in 100% of cases. Everyone thought they did before.
Any scientist isn't a scientist who doesn't accept the possibility that new data or ideas will sometimes trash old systems.

Evolution makes too many unscientific statements for me to take it seriously.
Do humans and chimpanzees share most of their DNA? Yes. Is the experiment which determined this verifiable and repeatable? Yes.
Do humans and chimpanzees look alike? Yes. Is the experiment which determined this verifiable and repeatable? Yes.
Did humans descend from chimpanzees? YES, NOW STOP DOUBTING YOU THEIST BARBARIANS! Is the experiment which determined this verifiable and repeatable? Um... sure. Says so in the state mandated textbook. Right on page forthrity frug.

This isn't the way the world works. This is axiomatic. Truth doesn't conform to your worldview - it simply is. If we based other sciences on the same kind of assumptions that pervade in evolution and climate science, half of us would be dead from our houses collapsing on top of us.

To address the OP, we don't really believe evolution because there is no market for it. Sorry, but there's a bigger market for religion. Which is why evolution has had to move into the religion market segment in order to thrive.
Getting the state to put a gun to our heads and threaten to take away our homes unless we indoctrinate our children in evolution is the only way it has been able to gain its market. The chief consumer of the evolution product isn't people: it's the state. This is why evolution has been used as an excuse for the state's enormities.

I'm not going out on a limb for creationism today. I'm pointing out that evolution is a tool of oppression for the state. If it was more scientific, I'd nevertheless be more in favor of it. But it's got two very serious strikes against it, and to tell you all the truth, those are all I need to be totally done with looking at the evidence.


I'm doubting that you have even looked at a book about evolution. I've gone to catholic schools for 14 years of my life and I have studied evolution in many of those years. The books were not state mandated. If your only argument against evolution is that you can't verify it via experiment then you clearly have been reading that bible too much, pushed on you by your church. My 1st grade science books likely has more verifiable facts than any version of the bible.

I suggest taking a course on evolution, maybe one at a private school if you are worried about indoctrination. You can also check out the thousands of journal articles and scientific journals that discuss evolution as well as the experiments that verify it.

[pcosmar]

Pseudoscience
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

The Theory of Evolution is not science. It is a theory.


Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally,
and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it.
Conflicting evidence is ignored. Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate or to test alternative possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to "congenial conclusions," grinding ideological axes, appealing to preconceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings.


Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments. Instead it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes.

[JCLibertarian]

Darwinism has given nothing to the world except a firm grounds for the mass murder and oppression of people who the elites declared are "not developed enough" or "not fully human". Darwinism is intellectually responsible for the worst tyrannies in history...eugenics, genocide, and mass murder.

I don't have a problem with positive eugenics, this is just the result of a free market society. Free Markets are social darwinism, the creative, intelligent, and productive will progress, while the unintelligent, lazy, and unoriginal will be outbred as they won't be able to adapt to ever changing circumstances in the nature of the free market. With no mandatory social net to protect, these people the free market will reward the genetically superior, and not reward the genetically inferior.

[idirtify]

Not exactly - and this is the problem with science...

Evolution makes too many unscientific statements for me to take it seriously.


What do you mean “too many”? Please quantify. Are you trying to claim that religious creationism makes fewer unscientific statements?

[idirtify]

Pseudoscience
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

The Theory of Evolution is not science. It is a theory.

But the point is that your statements and quotes, which you are using to criticize the theory of evolution, apply much better to the THEORY/hypothesis of religious creationism. IOW, given their less-evidenced nature, the concepts of creationism/ID are much MORE theoretical / pseudoscientific (than the concepts of evolution).

I mean you can’t criticize what you oppose by using criticisms which are much more applicable to what you are supporting – at least not while remaining credible.

[pcosmar]

I mean you can’t criticize what you oppose by using criticisms which are much more applicable to what you are supporting – at least not while remaining credible.

No. I am pointing out the the "theory" of evolution is not scientific when it is presented as a fact or a foregone conclusion.
I do not do the same with my belief in Creation. It is my belief and I present it as such.

A unproven theory presented as fact is pseudoscience. It is junk science.

[Mach]

But the point is that your statements and quotes, which you are using to criticize the theory of evolution, apply much better to the THEORY/hypothesis of religious creationism. IOW, given their less-evidenced nature, the concepts of creationism/ID are much MORE theoretical / pseudoscientific (than the concepts of evolution).

I mean you can’t criticize what you oppose by using criticisms which are much more applicable to what you are supporting – at least not while remaining credible.

Exactly, all of the arguments here against evolution apply even more succinctly to religion.

"I'm pointing out that evolution is a tool of oppression for the state."
- fisharmor

Religion is freedom?

[pcosmar]

Religion is freedom?
"Religion",,no. Faith, Yes.

Stand fast therefore in the liberty with which Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

[ClayTrainor]

The Theory of Evolution is not science. It is a theory.

The scientific method is the process of testing a hypothesis with reality. If the hypothesis is consistent with reality, it graduates from hypothesis to theory. Saying that evolution, gravity, thermodynamics, etc. are not science because they are theories, only demonstrates ignorance of the scientific method.

http://s3.hubimg.com/u/1961202_f520.jpg

[ClayTrainor]

"Religion",,no. Faith, Yes.

Freedom is merely the absence of coercion and force. It can exist with or without religion and faith.

[pcosmar]

Saying that evolution, gravity, thermodynamics, etc. are not science because they are theories, only demonstrates ignorance of the scientific method.


Gravity exists. Thermodynamics can be tested and repeated. That is known science. Evolution does not even belong in the same sentence.
The theory of evolution is neither proven nor repeatable. It is not even consistent.

It is as much a matter of Faith as Creationism.

[ClayTrainor]

Gravity exists. Thermodynamics can be tested and repeated.


So can DNA.


That is known science.

So is evolution.


Evolution does not even belong in the same sentence.

That is just an unsupported opinion.



The theory of evolution is neither proven nor repeatable. It is not even consistent.


Oh? So when DNA relationships are compared there is no consistency at all? Can we not consistently determine biological relationships through DNA?



It is as much a matter of Faith as Creationism.

What kind of evidence would I have to provide, in order to convince you otherwise?

[ClayTrainor]

Gravity exists. Thermodynamics can be tested and repeated. That is known science. Evolution does not even belong in the same sentence.
The theory of evolution is neither proven nor repeatable. It is not even consistent.

It is as much a matter of Faith as Creationism.

And just to be clear. You're now making a different claim than you did in the post i responded to. Your first claim was that evolution is not science because it is a "theory".

I showed that the scientific method is the process of establishing theory from hypothesis. You're now arguing that some theories are valid, but evolution is not. You appear to be distancing yourself from the initial assertion, which is that a theory is not science, and branching onto a new tangent.

Is it fair for me to say that you feel that Evolution is more of an untested hypothesis than a supported theory?

[emazur]

"The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science"

lol @ self-destructing title... what's next.... The art of why we don't believe in art? The economics of why we don't believe in economics?

I could see an Austrian writing such an article

[fisharmor]

I'm not going out on a limb for creationism today.

So, in case anyone missed it the first time, this actually was an important part of my last post.

If you want to debate religions, we can do that.
If you want (rightly) to move the evolution debate into the religion arena, we can do that.
When discussing evolution, I do not espouse creationism.
Creationism is not scientific.
I'm not claiming it is. pcosmar is not claiming it is. No Christian here is claiming it is.
So give it a rest.

What I'm saying, and what pcosmar seems also to be saying, is that evolution is not scientific.
We're not offering an alternate theory. We don't have to.
We're just applying the rules of the game that evolution claims to be part of.

Example: convergent evolution. So, not only does evolution assume this thing that we've never witnessed and the odds of which are so ridiculously astronomical as to be laughable actually exists, but we're expected to believe that it happens multiple times?

Example: agriculture. Plenty of selection there - making better tasting apples, bigger and redder tomatoes, fatter turkeys, and more complacent pigs. Only problem is, we're controlling the whole process, and if we stop controlling it, all those things go right back to the way they were within a generation or two.

[fisharmor]

Is it fair for me to say that you feel that Evolution is more of an untested hypothesis than a supported theory?

I would probably support this.

[Fox McCloud]

I would point out, though, that we still really have no idea about the nature of gravity itself; merely that it exists and has certain observable laws of attraction. Heck--we don't even know, for sure, what causes it--we just know the more massive and object, the more gravity it generates....why? Who knows---some speculate gravity is merely a distortion of time.

[libertybrewcity]

Darwinism has given nothing to the world except a firm grounds for the mass murder and oppression of people who the elites declared are "not developed enough" or "not fully human". Darwinism is intellectually responsible for the worst tyrannies in history...eugenics, genocide, and mass murder.

And what has Christianity given us? Peace, love, and hugs? No, it has started the biggest and most destructive war of all time: The Clash of Civilizations. Do you think anti-Islamic rhetoric will subside anytime soon? This is only the beginning. Our little outpost called Israel in the Middle East doesn't make it any better. The rhetoric against the far-east is just revving its engines as China and other southeast Asian countries become the dominant economic powers. Even Bush called the Iraq War a crusade.

[Sola_Fide]

And what has Christianity given us? Peace, love, and hugs? No, it has started the biggest and most destructive war of all time: The Clash of Civilizations. Do you think anti-Islamic rhetoric will subside anytime soon? This is only the beginning. Our little outpost called Israel in the Middle East doesn't make it any better. The rhetoric against the far-east is just revving its engines as China and other southeast Asian countries become the dominant economic powers. Even Bush called the Iraq War a crusade.


.......


What?


Christianity started the Iraq war?

[libertybrewcity]

Gravity exists. Thermodynamics can be tested and repeated. That is known science. Evolution does not even belong in the same sentence.
The theory of evolution is neither proven nor repeatable. It is not even consistent.

It is as much a matter of Faith as Creationism.

Evolution is proven and repeatable. There are many experiments on animals and especially fast reproducing bacteria that have been observed for thousands of generations. They retain features that help them survive in their environment such as larger hearts for better circulation and more aerobic activity to give you one example. Evolution is no longer a theory because you can clearly observe specific traits being passed from one generation to the next. You can CLEARY observe speciation as well.

You can observe and document genetic drift which shows the drifting of a population's genetic sequence over a period time. Sometimes these drifts will diverge into different species. Genes can leave the population but also enter the population from new populations of the same or similar populations that continue the drift.

[Pericles]

Example: agriculture. Plenty of selection there - making better tasting apples, bigger and redder tomatoes, fatter turkeys, and more complacent pigs. Only problem is, we're controlling the whole process, and if we stop controlling it, all those things go right back to the way they were within a generation or two.

Exactly. It is one thing to take all the ingredients of a cake, mix them and bake a cake. It is another thing altogether to claim that the ingredients spontaneously mixed and baked themselves.

[libertybrewcity]

.......


What?


Christianity started the Iraq war?

The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington

http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/fora72&div=49&g_sent=1&collection=journals

This explains conflict in the modern world.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Clash_of_Civilizations_map.png/800px-Clash_of_Civilizations_map.png

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

1. What does this have to do with species becoming different species?^^^

2. You proved my very point in the post of mine that you quoted. You assume the truth of Darwinism at the outset, and then interpret the "evidence" in light of your unproven presupposition.

Like I said, Darwinism is a religious viewpoint.

A protagonist is only as sophisticated as his or her antagonist. Therefore, if the religious viewpoint is a silly baboon, then Darwinism is a chimp.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins: Compared to literary fiction (history), all other forms of human endeavor, including war, shrink to insignificance.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Exactly. It is one thing to take all the ingredients of a cake, mix them and bake a cake. It is another thing altogether to claim that the ingredients spontaneously mixed and baked themselves.

But we have always controlled them. Look, the mitrochondia organelle in our human cells was at one time a living organism. How do we know? Well, it still has its own Dna. As creatures evolved into the human cell to become parts of it, certainly some evolved out to become apart from it as well. Likewise, certain creatures in nature are symbiotic as they depend on predators to kill something so they can eat. Likewise, lots of animals domesticated by mankind have a symbiotic relationship with him and her.

[heavenlyboy34]

And what has Christianity given us? Peace, love, and hugs? No, it has started the biggest and most destructive war of all time: The Clash of Civilizations. Do you think anti-Islamic rhetoric will subside anytime soon? This is only the beginning. Our little outpost called Israel in the Middle East doesn't make it any better. The rhetoric against the far-east is just revving its engines as China and other southeast Asian countries become the dominant economic powers. Even Bush called the Iraq War a crusade.


"Moreover Murray,although an agnostic, also came to conclude from his historical
inquiries that all societies are inevitably religious and that irreligion
on a society-wide scale is impossible and undesirable, because a
formal religion, specifically Christianity, is necessary as the natural
repository of the traditional moral rules that are necessary to reinforce
and complement a classical liberal or libertarian legal code in
order for a real market society to survive and flourish. Even Nazi
Germany and the Soviet Union, which were conceived in deranged
attempts to abolish religion, succeeded only in supplanting Christianity
with pagan and Marxist millennialism, respectively."
-from "Murray N. Rothbard, In Memorium", pg 80.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Evolution is proven and repeatable. There are many experiments on animals and especially fast reproducing bacteria that have been observed for thousands of generations. They retain features that help them survive in their environment such as larger hearts for better circulation and more aerobic activity to give you one example. Evolution is no longer a theory because you can clearly observe specific traits being passed from one generation to the next. You can CLEARY observe speciation as well.

You can observe and document genetic drift which shows the drifting of a population's genetic sequence over a period time. Sometimes these drifts will diverge into different species. Genes can leave the population but also enter the population from new populations of the same or similar populations that continue the drift.

Okay, let's put this in perspective. Indeed, the king made a rightful claim as ruler over the United States based on legal precedence with this being all the evidence from past tradition (including the Word of God). Our Founding Fathers refuted clear observable evidence witnessed directly by the senses. Rather than they find alternate truths by the use of artificial instruments searching deep into the theroetical like modern science does, they used their consciences as a sixth sense to do so in establishing a new natural law.
Therefore, our Founders weren't being reasonable in their declarations, but they were being rational in determining that all men (the highest tyrant and the lowest prostitute) were created equal with the same desires for human contentment.
As all rational human beings have a conscience, they should understand equally. As the king himself could not understand, he was deemed less than a human being (inhumane). Therefore, he was justifiably divorced as our rightful ruler and replaced by a more perfect government.
The only reason to have a more perfect government is to improve the contentment of the people.

[echebota]

Unfortunately this thread and the article have proven to me that free market economy, sound money, and truly free men society have little chance. This is mathematically optimized economic and social system and is proven by practice to deliver best results (on average per person), but it all has no value against so many emotional and non-factual arguments that the other side feeds the masses with. And masses become irresponsive to whatever logic you have to present.

Same goes with religion vs science augments. Science or even facts have little chance against a belief, especially when this belief was forced down the brains at the very young age, when the brain has almost no resistance and takes everything as axiom. That’s why the only historically working argument in the conversation between people from 2 different religions – is a physical elimination of the opponent. I definitely don’t want to be involved in this argument .

[libertybrewcity]

"Moreover Murray,although an agnostic, also came to conclude from his historical
inquiries that all societies are inevitably religious and that irreligion
on a society-wide scale is impossible and undesirable, because a
formal religion, specifically Christianity, is necessary as the natural
repository of the traditional moral rules that are necessary to reinforce
and complement a classical liberal or libertarian legal code in
order for a real market society to survive and flourish. Even Nazi
Germany and the Soviet Union, which were conceived in deranged
attempts to abolish religion, succeeded only in supplanting Christianity
with pagan and Marxist millennialism, respectively."
-from "Murray N. Rothbard, In Memorium", pg 80.

If an anarcho capitalistic society can survive, than so can one without religion. Religion and an increase in capitalism are negatively correlated anyways. I see what you mean, but I still have my own moral code that was given to me by family as well as my own respect for human life. Even though it likely had some Christian influence, I am not religious, but yet I retain my morals. I will likely not raise my children with any religion, but I will teach them morality and respect for human life.

As a localist, I believe that the family and community are key in fostering good and moral human beings. That can be done with or without religion. I have seen some great things from Christianity, but in politics specifically I see only hate, authoritarian rhetoric, and complete disrespect for people of color, alternative lifestyles, and other nationalities. Christianity has spit on human kind.

[libertybrewcity]

Okay, let's put this in perspective. Indeed, the king made a rightful claim as ruler over the United States based on legal precedence with this being all the evidence from past tradition (including the Word of God). Our Founding Fathers refuted clear observable evidence witnessed directly by the senses. Rather than they find alternate truths by the use of artificial instruments searching deep into the theroetical, they used their consciences as a sixth sense to do so.
Therefore, our Founders weren't being reasonable in their declarations, but they were being rational in determining that all men (the highest tyrant and the lowest prostitute) were created equal with the desires for human contentment.
As all rational human beings have a conscience, they should understand equally. As the king himself could not understand, he was deemed less than a human being (inhumane). Therefore, he was justifiably divorced as our rightful ruler and replaced by a more perfect government.
The only reason to have a more perfect government is to improve the contentment of the people.

what the founding fathers did was a social experiment based on their influences from individualistic philosophers. Evolution has nothing to do with this.

[heavenlyboy34]

Okay, let's put this in perspective. Indeed, the king made a rightful claim as ruler over the United States based on legal precedence with this being all the evidence from past tradition (including the Word of God). Our Founding Fathers refuted clear observable evidence witnessed directly by the senses. Rather than they find alternate truths by the use of artificial instruments searching deep into the theroetical, they used their consciences as a sixth sense to do so.
Therefore, our Founders weren't being reasonable in their declarations, but they were being rational in determining that all men (the highest tyrant and the lowest prostitute) were created equal with the desires for human contentment.
As all rational human beings have a conscience, they should understand equally. As the king himself could not understand, he was deemed less than a human being (inhumane). Therefore, he was justifiably divorced as our rightful ruler and replaced by a more perfect government.
The only reason to have a more perfect government is to improve the contentment of the people.

The American revolutionaries sought a more perfect union, not a more perfect government. (Government by its nature cannot improve anyone's contentment except at the expense of someone else's) They understood that government by nature tends toward tyranny, thus the people are within their rights to alter or abolish a government which does not serve the purpose of protecting safety and happiness. (the declaration of independence addresses this issue directly)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

"Moreover Murray,although an agnostic, also came to conclude from his historical
inquiries that all societies are inevitably religious and that irreligion
on a society-wide scale is impossible and undesirable, because a
formal religion, specifically Christianity, is necessary as the natural
repository of the traditional moral rules that are necessary to reinforce
and complement a classical liberal or libertarian legal code in
order for a real market society to survive and flourish. Even Nazi
Germany and the Soviet Union, which were conceived in deranged
attempts to abolish religion, succeeded only in supplanting Christianity
with pagan and Marxist millennialism, respectively."
-from "Murray N. Rothbard, In Memorium", pg 80.

But Christianity hasn't always been a "religion." To be a religion and not a faith, it must own property. It was the appointed St. Augustine who created the Christian religion (he used Platonic philosophy) by creating something new that Constantine could control. This way he didn't have to stoop and convert to the Christian faith.
In doing so, the Church was established on material property and became a religion.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The American revolutionaries sought a more perfect union, not a more perfect government. (Government by its nature cannot improve anyone's contentment except at the expense of someone else's) They understood that government by nature tends toward tyranny, thus the people are within their rights to alter or abolish a government which does not serve the purpose of protecting safety and happiness. (the declaration of independence addresses this issue directly)

Our Founders established a new natural law and then superceded every past tradition with it. This was quite bold. In comparison, Jesus as the Almighty did something similar when He blessed every ten commandment in the Jewish Temple condemning the slaves to serving the Jews. But then Jesus gave the slaves (the Christians) a New Covenant and a higher economy based on His Gospel.
You see, our Founders weren't rebels. They worked (schemed) it out. There didn't ever have to be a Revolutionary War. When addressing the king, our Founders proclaimed themselves as representatives of the commoner people.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

what the founding fathers did was a social experiment based on their influences from individualistic philosophers. Evolution has nothing to do with this.

But what if the use of our human conscience is the only evidence of greater truths laying beyond what we directly or indirectly oberve by our senses?

[Theocrat]

You point out a very interesting feature of reasoning: that predestination in some form is an inescapable concept.

Christians believe that a loving and just God is governing His creation and atheists believe that they are determined by genetics, random chemical processes, environment, etc.

In atheism, there is actually no freedom of thought or agency. How can a sack of meat be free to think or do anything else but react to the random chemicals and forces it encounters? Atheism provides no basis for rational thought.

Exactly, bro. ;)

[libertybrewcity]

But what if your human conscience is the only evidence of greater truths laying beyond what we observe directly or indirectly by our senses?

Your human conscience is a complex system of rapidly firing electrical impulses in your brain, combined with chemical action potentials along the axons and neural pathways. It is purely biological processes that allow us to have a conscience. Humans only have a conscience because it is enables us to survive within our environment. If we need a tail to maintain balance, we would develop a tail. If we didn't need a conscience to survive, we would lose it.

[libertybrewcity]

You point out a very interesting feature of reasoning: that predestination in some form is an inescapable concept.

Christians believe that a loving and just God is governing His creation and atheists believe that they are determined by genetics, random chemical processes, environment, etc.

In atheism, there is actually no freedom of thought or agency. How can a sack of meat be free to think or do anything else but react to the random chemicals and forces it encounters? Atheism provides no basis for rational thought.

Yea, except in Christianity if you say that a sack of meat can be free to think, you will either:

A. Be hung for heresy, or

B. excommunicated or

C. The Christians will pass laws that restrict what you can think about or

D. You will be required to have an exorcism because obviously the devil has taken over you soul.

[idirtify]

No. I am pointing out the the "theory" of evolution is not scientific when it is presented as a fact or a foregone conclusion.
I do not do the same with my belief in Creation. It is my belief and I present it as such.

A unproven theory presented as fact is pseudoscience. It is junk science.

I see. So you are not arguing against the validity of the theory of evolution, but only against the presentation of the theory as a fact. That’s fine, but where in your post was that argument presented? I didn’t see it.

Also, what is your position when the theory of evolution is not presented as fact, but only as more valid than the theory of creation/ID? Or if you’d rather see it stated this way: What is your position when the belief of evolution is presented as more believable than the belief of creation/ID?

[idirtify]

Gravity exists. Thermodynamics can be tested and repeated. That is known science. Evolution does not even belong in the same sentence.
The theory of evolution is neither proven nor repeatable. It is not even consistent.

It is as much a matter of Faith as Creationism.

Instead of comparing evolution with thermodynamics, let’s get back on point and compare it with creationism. Even if I concede that both Creationism and Evolution are theories and matters of faith, I can still refute your last statement – by simply comparing evidence. Given that creationism has far LESS evidence, it is far MORE theoretical. Therefore, evolution is NOT as much a matter of faith as creationism.

[pcosmar]

Therefore, evolution is NOT as much a matter of faith as creationism.

There is NO evidence of evolution.

There is conjecture. There is assumption. There is NO evidence.

If there was it would no longer be a theory, but a provable fact.
And even then it would not disprove the theory of Creation.
All the elements in the universe were created. They had an origin.
;)

[idirtify]

What I'm saying, and what pcosmar seems also to be saying, is that evolution is not scientific.
We're not offering an alternate theory. We don't have to.
We're just applying the rules of the game that evolution claims to be part of.


I’m afraid you don’t understand the common definition of “theory”. If there are two competing theories, you can’t criticize one only and claim you are not advocating the other. A “valid theory” is only one that is MORE valid than the other. In the same vein, if there were only ONE theory, it would be the valid one by default. In fact, there are many theories in the realm of astronomy and cosmology which have relatively little evidence; but since no competing theories exist, they stand as the most valid.

[ClayTrainor]

There is NO evidence of evolution.


What kind of evidence needs to be presented to convince you of otherwise??

[idirtify]

Originally Posted by ClayTrainor
Is it fair for me to say that you feel that Evolution is more of an untested hypothesis than a supported theory?

I would probably support this.

Would you support that evolution is LESS of an untested hypothesis and MORE of a supported theory THAN creationism?

[libertybrewcity]

What kind of evidence needs to be presented to convince you of otherwise??

Even if this guy to turn in to the god damn magic school bus, hop on a gene sequence, and watch the translation process, he still wouldn't be convinced that evolution existed. He is proving right before our eyes exactly what the article is saying:


"A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."

[pcosmar]

What kind of evidence needs to be presented to convince you of otherwise??

I don't expect any. I don't believe in it at all.

Perhaps if monkeys developed speech. Or my dog,,,

Certainly not something like the Piltdown man.

[heavenlyboy34]

There is NO evidence of evolution.

There is conjecture. There is assumption. There is NO evidence.

If there was it would no longer be a theory, but a provable fact.
And even then it would not disprove the theory of Creation.
All the elements in the universe were created. They had an origin.
;)
You're correct that Darwinian evolution has not been conclusively proven using the scientific method, but you're misusing the word "theory" here. A scientific theory is one that has passed the rigors of the scientific method and can be considered true until new evidence shows otherwise. (viz. the theory of relativity)

[ClayTrainor]

You're correct that Darwinian evolution has not been conclusively proven using the scientific method, but you're misusing the word "theory" here.

Are you saying that Natural Selection is a hypothesis rather than a theory?

[ClayTrainor]

I don't expect any. I don't believe in it at all.


"A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."

There's no point in me even trying, I suppose. :)

[idirtify]

Unfortunately this thread and the article have proven to me that free market economy, sound money, and truly free men society have little chance. This is mathematically optimized economic and social system and is proven by practice to deliver best results (on average per person), but it all has no value against so many emotional and non-factual arguments that the other side feeds the masses with. And masses become irresponsive to whatever logic you have to present.

Same goes with religion vs science augments. Science or even facts have little chance against a belief, especially when this belief was forced down the brains at the very young age, when the brain has almost no resistance and takes everything as axiom. That’s why the only historically working argument in the conversation between people from 2 different religions – is a physical elimination of the opponent. I definitely don’t want to be involved in this argument .

It’s probably true that the majority are hopelessly programmed with religious conviction, but do not despair. Truth and reason need only permeate a larger minority. I mean look at it this way: programmed convictions are not necessarily bad, and most people “believe” what they do only because that’s how their peer groups believe. So all that needs to happen is that a certain critical mass is reached, and then the “sheep” (those who believe through peer pressure, without actual analytical thought) will naturally follow. IOW we just need to disconnect the power of the colluding influences that program exactly like the MIC – such as the “GRC” (“government religion complex”), and then the sheep become our friends. IOW, the ONLY thing powerful enough to dislodge one conviction is the perception that another one is becoming more popular.

[libertybrewcity]

I don't expect any. I don't believe in it at all.

Perhaps if monkeys developed speech. Or my dog,,,

Certainly not something like the Piltdown man.

Then you clearly don't understand what evolution even is.


Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms. It can be as simple another generation losing a few pieces of hair that were visible in previous generations.

[pcosmar]

There's no point in me even trying, I suppose. :)

Not really. Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God does not exist.
Or prove the origin of all the elements in the universe. (the origin of sub atomic particles) And not in theory, I want to see hard and irrefutable evidence.

Good luck with that.

[idirtify]

Originally Posted by AquaBuddha2010
You point out a very interesting feature of reasoning: that predestination in some form is an inescapable concept.

Christians believe that a loving and just God is governing His creation and atheists believe that they are determined by genetics, random chemical processes, environment, etc.

In atheism, there is actually no freedom of thought or agency. How can a sack of meat be free to think or do anything else but react to the random chemicals and forces it encounters? Atheism provides no basis for rational thought.


Exactly, bro. ;)

Why are you two bros confusing determinism with atheism? In contrast to what you claim, all atheists are not determinists. Merely using the word “determined” (instead of the word “enabled”) proves nothing about what atheists believe. Now if you insist on stamping determinism on atheism, you will have to assume the determinist argument. I am familiar with that argument. Are you? If so, go ahead. I am ready.

[ClayTrainor]

What kind of evidence needs to be presented to convince you of otherwise??



I don't expect any. I don't believe in it at all.

Perhaps if monkeys developed speech. Or my dog,,,



There's no point in me even trying, I suppose.


Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God does not exist.
Or prove the origin of all the elements in the universe. (the origin of sub atomic particles) And not in theory, I want to see hard and irrefutable evidence.


Interesting contrast in your standards for evidence. From talking dogs to absolute proof for the origin of existence itself. :p



Good luck with that.

I think I'd be wasting both of our time if I tried. :)

[pcosmar]

I think I'd be wasting both of our time if I tried. :)

Likely so. It is a matter of faith.
regardless of which theory you believe.

[idirtify]

There is NO evidence of evolution.

There is conjecture. There is assumption. There is NO evidence.

If there was it would no longer be a theory, but a provable fact.
And even then it would not disprove the theory of Creation.
All the elements in the universe were created. They had an origin.
;)

Besides abjectly denying what obviously constitutes “evidence” and then blatantly miss defining the word (narrowing the definition / increasing the standard), I see you are still staying clear of directly comparing the relative validities of evolution and creation. But nonetheless, I will try again to get you to directly address a comparison... You appear to be saying that the existence of elements is evidence for creationism and therefore makes it a more valid theory than evolution. Is that your position?

Of course it’s true that the elements had an origin, since literally everything does/did. Science has discovered the origin of many of those things, and has not yet discovered the origin of many others; and often in the process discovers new things, for which origins had not yet been imagined. Now I must assume that you are using the undiscovered origins as evidence of creation, is that correct? I mean surely you aren’t using the discovered origins, ie claiming that a god created rain; since it was long ago discovered that evaporation and condensation of ocean water is the origin of rain.

So again, are you claiming that UNKNOWN origins serve as evidence?

[ClayTrainor]

It is a matter of faith. regardless of which theory you believe.

There is no room for Faith when it comes to establishing scientific theory from hypothesis.

http://www.pfscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Screen-shot-2010-09-10-at-10.33.07-AM.png

You appear to be arguing that neither creationism nor evolution have enough supporting evidence to graduate from hypothesis to scientific theory... is this fair to say?

[BlackTerrel]

In other words, paradoxically, you don't lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance. How do you suppose we could go about using this info to reach the hearts and minds of potential voters?

A number of ways. For instance many of the more Hawkish voters are Christians and use that to justify their beliefs. Well Ron Paul is Christian - lead with those shared values and then argue why we should not be involved in these conflicts.

[idirtify]

Originally Posted by ClayTrainor
What kind of evidence needs to be presented to convince you of otherwise??


Even if this guy to turn in to the god damn magic school bus, hop on a gene sequence, and watch the translation process, he still wouldn't be convinced that evolution existed. He is proving right before our eyes exactly what the article is saying:
"A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."


Exactly! As I said, what a perfect demonstration of the behavior. We should thank the demonstrators for confirming, by example, the article. And we don’t need worry about convincing them, we keep replying FOR THE READERS who are under no pressure to surrender and can still form an opinion. We only USE the behavior of the believers in our own demonstrations – of the power of reason. In fact, in a way, we WANT to draw out the behavior – in order to make it even clearer that religious conviction is an obstacle to clear thinking (and individual liberty).

[pcosmar]

You appear to be arguing that neither creationism nor evolution have enough supporting evidence to graduate from hypothesis to scientific theory... is this fair to say?
yes, that is fair.
I never said that creationism is science. I said it is a theory.


Because "evolution" is a theory presented as fact.
Creation is a theory presented as a belief.

It is the theory of evolution that is promoted as a scientific fact when it has no fact to back it up.
It is a theory based on faith. Faith in Darwin and faith that there is no God.
Not on fact. It is a belief.

[idirtify]

There's no point in me even trying, I suppose. :)

The point is less to convince the opponent and more to convince the many readers. In that endeavor, you continue to employ reason to show beyond any doubt that your opponent’s position is not credible. You see, what the article did not address is that those who are not being confronted (the readers) will not be victims of their own fight-or-flight responses. That’s the beauty of discussion forums, and the mechanism of their educational potential.

So keep trying, dammit! Besides, it is both enjoyable and educational.

[EndDaFed]

There is NO evidence of evolution.

There is conjecture. There is assumption. There is NO evidence.

If there was it would no longer be a theory, but a provable fact.
And even then it would not disprove the theory of Creation.
All the elements in the universe were created. They had an origin.
;)

Lean what the word theory means. This is not hard.


A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]

A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2]
...
Essential criteria

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:

* It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
* It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Simply, a theory is an explanation of a phenomena that is supported by a body of facts, has predictive power, and is falsifiable. If a theory can not account for all the evidence it either dies or is replaced with a better theory that explains ALL of the evidence. By your admission that evolution is a theory you automatically concede that there is evidence for said phenomena.


Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[8] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.[9]

[pcosmar]

Lean what the word theory means. This is not hard.



I understand that. And by that criteria, Creationism is an equally valid theory.
I am not the one trying to force my belief or opinion, it is the evolutionists that are.

I am only pointing out that their position is one based on faith, just as mine is.

You are welcome to it.
We are supposed to be in favor of freedom of religion.
At least in theory.

[ClayTrainor]

It is the theory of evolution that is promoted as a scientific fact when it has no fact to back it up.


What kind of facts are required for the theory to be supported?


It is a theory based on faith. Faith in Darwin and faith that there is no God.
Not on fact.

The idea that all life on earth is related, and has changed over time is consistent with all existing evidence. (i.e. Consistent and repeatable DNA relationships)

There has been no established, repeatable evidence that negates this idea, but there is plenty of evidence consistent with it... :)

[idirtify]

Not really. Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God does not exist.
Or prove the origin of all the elements in the universe. (the origin of sub atomic particles) And not in theory, I want to see hard and irrefutable evidence.

Good luck with that.

So you are taking unknown origins and using them as evidence for your theory. But how can that which is not yet known be evidence of anything? You are merely taking a “nothing” and arbitrarily making “something” out of it; taking an unknown and claiming to know it – because it’s unknown. Among other things, that’s like perfectly circular reasoning; a circle that contains NOTHING.

The belief you are describing is a common religious fallacy. Please google the term “god of the gaps”. You merely place your god in our gaps of knowledge. And every time science discovers another origin, you move god further back into the realm of the new questions-of-origins which each new discovery naturally poses.

[idirtify]

Likely so. It is a matter of faith.
regardless of which theory you believe.

Again, you make an effort to sidestep a direct comparison. HINT: one requires LESS faith.

[idirtify]

I understand that. And by that criteria, Creationism is an equally valid theory.
I am not the one trying to force my belief or opinion, it is the evolutionists that are.

I am only pointing out that their position is one based on faith, just as mine is.

You are welcome to it.
We are supposed to be in favor of freedom of religion.
At least in theory.

This is an equal playing field. If there is any “force”, your words are using just as much as those/we who advocate that evolution is a more valid theory. This is only a discussion and there is no “force”; no one is violating any rights here.

[EndDaFed]

I understand that. And by that criteria, Creationism is an equally valid theory.
I am not the one trying to force my belief or opinion, it is the evolutionists that are.

I am only pointing out that their position is one based on faith, just as mine is.

You are welcome to it.
We are supposed to be in favor of freedom of religion.
At least in theory.

You do understand that saying that evolution is a theory, while claiming at the same time that there is no evidence for evolution, is by definition a contradiction?

[pcosmar]

The idea that all life on earth is related, and has changed over time is consistent with all existing evidence. (i.e. Consistent and repeatable DNA relationships)

There has been no established, repeatable evidence that negates this idea, but there is plenty of evidence consistent with it... :)

That all life on earth is related is hardly evidence of evolution. It was all formed of the same substances (of the dust of the ground) , and shares the same environment.

[pcosmar]

This is an equal playing field. If there is any “force”, your words are using just as much as those/we who advocate that evolution is a more valid theory. This is only a discussion and there is no “force”; no one is violating any rights here.

Here,,,perhaps not. But in the larger world the religion of "humanism" is forcing these teachings in both schools and governance.
Eugenics (based on Darwin's theories) has been responsible for atrocities here in the US and world wide.

So yes, Force does concern me.

[cavalier973]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/missing.asp

"Have you ever watched the comedy movie The Gods Must Be Crazy? Someone drops a coke bottle from a plane into a group of native people in Africa who have never seen such a bottle. The whole movie centres around a particular interpretation of what they thought the coke bottle really was. The movie title refers to their belief that ‘the gods’ had sent it. However, it caused so many squabbles about who should use it that they decided that it was an evil thing that must be returned to the gods by dropping it over ‘the edge of the world.’

The bushmen had a totally different way of looking at this bottle from that of the people who dropped it. Why did they get it so wrong? The following exercise will help us understand what was happening."

[ClayTrainor]

That all life on earth is related is hardly evidence of evolution.

You are mistaken. I didn't claim it as evidence for evolution, I claimed it as an aspect of evolution that is consistent with the evidence. There's a big difference. ;)



It was all formed of the same substances (of the dust of the ground) , and shares the same environment.

Is there any evidence to suggest that life on earth may have changed forms since the beginning?

[idirtify]

Here,,,perhaps not. But in the larger world the religion of "humanism" is forcing these teachings in both schools and governance.
Eugenics (based on Darwin's theories) has been responsible for atrocities here in the US and world wide.

So yes, Force does concern me.

Oh I see, you are talking about what is taught (forced) in schools. While we agree that there is a lot of crap taught in schools, at least when it comes to the development of life, they are teaching the theory which has more evidence (is less theoretical). The only thing creationism has going for it in terms of evidence, is the gaps/unknowns, which is literally “nothing”.

BTW I don’t believe values such as eugenics are advocated as/or part of the curriculum. To imply that it’s a natural part would be like saying that a study of extinction events includes the suggestion that we should exterminate our species.

[idirtify]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/missing.asp

"Have you ever watched the comedy movie The Gods Must Be Crazy? Someone drops a coke bottle from a plane into a group of native people in Africa who have never seen such a bottle. The whole movie centres around a particular interpretation of what they thought the coke bottle really was. The movie title refers to their belief that ‘the gods’ had sent it. However, it caused so many squabbles about who should use it that they decided that it was an evil thing that must be returned to the gods by dropping it over ‘the edge of the world.’

The bushmen had a totally different way of looking at this bottle from that of the people who dropped it. Why did they get it so wrong? The following exercise will help us understand what was happening."

Good movie. Explains what prevents them from benefiting from a simple tool; religious conviction.

[reillym]

yes, that is fair.
I never said that creationism is science. I said it is a theory.



It is the theory of evolution that is promoted as a scientific fact when it has no fact to back it up.
It is a theory based on faith. Faith in Darwin and faith that there is no God.
Not on fact. It is a belief.

Your ignorance and arrogance is simply astounding. You clearly know NOTHING about evolution, so please shut your mouth when you attempt, pathetically, do degrade it to a quasi-religious farce.

The past 300 years of every single science endeavor on earth supports evolution.

[reillym]

I don't expect any. I don't believe in it at all.

Perhaps if monkeys developed speech. Or my dog,,,

Certainly not something like the Piltdown man.


The good thing about a science is that it is true whether or not you believe in it or not. It's not like religion.

[reillym]

I understand that. And by that criteria, Creationism is an equally valid theory.
I am not the one trying to force my belief or opinion, it is the evolutionists that are.

I am only pointing out that their position is one based on faith, just as mine is.

You are welcome to it.
We are supposed to be in favor of freedom of religion.
At least in theory.


A theory needs evidence in order to be a theory. Go read a god damn book before you spout more nonsensical garbage.

[tpreitzel]

Your ignorance and arrogance is simply astounding. You clearly know NOTHING about evolution, so please shut your mouth when you attempt, pathetically, do degrade it to a quasi-religious farce.

The past 300 years of every single science endeavor on earth supports evolution.

Conjecture.

[tpreitzel]

The good thing about a science is that it is true whether or not you believe in it or not. It's not like religion.

More conjecture.

[tpreitzel]

A theory needs evidence in order to be a theory. Go read a god damn book before you spout more nonsensical garbage.

Take your own advice. You need it. ;)

[tpreitzel]

The earth's living organisms are the result of unnatural selection ... Actually, this thread should be subtitled, "Blinded by Science". If newtonian physics doesn't work in all cases, try quantum physics and it's strange world of probabilities (always nice to have science reduced to probabilities...) LoL ... Apparently, it's time for an even newer physics since the current lot are full of holes... ah, the wonders of an empirical methodology based on human perception. LoLLoLLoL ...:) :)

[Bossobass]

Your ignorance and arrogance is simply astounding. You clearly know NOTHING about evolution, so please shut your mouth when you attempt, pathetically, do degrade it to a quasi-religious farce.

The past 300 years of every single science endeavor on earth supports evolution.

Oh, possessor of great and vast knowledge, please lead us all to the truth.

BTW, which theory of evolution is it that you're convinced is the infallible one, just so us ignorants are clear on which quasi-religious farce to follow?

Bosso

[Sola_Fide]

"Moreover Murray,although an agnostic, also came to conclude from his historical
inquiries that all societies are inevitably religious and that irreligion
on a society-wide scale is impossible and undesirable, because a
formal religion, specifically Christianity, is necessary as the natural
repository of the traditional moral rules that are necessary to reinforce
and complement a classical liberal or libertarian legal code in
order for a real market society to survive and flourish. Even Nazi
Germany and the Soviet Union, which were conceived in deranged
attempts to abolish religion, succeeded only in supplanting Christianity
with pagan and Marxist millennialism, respectively."
-from "Murray N. Rothbard, In Memorium", pg 80.


+1 for Murray. He also said this:


“Parenthetically, I am getting tired of the offhanded smearing of religion that has long been endemic to the libertarian movement. Religion is generally dismissed as imbecilic at best, inherently evil at worst. The greatest and most creative minds in the history of mankind have been deeply and profoundly religious, most of them Christian.”

And this...


"But it is to Christianity that we owe individual freedom and capitalism. It is no coincidence that capitalism developed in Christian Europe after the transnational church limited the state. In ancient Greece and Rome, the individual was merely part of the city state or the empire, unimportant in his own right. Christianity changed that by stressing the infinite worth of each individual soul."

[pcosmar]

Your ignorance and arrogance is simply astounding. You clearly know NOTHING about evolution, so please shut your mouth when you attempt, pathetically, do degrade it to a quasi-religious farce.


I use science. I understand science. I mix chemicals routinely for a desired effect. I observe nature as well, as well as mechanical design.
I have no problem with science. I just believe that "evolution" is not science. It is pseudoscience.


The good thing about a science is that it is true whether or not you believe in it or not. It's not like religion.

Science once claimed that the earth was flat, and that you would sail off the edge.
"Science" has made a lot of untrue claims.tat have later been proven false.

I put evolution in the same category as "Anthropomorphic Global Warming".
It is junk science.

[idirtify]

The earth's living organisms are the result of unnatural selection ... Actually, this thread should be subtitled, "Blinded by Science". If newtonian physics doesn't work in all cases, try quantum physics and it's strange world of probabilities (always nice to have science reduced to probabilities...) LoL ... Apparently, it's time for an even newer physics since the current lot are full of holes... ah, the wonders of an empirical methodology based on human perception. LoLLoLLoL ...:) :)

Why are you arguing against things like science and natural selection and physics and human perception? Oh, that’s right…because you are arguing FOR the religious conviction that believing a supernatural god magically created everything is more reasonable than believing science or physics, and that it has more evidence and is a more accurate human perception. Thank-you for demonstrating the topic’s point so nicely.

[idirtify]

BTW, which theory of evolution is it that you're convinced is the infallible one, just so us ignorants are clear on which quasi-religious farce to follow?


Why would you use the word “religious” to try to discredit an opposing theory, when the theory you are advocating is religious? Read the next sentence carefully. By definition, anything “quasi-religious” is better than something “purely-religious”.

[idirtify]

+1 for Murray. He also said this:



And this...

Religion is not a natural repository of morals, let alone Christianity. Lots of the morals are lousy, as is the idea that the bible is the repository of moral rules. The real repository is the philosophy of individual liberty itself.

Christianity did not originate the concept of individual liberty, and we free individuals certainly owe nothing (no allegiance / thanks / dues) to said religion for our rights.

Lots of great minds being Christian proves no more about Christianity than it does about lots of great minds being smokers or drinkers or coffee consumers or bisexuals or owners of slaves or ….

The rest of your information basically consists of past admittances that we’re probably stuck with religion so we should learn how to deal with it. I reject that surrender. They didn’t have the Internet.

[moostraks]

BTW I don’t believe values such as eugenics are advocated as/or part of the curriculum.


"Eugenic education was a crucial component of selling sterilization to the American masses and reveals the great impact of eugenics and sterilization on American culture. Historian Steven Selden has illustrated the extensive infiltration of eugenics into the American textbook. High school and college students were regularly bombarded with eugenic rhetoric in their natural sciences lessons. Selden has concluded that between 1914 and 1948, eugenics was cited in 85 percent of high school biology textbooks while the science was recommended in 70 percent of them. In these books, 15 percent of them recommended involuntary sterilization as sound social policy.35One popular eugenics textbook, Applied Eugenics, even included an entire chapter on the need for eugenic sterilization.36"

http://www.umw.edu/hisa/resources/Student%20Projects/Cincinnati/students.umw.edu/_ncinc5ce/impact.html

Then there is
"eugenics became a dirty word in the later 1950s. Fortunately for the alarmists, it turned out the word wasn’t required to advance the control theme. Hugh Moore, Dixie Cup magnate and pamphleteer, found he could distill the complex arguments of Sax, Vogt, Osborn and Brown down to a simple battle between good and evil, between fullness and hunger, and between freedom and Communism. The argument played well.

Sax and Moore’s graphs both found a home in the high school textbook New Dynamic Biology, published by Rand McNally in 1959.

Cleansed of its overt racist stench, the exponential curve leapt from the pamphlets of Sax and Moore to the pages of biology textbooks beginning in 1959. Yet all the old tensions remained. People were a cancer, according to Alan Gregg, medical director of the Rockefeller Foundation. And this conceptualization proved popular. But did that mean all people were a cancer? If not, who represented healthy tissue and who the tumor? And who got to decide? Eugenics, a word now unvoiced, remained embedded within the argument over population control.

In the 1960s the exponential curve shot right off the page, climbing faster than the gentle arc of Sax, faster yet than the arc of Moore, to trace almost exactly the rocket-like trajectory illustrated by Brown. An icon of the era, this graph was given its most frightening exposition in Paul Ehrlich’s bestselling 1968 eco-catastrophe, The Population Bomb."

http://www.textbookhistory.com/?p=1291

I have picked up science text books from the '70's and have seen the blatant agenda put forth in elementary texts. The new global warming, anti-consumerist, peak oil, green agenda is the latest manner they soft sell down to the youngest age group a need to limit population growth. This is done in public schools. You need to look at how they are transforming the conversation and how they use schools to raise future generations who will be ignorant and comply with their agenda.


"The modern debate is captured no place better than the online journal Climate and Capitalism. Of particular note are the articles and commentary of Betsy Hartmann, director of the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College and author of Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control. She and others in the journal class “Populationism” with racism, classism and sexism as conservative prejudices."

http://www.textbookhistory.com/?p=1291

[pcosmar]

The red herring that started this debate.

Consider a person who has heard about a scientific discovery that deeply challenges her belief in divine creation—a new hominid, say, that confirms our evolutionary origins. What happens next, explains political scientist Charles Taber of Stony Brook University, is a subconscious negative response to the new information—and that response, in turn, guides the type of memories and associations formed in the conscious mind. "They retrieve thoughts that are consistent with their previous beliefs," says Taber, "and that will lead them to build an argument and challenge what they're hearing."

But there has been NO SUCH Evidence. Though it has been sought and False Claims (Piltdown Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man)) have been presented.
Still anyone that challenges the lack of scientific evidence is ridiculed.
How dare anyone challenge the belief in evolution. ;)

The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science
It is not that we don't believe science, It is that "science" is sometimes used to promote false claims. And it is good to question and verify such claims.

[idirtify]

I use science. I understand science. I mix chemicals routinely for a desired effect. I observe nature as well, as well as mechanical design.
I have no problem with science. I just believe that "evolution" is not science. It is pseudoscience.



Science once claimed that the earth was flat, and that you would sail off the edge.
"Science" has made a lot of untrue claims.tat have later been proven false.

I put evolution in the same category as "Anthropomorphic Global Warming".
It is junk science.

Very good, you understand science and know that old theories often turn out to be less valid than new ones. Let’s take the flat earth theory. Now if you agree that it’s less valid than the round earth theory, you confirm that you understand the idea of relative validity – based on a comparison of evidence. Now, how can you simultaneously believe that the theory of creation is more valid than the theory of evolution; since the only “evidence” of the former consists of nothing more than questions about the unknown (as you yourself have explained it)?

Please understand that your beliefs that favor creation do not lie in your capacity for reasoning. They instead lie in your religious convictions (see the OP article), which are not based on clear thought. It’s literally DoubleThink.

[idirtify]

http://www.umw.edu/hisa/resources/Student%20Projects/Cincinnati/students.umw.edu/_ncinc5ce/impact.html

Then there is

http://www.textbookhistory.com/?p=1291

I have picked up science text books from the '70's and have seen the blatant agenda put forth in elementary texts. The new global warming, anti-consumerist, peak oil, green agenda is the latest manner they soft sell down to the youngest age group a need to limit population growth. This is done in public schools. You need to look at how they are transforming the conversation and how they use schools to raise future generations who will be ignorant and comply with their agenda.



http://www.textbookhistory.com/?p=1291

If your point is to disagree with mine, and to say that current teachings of the theory of evolution include and advocate eugenics, I don’t see it in any of what you posted.

[EndDaFed]

If you believe in the theory of gravity you must be a supporter of people jumping off of buildings. :D

[moostraks]

If your point is to disagree with mine, and to say that current teachings of the theory of evolution include and advocate eugenics, I don’t see it in any of what you posted.

My point was to disagree with your point that eugenics is not/has not been taught in school.

[idirtify]

The red herring that started this debate.


But there has been NO SUCH Evidence. Though it has been sought and False Claims (Piltdown Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man)) have been presented.
Still anyone that challenges the lack of scientific evidence is ridiculed.
How dare anyone challenge the belief in evolution. ;)

The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science
It is not that we don't believe science, It is that "science" is sometimes used to promote false claims. And it is good to question and verify such claims.

So your main beef with the theory of evolution is only within the branch of HUMAN evolution, and not with the theory of Natural Selection when it comes to non-human species? Or are you also criticizing ALL notions of evolution amongst ALL species of life? I’m just trying to nail down your position before proceeding.

[moostraks]

So your main beef with the theory of evolution is only within the branch of HUMAN evolution, and not with the theory of Natural Selection when it comes to non-human species? Or are you also criticizing ALL notions of evolution amongst ALL species of life? I’m just trying to nail down your position before proceeding.

Why do you feel the need to win at an argument based on a theory?

[idirtify]

My point was to disagree with your point that eugenics is not/has not been taught in school.

I never made that point. You only disagreed with a strawman. My point was that values such as eugenics ARE not (see “currently”) advocated as/or part of the curriculum (of the subject of evolution – see THE TOPIC).

[Ranger29860]

How in the world did i miss another thread on evolution! I need to check in more often.

If you want to be taken seriously with a intelligent design theory please show one piece of evidence. Scientific theory's are not perfect and the scientific communitie recognizes this. But this does not mean all of science is wrong.

I would be more than willing to accept intelligent design or creationism if you can show me some evidence that it is a valid theory. Simply saying evolution is wrong because the scientific communitie wont believe anything else is just a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method. I guarantee you if you show a valid piece of evidence and hell even prove god or some other being was directly involved in the creation of the universe the scientific communtie would be jumping for joy. Science is the search for knowledge and there would be no greater discovery than proof of a god.

I have no problem with you believing in something and as a atheist i support your right to believe whatever. But please do not denigrate the work of hundreds of scientist just because you can not reconcile you religion with the evidence that has presented itself.

[pcosmar]

Please understand that your beliefs that favor creation do not lie in your capacity for reasoning. They instead lie in your religious convictions (see the OP article), which are not based on clear thought. It’s literally DoubleThink.

Not at all. Science recognizes "entropy". And observation confirms this.
When I look at the universe, and at nature I see an order that conflicts with the laws of entropy.
The symbiotic relationships between several species, the entire ecosystem of the planet.
I see an intelligent design. Not a random happenstance.
But that is of course my observation.

[pcosmar]

Why do you feel the need to win at an argument based on a theory?

It's his religious conviction. ;)

[ClayTrainor]

It's his religious conviction. ;)

Says every progressive about someone arguing in favor of free-market theory. ;)

[idirtify]

Why do you feel the need to win at an argument based on a theory?

Your actions betray your question, since you are doing the same. Or…your answer lies within your own need to do the same.

[idirtify]

It's his religious conviction. ;)

But seriously…No, mine isn't. The definition of “religious conviction”, in this context, would be “to firmly believe in the LESS evidenced theory, without relying on logic or reason”. Again, your comment ignores relative comparison.

[Ranger29860]

But seriously…No, mine doesn't. The definition of “religious conviction”, in this context, would be “to firmly believe in the LESS evidenced theory, without relying on logic or reason”. Again, your comment ignores relative comparison.

ITS A TRAPPP!!!!!

Seriously though the last line of defense is always " Your view is just as much about religion as mine is!" Its a way of trying to bring the argument down to their level since they cant bring it up to yours.


*Edited for spelling*

[idirtify]

Not at all. Science recognizes "entropy". And observation confirms this.
When I look at the universe, and at nature I see an order that conflicts with the laws of entropy.
The symbiotic relationships between several species, the entire ecosystem of the planet.
I see an intelligent design. Not a random happenstance.
But that is of course my observation.

I think you need to give us your definition of entropy.

[idirtify]

ITS A TRAPPP!!!!!

Seriously though the last line of defense is always " Your view is just as much about religion as mine is!" Its a way of trying to bring the argument down to their level since they cant bring it up to yours.


*Edited for spelling*

Exactly. Then all you have to do is point out how they are ignoring relative comparison (of evidence).

[moostraks]

I never made that point. You only disagreed with a strawman. My point was that values such as eugenics ARE not (see “currently”) advocated as/or part of the curriculum (of the subject of evolution – see THE TOPIC).

I wasn't arguing the original issue as I think you are making the case on your own. I did give your reference to something you wished to state which was in error, with documentation not conjecture, that eugenics is being taught and has evolved to a less overt belief within the science text. It appears you don't understand the evolution of the argument as is applied in reasoning beings utilizing the theory of evolution to produce a more evolved species when threatened by matters such as over- consumerism and overpopulation and the like.

It is the poor I tells you and if we eliminate the poor (through abortion, education, and vaccines(?)) and promote the selfish values of the elites through education (careers first and gene selection through prenatal screening and abortion) we are intellectual Darwinists promoting survival of the fittest species. It begins in elementary school now as a slow drip.

[pcosmar]

But seriously…No, mine isn't. The definition of “religious conviction”, in this context, would be “to firmly believe in the LESS evidenced theory, without relying on logic or reason”. Again, your comment ignores relative comparison.
less evidenced?
in your mind perhaps.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

However it is apparent that I do not share Your Faith.

[Ranger29860]

less evidenced?
in your mind perhaps.


Please show you evidence.

[moostraks]

Your actions betray your question, since you are doing the same. Or…your answer lies within your own need to do the same.

I brought forth information to refute your erroneous statement that eugenics is NOT and has not been part of the educational curriculum. I pointed out a factual error on your part as I am merely watching the op's observation play out by you. I don't discuss matters here to change peoples opinions but post information that may aid someone in being aware of something they may not be aware of. It is quite clear you did not know about eugenics in school education nor have you bothered to look at its rise from the first link I provided
Eugenic sterilization promised to be a panacea against the rising tide of degeneracy and eugenicists believed this “surgical solution” could bring about a new American utopia—one based on science, race, and progress rather than Christianity.

http://www.umw.edu/hisa/resources/Student%20Projects/Cincinnati/students.umw.edu/_ncinc5ce/impact.html

[idirtify]

I wasn't arguing the original issue as I think you are making the case on your own. I did give your reference to something you wished to state which was in error, with documentation not conjecture, that eugenics is being taught and has evolved to a less overt belief within the science text. It appears you don't understand the evolution of the argument as is applied in reasoning beings utilizing the theory of evolution to produce a more evolved species when threatened by matters such as over- consumerism and overpopulation and the like.

It is the poor I tells you and if we eliminate the poor (through abortion, education, and vaccines(?)) and promote the selfish values of the elites through education (careers first and gene selection through prenatal screening and abortion) we are intellectual Darwinists promoting survival of the fittest species. It begins in elementary school now as a slow drip.

The only thing I saw you show is that eugenics WAS being taught; not currently and not under the subject of evolution. Now if you are adding to that, and claiming that it is currently being taught in general, albeit covertly, I would not dispute that – but that’s still not an indictment against teaching evolution. Even if some teacher is basing their eugenics bias on evolution or natural selection, idiots making idiotic conclusions about good science does nothing to discredit the science.

Edit: And it sure doesn’t seem to be working out for them, since the poor and uneducated classes, under the elitist’s programs/agendas, are growing by leaps and bounds.

[pcosmar]

Please show you evidence.

Show yours. I have asked that several times.
And don't bring up Darwin or his writings or anything based on his writings. That is NOT evidence.
Darwin was a blathering fool that has been taken seriously by too many for far too long.

[idirtify]

less evidenced?
in your mind perhaps.


In my mind, yes, but my mind only got its info from yours. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are the one who claimed the evidence for creation was the unknown origin of the elements. Look…NOTHING could be “less evidence” than an UNKNOWN origin.

[Ranger29860]

Show yours. I have asked that several times.
And don't bring up Darwin or his writings or anything based on his writings. That is NOT evidence.
Darwin was a blathering fool that has been taken seriously by too many for far too long.

Ok give me a few minutes to collect my links. BTW sadly a couple of these are going to be summary reports of peer reviewed papers since you have to pay for the whole thing. But if your interested in details of some their are a few webpages of more in depth summary's i just don't like linking things sourcing what i'm try to show directly.

[idirtify]

Show yours. I have asked that several times.
And don't bring up Darwin or his writings or anything based on his writings. That is NOT evidence.
Darwin was a blathering fool that has been taken seriously by too many for far too long.

ANY adaptation to a changed environment is better evidence than an unknown origin. In that sense, a comparison of the evidence shows a creation score of zero, and evolution score of millions. Of course this is also evidence that your unyielding bias toward the theory of creation is a programmed religious conviction that impedes your ability to think clearly (per the OP article). (Note, this is nothing against you personally.)

[pcosmar]

In my mind, yes, but my mind only got its info from yours. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are the one who claimed the evidence for creation was the unknown origin of the elements. Look…NOTHING could be “less evidence” than an UNKNOWN origin.
Ahh,
but by my "theory" the origin is known. They were created.

;)

[Ranger29860]

Ok first one is a great write up on how multi-cell organism's evolved. Now you will notice in the description on animals it talks about a gap in knowledge this is not an admittance of no evidence it is simply a scientist being honest and not claiming absolute proof on a subject of how not if. The point of this paper is to show that 1 cell can turn into many it is simply a small step in the longer line of evidence that i'm posting. Also not the references at the bottom feel free to check them out your self.

http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/biog1101/outlines/Bonner%20-Origin%20of%20Multicellularity.pdf

Ok next up is Fish to Land Animals.
Here is a really good article on Tetrapods AKA Fish With Fingers
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Terrestrial_Vertebrates&contgroup=Sarcopterygii

plenty of references to source material. So please i beg of you fact check me.

[pcosmar]

Ok first one is a great write up on how multi-cell organism's evolved. Now you will notice in the description on animals it talks about a gap in knowledge this is not an admittance of no evidence it is simply a scientist being honest and not claiming absolute proof on a subject of how not if. The point of this paper is to show that 1 cell can turn into many it is simply a small step in the longer line of evidence that i'm posting. Also not the references at the bottom feel free to check them out your self.

http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/biog1101/outlines/Bonner%20-Origin%20of%20Multicellularity.pdf
Excuse me. But that is not evidence. that is opinion and speculation, regardless of how well thought out and composed.
The gaps are filled with a bias, a preconceived belief in evolution.
Present evidence. You can not because none exists.
A paper written to support an unproven (though accepted) position is not evidence.
It is an attempt to explain a position of Faith.

[Ranger29860]

Excuse me. But that is not evidence. that is opinion and speculation, regardless of how well thought out and composed.
The gaps are filled with a bias, a preconceived belief in evolution.
Present evidence. You can not because none exists.
A paper written to support an unproven (though accepted) position is not evidence.
It is an attempt to explain a position of Faith.

I give a peer reviewed paper with references and an easy to understand explanation of Multicellularity which describes what happens. AND REFERENCES THE PEER REVIEWED STUDIES THAT SHOW THIS. And you say no evidence?

Learn to read! I am so sorry you education failed you and you believe any crap that is spoon fed to you by your community I give up on you. It is simply to much to have have to explain something that a elementary student can understand to a grown adult.

You see no evidence because you choose not to see it. Knowledge is power and its people like you who crap all over science and its results but love to use it in your daily lives that make me lose hope in humans. You do not want to learn it is clear to me now. I could go on about germ theory and dogs evolving same with horses, cows, hell even plants but it will fall on deaf ears. You are doomed to live a life of ignorance so please get out of the way while real contributing members of society get some work done.

[ClayTrainor]

I give a peer reviewed paper with references and an easy to understand explanation of Multicellularity which describes what happens. AND REFERENCES THE PEER REVIEWED STUDIES THAT SHOW THIS. And you say no evidence?


"A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." :)

[pcosmar]

I give a peer reviewed paper with references and an easy to understand explanation of Multicellularity which describes what happens. AND REFERENCES THE PEER REVIEWED STUDIES THAT SHOW THIS. And you say no evidence?

.

It is not evidence. It is speculation and biased. That is clear in the first sentence.
It attempts to explain something that there is no proof of.

It is nothing but evolution apologetics. Not evidence.
In case you are unfamiliar with the concept,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

And you can stuff your feigned intellectual superiority up your ass where it belongs.
I do find the phony superiority complex both annoying and amusing. but mostly annoying.
:(

[pcosmar]

"A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." :)

No one has presented any facts. I keep asking for them.
Quoting from a fool is not "facts". Writings by apologists are not evidence.
They are just opinion.

[Ranger29860]

It is not evidence. It is speculation and biased. That is clear in the first sentence.
It attempts to explain something that there is no proof of.


I'm not playing anymore have fun!

“All wish to possess knowledge, but few, comparatively speaking, are willing to pay the price.”

[ClayTrainor]

It attempts to explain something that there is no proof of.


Would you also argue that there is no proof that DNA can consistently and repeatedly identify biological relationships?

[ClayTrainor]

No one has presented any facts. I keep asking for them.

Fact.. DNA can consistently determine biological relationships.

Fact... Through DNA analysis we can determine that all life on earth is related

Fact... Life on earth has existed for a long time, and has changed form many times since the beginning.


So, with these basic facts, we can either determine that life gradually changed due to some form of natural process, or perhaps a supernatural entity promoted the change through some kind of supernatural power. Would you argue that there is about as much evidence for either explanation, or that one is more probable than the other? Based on what?

[pcosmar]

Would you also argue that there is no proof that DNA can consistently and repeatedly identify biological relationships?

DNA neither proves or disproves either evolution or creation.

[ClayTrainor]

DNA neither proves or disproves either evolution or creation.

...


Fact.. DNA can consistently determine biological relationships.

Fact... Through DNA analysis we can determine that all life on earth is related

Fact... Life on earth has existed for a long time, and has changed form many times since the beginning.


So, with these basic facts, we can either determine that life gradually changed due to some form of natural process, or perhaps a supernatural entity promoted the change through some kind of supernatural power. Would you argue that there is about as much evidence for either explanation, or that one is more probable than the other? Based on what?

[moostraks]

The only thing I saw you show is that eugenics WAS being taught; not currently and not under the subject of evolution. Now if you are adding to that, and claiming that it is currently being taught in general, albeit covertly, I would not dispute that – but that’s still not an indictment against teaching evolution. Even if some teacher is basing their eugenics bias on evolution or natural selection, idiots make idiotic conclusions about good science does nothing to discredit the science.

Edit: And it sure doesn’t seem to be working out for them, since the poor and uneducated classes, under the elitist’s programs/agendas, are growing by leaps and bounds.

Then you didn't read.
"Historian Steven Selden has illustrated the extensive infiltration of eugenics into the American textbook. High school and college students were regularly bombarded with eugenic rhetoric in their natural sciences lessons."

http://www.umw.edu/hisa/resources/Student%20Projects/Cincinnati/students.umw.edu/_ncinc5ce/impact.html

And
"Sax built his claim on the principle that had animated eugenicists since the turn of the twentieth century: specifically that natural selection’s power to progressively cleanse the species of its weak had been rendered inoperative by advances in medicine and sanitation. Western industrial societies would have to consciously compensate if they were to prevent civilization from collapsing under the weight of the “morons” who could now survive and breed thanks to the tax dollars devoted to health care and social services....

More influential than the work of Sax were two books published in 1948, William Vogt’s The Road to Survival and Fairfield Osborn’s Our Plundered Planet (see Pierre Desrochers and Christine Hoffbauer’s “The Post War Intellectual Roots of the Population Bomb”). Vogt and Osborn pioneered what later scholars have labeled “neo-Malthusian ecology” (see J. B. Foster’s, “Malthus’ Essay on Population at Age 200: A Marxian View”)...

In The Challenge of Man’s Future (1954), Harrison Brown illustrated what he suggested was the “natural” course of evolution. The introduction of a disrupting force (the fox in this case) leads to increasing oscillation in the health and numbers of interdependent species which leads to a spike in growth followed by rapid decline and extinction. This graphic sequence, followed in the text by exponential curves of everything from fossil fuel use to human population growth, illustrated Brown’s theme: if reproduction and resource management were not expertly guided, evolution would soon wipe out humanity.

For Brown, rapid population growth was the preface to a period of rapid evolutionary oscillation that would soon shake and destroy civilization. The only thing that might slow the process down would be “a broad eugenics program … that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates."...

As stated above, eugenics became a dirty word in the later 1950s. Fortunately for the alarmists, it turned out the word wasn’t required to advance the control theme. Hugh Moore, Dixie Cup magnate and pamphleteer, found he could distill the complex arguments of Sax, Vogt, Osborn and Brown down to a simple battle between good and evil, between fullness and hunger, and between freedom and Communism. The argument played well.

Sax and Moore’s graphs both found a home in the high school textbook New Dynamic Biology, published by Rand McNally in 1959.

Cleansed of its overt racist stench, the exponential curve leapt from the pamphlets of Sax and Moore to the pages of biology textbooks beginning in 1959.

http://www.textbookhistory.com/?p=1291


It is being taught directly related to Darwinism.

[ClayTrainor]

DNA neither proves or disproves either evolution or creation.

Do you accept that DNA can be used to consistently and repeatedly to determine biological relationships?

If so, what is your explanation for why Humans are more biologically related to Chimpanzees and other apes, than any other category of species? Did God want to make us very similar to other apes, as opposed to other species?

[Ranger29860]

...

lol that is the proper response.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Your human conscience is a complex system of rapidly firing electrical impulses in your brain, combined with chemical action potentials along the axons and neural pathways. It is purely biological processes that allow us to have a conscience. Humans only have a conscience because it is enables us to survive within our environment. If we need a tail to maintain balance, we would develop a tail. If we didn't need a conscience to survive, we would lose it.

This proves the existence of three types of education: The uneducated, the educated, and the diseducated.
We aren't put on this earth to survive, but to thrive. See, here is the subtle point. People think wars are caused by races against other races, classes against other classes, and philosophies against other philosophies. In actuality, wars are caused by the older generations teaching the younger generations one simple truth:
Our ancestors were superior to us, but because they loved us by instilling themselves into our lacking, we grew to become superior to them.
You can either accept this truth for what it is or pay a dear price for rebelling against it.

[Sola_Fide]

DNA neither proves or disproves either evolution or creation.

You are exactly right.

It is just as reasonable to assume the similarity of DNA is proof of a common Designer who gave us the information.

[idirtify]

Ahh,
but by my "theory" the origin is known. They were created.

;)

Seriously…Yes, I know that you claim knowledge of the origin. But just making the claim is not evidence, especially when you base your knowledge on the lack of knowledge. This is not only circular reasoning, but your circle contains literally “nothing”. (Did you ever Google “god of the gaps”?)

…Or is your winky-face a hint that you may be coming around?

[ClayTrainor]

It is just as reasonable to assume the similarity of DNA is proof of a common Designer who gave us the information.

- DNA confirms that all life on earth is related

- DNA confirms that we can consistently and repeatedly determine biological relationships.

- Life on earth has existed for a long time, and has changed form many times since the beginning.

By understanding these basic facts, we can either determine that life has gradually changed due to some form of natural process, or perhaps a supernatural entity promoted the change through some kind of supernatural power. Both of these still involve some kind of biological change over time, which confirms that some kind of evolutionary process took place. Life appears to have changed over time, whether you believe a God was involved or not.

Am I being unfair or naive with this assessment??

[idirtify]

I'm not playing anymore have fun!

“All wish to possess knowledge, but few, comparatively speaking, are willing to pay the price.”

Ranger,

Although your evidence is good, your emotional responses in your last two posts constitute a fail. Although I am on your side of the debate, I disagree with your method. All you had to do was compare evidence. Did you know that the only “evidence” provided here by the creationists is unknown origin? That’s right; their only “evidence” is…THE UNKOWN. LOL. The unknown = NOTHING. Instead of opening the gate to insults, you could have easily refuted the opponent’s nothing (with basically ANYTHING).

[idirtify]

Then you didn't read.

http://www.umw.edu/hisa/resources/Student%20Projects/Cincinnati/students.umw.edu/_ncinc5ce/impact.html

And

http://www.textbookhistory.com/?p=1291


It is being taught directly related to Darwinism.

OK, you were saying that eugenics is currently being taught by idiots who base it on Natural Selection. OK. Now, how is that related to this discussion? Does it refute Natural Selection or evolution? Does it support creationism? Does it relate to the OP in any way? What do idiots who make idiotic conclusions have to do with a thread about the fact that religious convictions impede clear thought? IOW what is your point?

[idirtify]

You are exactly right.

It is just as reasonable to assume the similarity of DNA is proof of a common Designer who gave us the information.

But nothing suggested here, as a basis or evidence, is less reasonable than unknown origins. IOW nothing is less reasonable than to assume the lack of knowledge is evidence of god or creation.

[Sola_Fide]

- DNA confirms that all life on earth is related

- DNA confirms that we can consistently and repeatedly determine biological relationships.

- Life on earth has existed for a long time, and has changed form many times since the beginning.

By understanding these basic facts, we can either determine that life has gradually changed due to some form of natural process, or perhaps a supernatural entity promoted the change through some kind of supernatural power. Both of these still involve some kind of biological change over time, which confirms that some kind of evolutionary process took place. Life appears to have changed over time, whether you believe a God was involved or not.

Am I being unfair or naive with this assessment??

My point is that the commonality of the gene code is just as much evidence for a common designer as it is for a common ancestor.

The difference in how you arrive at the two conclusions is what you presuppose at the beginning. THAT is where we need to have the debate...at the presuppositional level, at the level of axioms.

Still, people here keep engaging in the inductive fallacy by attempting to derive a universal truth from sense experience. You cannot logically do this...and I wonder if most people even understand the problem of induction.

[Ranger29860]

Ranger,

Although your evidence is good, your emotional responses in your last two posts constitute a fail. Although I am on your side of the debate, I disagree with your method. All you had to do was compare evidence. Did you know that the only “evidence” provided here by the creationists is unknown origin? That’s right; their only “evidence” is…THE UNKOWN. LOL. The unknown = NOTHING. Instead of opening the gate to insults, you could have easily refuted the opponent’s nothing (with basically ANYTHING).

I've pretty much assumed he's a troll at this point. I have had a few threads with him before on this subject and its the same BS over and over. So i simply said my peace if he was legit and am not feeding anymore.

[idirtify]

- DNA confirms that all life on earth is related

- DNA confirms that we can consistently and repeatedly determine biological relationships.

- Life on earth has existed for a long time, and has changed form many times since the beginning.

By understanding these basic facts, we can either determine that life has gradually changed due to some form of natural process, or perhaps a supernatural entity promoted the change through some kind of supernatural power. Both of these still involve some kind of biological change over time, which confirms that some kind of evolutionary process took place. Life appears to have changed over time, whether you believe a God was involved or not.

Am I being unfair or naive with this assessment??

Not at all. That’s a very good approach. Just ask the creationists if they oppose the whole concept/record of biological change, or if they only disagree over the force behind the change. It’s always good to ask about the precise position.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You are exactly right.

It is just as reasonable to assume the similarity of DNA is proof of a common Designer who gave us the information.

In order to fulfill the prophecy, Christ first had to bless the Ten Commandments in the Jewish temple. This stage is representative of DNA, the law, and structure. Just consider, as Christ was having to do this, he was blessing the same laws that had condemned his mother prior as a prostitute?
After fulfilling the prophecy, Christ left the temple and never looked back. From this time on, Christ was free from the law. He tended to heal people more by speaking the Gospel to them than by touching them (which was an expression of the law). This stage is representative of motion, change and spontaneity. It was during this time that He expressed the fullness of His Will.
In understanding the religion of science, the philosophy of science is supposed to deal with the matters of reduction and unification. Yet, that is exactly what modern science doesn't do. In other words, the philosophy of science is supposed to look for meaning from similar conclusions created by the different levels of the endeavors of science with examples of these being biology, chemistry, and physics. (reduction). When they are uniform, this substantiates science itself. In comarison, unification deals with the question of whether the natural and cognitive sciences have any relationship.
There was a time when science believed that people reproduce themselves by way of mixing the substances of male and female in a single container like the wet mixture of paint. In other words, there was proof that the offspring took the characteristics of each parent as the child after its birth would look similar to both of them. In other words, sexual reproduction appeared to be fluid. Mendelian genetics and Charles Darwin amongst many others cast doubt on this by demonstrating a lot of evidence showing how sexual reproduction is actually dry particulated. In other words, the male and female don't mix together like paint, but their chromosomal molecules are set side by side with one being a dominant gene and the other recessive.
While the law of the DNA determined the child by way of the dominant gene, sometimes it got zapped by radiation leaving the recessive gene to express itself. In the end, the determination of the cell is spontaneous as it later divides into a living organism.
Why doesn't science reduce this chemistry and biology down to the level of physics? Well, it can't. So, what does it do? Well, as science can do whatever it desires to do, as it exists to serve its own best interest, it chooses the insane route of simply rejecting unification and reduction.
In other words, the philosophy of science has developed to the extent that no one knows what is going on. There is no design. It has become madness out of control. Like a vehicle being operated without a driver.

[tpreitzel]

Ranger,

Although your evidence is good, your emotional responses in your last two posts constitute a fail. Although I am on your side of the debate, I disagree with your method. All you had to do was compare evidence. Did you know that the only “evidence” provided here by the creationists is unknown origin? That’s right; their only “evidence” is…THE UNKOWN. LOL. The unknown = NOTHING. Instead of opening the gate to insults, you could have easily refuted the opponent’s nothing (with basically ANYTHING).

Your illogical blather is as nutty as ever. I can't stop laughing. Seriously, reread your nutty assertion that the "unknown = NOTHING" about a thousand times if necessary... Maybe, the light will finally dawn, but probably not.

[idirtify]

My point is that the commonality of the gene code is just as much evidence for a common designer as it is for a common ancestor.

The difference in how you arrive at the two conclusions is what you presuppose at the beginning. THAT is where we need to have the debate...at the presuppositional level, at the level of axioms.

Still, people here keep engaging in the inductive fallacy by attempting to derive a universal truth from sense experience. You cannot logically do this...and I wonder if most people even understand the problem of induction.

Nothing is more “inductive” than taking an unknown and arbitrarily inserting a known; where your only basis is a lack of knowledge. You criticize evolutionists for “attempting to derive a universal truth from sense experience”, yet your camp derives a far MORE universal truth from far LESS. Even if I were to agree with your claim that evidence is nothing more than “sense experience”, I could still easily refute yours (your “sense experience”/”evidence”) – because it’s nothing more than unknown origins. I don’t see how anything could be more fallacious.

[ClayTrainor]

My point is that the commonality of the gene code is just as much evidence for a common designer as it is for a common ancestor.

So you're going to completely ignore my point, and my question, and go off on your own tangent? What was the point of even quoting my post?

If my point was naive or unfair, I would appreciate you pointing out exactly where and why. :)



The difference in how you arrive at the two conclusions is what you presuppose at the beginning. THAT is where we need to have the debate...at the presuppositional level, at the level of axioms.

What Axiom negates the idea that life on earth has changed form over time?



Still, people here keep engaging in the inductive fallacy by attempting to derive a universal truth from sense experience. You cannot logically do this...and I wonder if most people even understand the problem of induction.

Do you feel that the scientific method has any value, whatsoever? If so, to what degree?

http://www.pfscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Screen-shot-2010-09-10-at-10.33.07-AM.png

[idirtify]

Your illogical blather is as nutty as ever. I can't stop laughing. Seriously, reread your nutty assertion that the "unknown = NOTHING" about a thousand times if necessary... Maybe, the light will finally dawn, but probably not.

When you stop laughing, please explain why you disagree with my claim that the unknown equals nothing in terms of evidence for a theory. Although you could have explained your disagreement when you made it, you did not.

[Theocrat]

Nothing is more “inductive” than taking an unknown and arbitrarily inserting a known; where your only basis is a lack of knowledge. You criticize evolutionists for “attempting to derive a universal truth from sense experience”, yet your camp derives a far MORE universal truth from far LESS. Even if I were to agree with your claim that evidence is nothing more than “sense experience”, I could still easily refute yours (your “sense experience”/”evidence”) – because it’s nothing more than unknown origins. I don’t see how anything could be more fallacious.

Your claim that God is "unknown," assumes prior knowledge that we can't know anything about God, nor has God made Himself known to us. So it only begs the question of "How do you know such information about what you claim is unknown?" Think about that.

Really, what you're admitting is that you don't like or agree with the evidence for God's existence, so therefore, God is unknown because you are not satisfied with the terms and evidences of His existence, presented by those who believe in Him and/or the testimony of Scripture. It's a subtle but subjective rejection, on your part.

[ClayTrainor]

When you stop laughing, please explain why you disagree with my claim that the unknown equals nothing in terms of evidence for a theory. Although you could have explained your disagreement when you made it, you did not.

Stop with your illogical blather... :p:D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Nothing is more “inductive” than taking an unknown and arbitrarily inserting a known; where your only basis is a lack of knowledge. You criticize evolutionists for “attempting to derive a universal truth from sense experience”, yet your camp derives a far MORE universal truth from far LESS. Even if I were to agree with your claim that evidence is nothing more than “sense experience”, I could still easily refute yours (your “sense experience”/”evidence”) – because it’s nothing more than unknown origins. I don’t see how anything could be more fallacious.

First off, if my opponent is a baboon, then I'm a chimp. Second, if my opponent is dead wrong, then I won't realize how dead wrong I will become as future generations laugh at me. Third, science and math don't relate. As science operates on reason, math is powered by the principle of better squaring the infinite space within circles while, at times, starting all over because some Bozo discovered another missing number, irrational number, imaginary number, or invisible number (zero). So, science and probability shouldn't be used together as probability is mathemtics while working with that way of measuring can mask what is truly going on in science.
This is what Aristotle believed (the more irrational and artistic Plato was the one who believed math to be scientific) and, yet, just consider how wrong he became? Indeed, the sun does not weigh less than the moon and it less than the earth. Heavy things don't fall towards the center of the earth. The earth itself doesn't sit motionless at the center of the universe.
But, then again, Einstein argued that the universal view held by Sir Isaac Newton has no less viability today as his own theory of relativity.

[Mini-Me]

My point is that the commonality of the gene code is just as much evidence for a common designer as it is for a common ancestor.

The difference in how you arrive at the two conclusions is what you presuppose at the beginning. THAT is where we need to have the debate...at the presuppositional level, at the level of axioms.

Still, people here keep engaging in the inductive fallacy by attempting to derive a universal truth from sense experience. You cannot logically do this...and I wonder if most people even understand the problem of induction.

You can use induction to probabilistically determine whether a hypothesis is consistent with the world, and whether it will serve as a useful prediction for the future. The more experiences you have that are consistent with each other, the more confident you can become in your hypothesis/theory.

Does this mean every scientific theory is an absolute truth? Of course not. It can always be incomplete or even wrong, because induction is probabilistic only. That said, theories may nevertheless be true as well. Therefore, it is incorrect to say you cannot arrive at a universal truth through induction. You can in fact arrive at universal truths, and you will generally arrive at them faster and more frequently than using some other methods (e.g. blind guessing).

Instead, the weakness of induction is simply that it cannot be used to prove that your belief is a universal truth. However, this weakness is NOT unique to induction; deduction shares a similar weakness in that it must start from axiomatic assumptions. These may or may not be correct, but it is impossible to prove their correctness. To justify our axioms logically, the best we can do is demonstrate their consistency with the world we live in...which ironically uses induction. (We could also try justifying them through circular claims to authority, but I find this much less convincing.)

Note that I am NOT defending the academic community's over-reliance on induction, empiricism, and positivism. (I'm also not interested in joining the evolution debate in this thread.) A lot of fields, like economics, simply have too many interdependent (and hidden) variables for people to arrive at useful/sane theories through induction, and attempts have often been disastrous (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html). Deductive reasoning from fundamental axioms can result in a much more consistent, reliable understanding in fields like this, and empirical evidence is better used to test a theory than justify/form it initially.

[ClayTrainor]

You can use induction to probabilistically determine whether a hypothesis is consistent with the world, and whether it will serve as a useful prediction for the future. The more experiences you have that are consistent with each other, the more confident you can become in your hypothesis/theory.

Does this mean every scientific theory is an absolute truth? Of course not. It can always be incomplete or even wrong, because induction is probabilistic only. That said, theories may nevertheless be true as well. Therefore, it is incorrect to say you cannot arrive at a universal truth through induction. You can in fact arrive at universal truths, and you will generally arrive at them faster and more frequently than using some other methods (e.g. blind guessing).

Instead, the weakness of induction is simply that it cannot be used to prove that your belief is a universal truth. However, this weakness is NOT unique to induction; deduction shares a similar weakness in that it must start from axiomatic assumptions. These may or may not be correct, but it is impossible to prove their correctness. To justify our axioms logically, the best we can do is demonstrate their consistency with the world we live in...which ironically uses induction. (We could also try justifying them through circular claims to authority, but I find this much less convincing.)

Note that I am NOT defending the academic community's over-reliance on induction, empiricism, and positivism. A lot of fields, like economics, simply have too many interdependent (and hidden) variables for people to arrive at useful/sane theories through induction, and attempts have often been disastrous (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html). Deductive reasoning from fundamental axioms can result in a much more consistent, reliable understanding in fields like this, and empirical evidence is better used to test a theory than justify/form it initially.

I always feel like I learn a great deal, whenever I read one of your posts, and this is no exception. Thank you very much for this clear and concise post. This helps clear a lot of things up for me. :)

(Will give +rep, when I get my power back)

[idirtify]

Your claim that God is "unknown," assumes prior knowledge that we can't know anything about God, nor has God made Himself known to us. So it only begs the question of "How do you know such information about what you claim is unknown?" Think about that.

Really, what you're admitting is that you don't like or agree with the evidence for God's existence, so therefore, God is unknown because you are not satisfied with the terms and evidences of His existence, presented by those who believe in Him and/or the testimony of Scripture. It's a subtle but subjective rejection, on your part.

It’s your camp that makes the bigger assumptions. You take the lack of knowledge about certain origins and arbitrarily assume that it means god is the originator. And you can’t credibly describe my assertion that a certain origin is unknown as an assumption, just because you are presuming to know. Your presumption is based on no real evidence, but only said lack of knowledge; which is another grand assumption: that knowledge is its own evidence.

Readers, per the following evidence, it looks like we have yet another case of religious conviction:
1) Rejects the concept of evidence;
2) Ignores relative comparison;
3) Makes self-defeating criticisms;
4) Claims I need evidence to show that something is not known;
5) Resorts to unflattering personal speculations.

[idirtify]

First off, if my opponent is a baboon, then I'm a chimp. Second, if my opponent is dead wrong, then I won't realize how dead wrong I will become as future generations laugh at me. Third, science and math don't relate. As science operates on reason, math is powered by the principle of better squaring the infinite space within circles while, at times, starting all over because some Bozo discovered another missing number, irrational number, imaginary number, or invisible number (zero). So, science and probability shouldn't be used together as probability is mathemtics while working with that way of measuring can mask what is truly going on in science.
This is what Aristotle believed (the more irrational and artistic Plato was the one who believed math to be scientific) and, yet, just consider how wrong he became? Indeed, the sun does not weigh less than the moon and it less than the earth. Heavy things don't fall towards the center of the earth. The earth itself doesn't sit motionless at the center of the universe.
But, then again, Einstein argued that the universal view held by Sir Isaac Newton has no less viability today as his own theory of relativity.

I’m sorry, but I completely miss your point. I suspect it’s waaay over my head.

[moostraks]

OK, you were saying that eugenics is currently being taught by idiots who base it on Natural Selection. OK. Now, how is that related to this discussion? Does it refute Natural Selection or evolution? Does it support creationism? Does it relate to the OP in any way? What do idiots who make idiotic conclusions have to do with a thread about the fact that religious convictions impede clear thought? IOW what is your point?


"In other words, when we think we're reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing. Or to use an analogy offered by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt: We may think we're being scientists, but we're actually being lawyers (PDF). Our "reasoning" is a means to a predetermined end—winning our "case"—and is shot through with biases. They include "confirmation bias," in which we give greater heed to evidence and arguments that bolster our beliefs, and "disconfirmation bias," in which we expend disproportionate energy trying to debunk or refute views and arguments that we find uncongenial."

From the original article.

I am not arguing evolution with you. I told you that already. You are too emotionally invested in winning every argument here and even in acknowledging an error you are confrontational. Talking to you is like sand slipping through one's fingers. Your
'reasoning' limits the discussion and you backpedal like a used car salesman.

These people aren't idiots. They are using plausible theories in a targeted manner to get people to take leaps of scientific faith to supposedly non-emotionally rationalize carrying through their eugenics agenda.This is why the switch to a science based discussion on eugenics. Education for an extensive time period has been using natural selection to promote a broader belief system both overtly and covertly. Evolution is accepted as fact without competitive theories in textbooks. Competitive theories that might require some ethical responsibility when the end goal lacks a moral conscience. By seeing that there has been a foul plan at play, some wonder how much of this science is formed to suit the purpose of those at the top of the food chain. It is not by chance that evolution is taught in a vacuum in government schools and situational ethics is increasing...

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You can use induction to probabilistically determine whether a hypothesis is consistent with the world, and whether it will serve as a useful prediction for the future. The more experiences you have that are consistent with each other, the more confident you can become in your hypothesis/theory.

Does this mean every scientific theory is an absolute truth? Of course not. It can always be incomplete or even wrong, because induction is probabilistic only. That said, theories may nevertheless be true as well. Therefore, it is incorrect to say you cannot arrive at a universal truth through induction. You can in fact arrive at universal truths, and you will generally arrive at them faster and more frequently than using some other methods (e.g. blind guessing).

Instead, the weakness of induction is simply that it cannot be used to prove that your belief is a universal truth. However, this weakness is NOT unique to induction; deduction shares a similar weakness in that it must start from axiomatic assumptions. These may or may not be correct, but it is impossible to prove their correctness. To justify our axioms logically, the best we can do is demonstrate their consistency with the world we live in...which ironically uses induction. (We could also try justifying them through circular claims to authority, but I find this much less convincing.)

Note that I am NOT defending the academic community's over-reliance on induction, empiricism, and positivism. (I'm also not interested in joining the evolution debate in this thread.) A lot of fields, like economics, simply have too many interdependent (and hidden) variables for people to arrive at useful/sane theories through induction, and attempts have often been disastrous (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html). Deductive reasoning from fundamental axioms can result in a much more consistent, reliable understanding in fields like this, and empirical evidence is better used to test a theory than justify/form it initially.

Please refer to the post prior to this one in regards to the use of probability in science. Imagine if probablity is a mask covering a face. Well, in using probability in my quest of finding out what is masking the truth, I would be fooling myself. Aristotle believed this when he said we should learn to be scientific without the use of math. Be careful. In history, the greatest scientist to ever live next to Aristotle himself was one determined to be poor in his use of math and logic -- Charles Darwin.
Then again, this isn't true either (Let me explain this paradox here. You see, while everything does have a philosophy, at the same time, it is okay for science to regect such a notion. In other words, the philosophy of science can behave by a design or it can choose not to. In this way, it becomes a sophisticated endeavor. In one instance, it can argue one side of the truth and then, after taking a break to collect itself, it can then argue the other side of the truth!)
If you don't like this type of arguing, don't take the philosophy of science or philosophy in general.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I’m sorry, but I completely miss your point. I suspect it’s waaay over my head.
One can't accurately measure the space of a circle. But they can measure it better and better. Then again, new numbers are discovered all the time. The ancient Greeks didn't accept the illogical notions of the concept of "zero," as how can a value exist equal to nothing, or the number of *"infinity," which is equally insane.
Hello? Imaginary numbers? Irrational numbers?
I've posted this in here before. Big ole Grandfather figures it all out but then little old grandmother discovers a missing number to add to the conclusion tossing the whole equasion out the window. Oops!

*How do you like how I switched around the words concept and number when expressing the values of zero as a number and infinity as a concept? Indeed, infinity is a true number! So, we haven't even begun to learn.

[idirtify]

From the original article.

I am not arguing evolution with you. I told you that already. You are too emotionally invested in winning every argument here and even in acknowledging an error you are confrontational. Talking to you is like sand slipping through one's fingers. Your
'reasoning' limits the discussion and you backpedal like a used car salesman.

These people aren't idiots. They are using plausible theories in a targeted manner to get people to take leaps of scientific faith to supposedly non-emotionally rationalize carrying through their eugenics agenda.This is why the switch to a science based discussion on eugenics. Education for an extensive time period has been using natural selection to promote a broader belief system both overtly and covertly. Evolution is accepted as fact without competitive theories in textbooks. Competitive theories that might require some ethical responsibility when the end goal lacks a moral conscience. By seeing that there has been a foul plan at play, some wonder how much of this science is formed to suit the purpose of those at the top of the food chain. It is not by chance that evolution is taught in a vacuum in government schools and situational ethics is increasing...

I’ll ignore your unflattering distortions about my arguing techniques for now, and go directly to your point; which appears to be that evolution is too devoid of moral values (“ethical responsibility” or “moral conscience”) to be true – or at least too devoid to be allowed to be taught without the addition of creationism.

OK, but I’m afraid that leads us right back to before, where I asked you how it’s related to this thread. I don’t see any relevance to the article about religious conviction – unless you are claiming the IDIOTS who mistranslate some kind of agenda from natural selection are the ones with religious convictions. Or unless you are actually (deceptively) trying to discredit the validity of the theory of natural selection / evolution.

If you really want to argue for teaching more morals in school, advocate the teaching of PURE free market capitalism in economics classes and PURE individual liberty in government and social studies classes. But please do it in another thread.

[Mini-Me]

These people aren't idiots. They are using plausible theories in a targeted manner to get people to take leaps of scientific faith to supposedly non-emotionally rationalize carrying through their eugenics agenda.This is why the switch to a science based discussion on eugenics. Education for an extensive time period has been using natural selection to promote a broader belief system both overtly and covertly. Evolution is accepted as fact without competitive theories in textbooks. Competitive theories that might require some ethical responsibility when the end goal lacks a moral conscience. By seeing that there has been a foul plan at play, some wonder how much of this science is formed to suit the purpose of those at the top of the food chain. It is not by chance that evolution is taught in a vacuum in government schools and situational ethics is increasing...

I'm glad you posted this. For all its strengths, science can be very easily corrupted by politics. Self-interest, political agendas, and prejudices all affect the data you collect, the data you include/omit, your analysis of the data, and your final conclusions. Even more importantly, preconceptions affect the field of study people choose, and politics affect who is ultimately given a PhD (if some grad student is demolishing the entire committee's life work in his PhD dissertation, he's unlikely to make it too far). The latter can help explain why so many climatologists favor AGW theory, whereas it's primarily scientists in different but related fields who are sounding the alarms about unscientific and politically driven climate research; criticism has to come from outside the field, because true believers have a stranglehold over field publications and gatekeeping positions.

To name just a few examples, the physics community accepts that prevailing theories are incomplete or inconsistent, but novel approaches are quickly and rudely dismissed as quackery (partially out of arrogance, and partially because too many careers rest on the boat not getting rocked; for a variety of reasons, there's a lot of institutional inertia). Academic and governmental politics always favor certain theories and schools in economics as well, for various reasons. The whole anthropogenic global warming theory was created, funded, and manipulatively/deceptively marketed through entirely political forces, to the point where it's become more religion than science.

Although I tend to agree with evolution, I still think your post is important for everyone to consider and keep in mind at all times. Even if the science is top-notch and unbiased - which is obviously under debate in this thread - it can still be (and has been, and will continue to be) used to justify monstrous policies...and that could even be the whole reason it's marketed so heavily.

Caveat emptor.

[idirtify]

One can't accurately measure the space of a circle. But they can measure it better and better. Then again, new numbers are discovered all the time. The ancient Greeks didn't accept the illogical notions of the concept of "zero," as how can a value exist equal to nothing, or the number of *"infinity," which is equally insane.
Hello? Imaginary numbers? Irrational numbers?
I've posted this in here before. Big ole Grandfather figures it all out but then little old grandmother discovers a missing number to add to the conclusion tossing the whole equasion out the window. Oops!

*How do you like how I switched around the words concept and number when expressing the values of zero as a number and infinity as a concept? Indeed, infinity is a true number! So, we haven't even begun to learn.

OK, but this is only a guess…We agree that one can come to the most reasonable conclusions about truth/theory through the process of comparing relative validity/evidence. Right?

[idirtify]

I'm glad you posted this. For all its strengths, science can be very easily corrupted by politics. Political motivations or preconceptions affect the data you collect, the data you include/omit, your analysis of the data, and your final conclusions. For instance, the physics community accepts that prevailing theories are incomplete or inconsistent, but novel approaches are quickly and rudely dismissed as quackery (partially out of arrogance, and partially because too many careers rest on the boat not getting rocked; for a variety of reasons, there's a lot of institutional inertia). Academic and governmental politics always favor certain theories and schools in economics as well, for various reasons. The whole anthropogenic global warming theory was created, funded, and manipulatively/deceptively marketed through entirely political forces, to the point where it's become more religion than science.

Although I tend to agree with evolution, I still think your post is important for everyone to consider and keep in mind at all times. Even if the science is top-notch and unbiased - which is obviously under debate in this thread - it can still be (and has been, and will continue to be) used to justify monstrous policies...and that could even be the whole reason it's marketed so heavily.

Caveat emptor.

And fire can be used to kill. So what? How is that relevant to the subject about how religious conviction prevents people from understanding science and thinking clearly? I just don’t see how speaking about people using science for aggressive purposes relates to this – unless the speaker is trying to use a sophisticated method to support the religious believers who oppose the scientific theory.

[moostraks]

I’ll ignore your unflattering distortions about my arguing techniques for now, and go directly to your point; which appears to be that evolution is too devoid of moral values (“ethical responsibility” or “moral conscience”) to be true – or at least too devoid to be allowed to be taught without the addition of creationism.

OK, but I’m afraid that leads us right back to before, where I asked you how it’s related to this thread. I don’t see any relevance to the article about religious conviction – unless you are claiming the IDIOTS who mistranslate some kind of agenda from natural selection are the ones with religious convictions. Or unless you are actually (deceptively) trying to discredit the validity of the theory of natural selection / evolution.

If you really want to argue for teaching more morals in school, advocate the teaching of PURE free market capitalism in economics classes and PURE individual liberty in government and social studies classes. But please do it in another thread.

You argued that eugenics wasn't currently advocated/taught in schools, then argued it wasn't taught in correlation to evolution. So then you dismiss its pertinent relevance to your present argument which you seem to think is based on facts? Apparently again you did not read what I wrote since I gave you a possible explanation for people's misgivings on the theory of evolution as the intellectual community presents it (in schools esp.) since it is used as the framework for a greater agenda and lacks any foundational data.

I asked you earlier why you feel the need to win an argument based on a theory and you make assumptions on my motive rather than answer the question. You have been bent on controlling and belittling anyone who doesn't fawn all over your so called facts and even ridiculing those who do agree with you. If your behavior doesn't exemplify zealotry to the religion of science I am at a loss as to what does.

[moostraks]

I'm glad you posted this. For all its strengths, science can be very easily corrupted by politics. Political motivations or preconceptions affect the data you collect, the data you include/omit, your analysis of the data, and your final conclusions. For instance, the physics community accepts that prevailing theories are incomplete or inconsistent, but novel approaches are quickly and rudely dismissed as quackery (partially out of arrogance, and partially because too many careers rest on the boat not getting rocked; for a variety of reasons, there's a lot of institutional inertia). Academic and governmental politics always favor certain theories and schools in economics as well, for various reasons. The whole anthropogenic global warming theory was created, funded, and manipulatively/deceptively marketed through entirely political forces, to the point where it's become more religion than science.

Although I tend to agree with evolution, I still think your post is important for everyone to consider and keep in mind at all times. Even if the science is top-notch and unbiased - which is obviously under debate in this thread - it can still be (and has been, and will continue to be) used to justify monstrous policies...and that could even be the whole reason it's marketed so heavily.

Caveat emptor.

:) I probably tend toward evolution (in a micro sense but macro is still a bit too much for me to bite off as is usually presented) as well. I think that once they travel so many levels away from the original theory one should use greater and greater scepticism.

Indeed buyer beware...

[Mini-Me]

I always feel like I learn a great deal, whenever I read one of your posts, and this is no exception. Thank you very much for this clear and concise post. This helps clear a lot of things up for me. :)

(Will give +rep, when I get my power back)
Thanks, Clay. :o I'm glad you like my posts as much as I like yours! BTW, that might be the first time anyone has ever called my writing "concise." ;)



And fire can be used to kill. So what? How is that relevant to the subject about how religious conviction prevents people from understanding science and thinking clearly?
Aside from what moostraks just said, it may not be...but this thread touches on multiple subjects, not just the one you're focusing on. I chose to focus on the aspects that interested me, rather than joining in the pissing match. ;)

[idirtify]

You argued that eugenics wasn't currently advocated/taught in schools, then argued it wasn't taught in correlation to evolution. So then you dismiss its pertinent relevance to your present argument which you seem to think is based on facts? Apparently again you did not read what I wrote since I gave you a possible explanation for people's misgivings on the theory of evolution as the intellectual community presents it (in schools esp.) since it is used as the framework for a greater agenda and lacks any foundational data.

I asked you earlier why you feel the need to win an argument based on a theory and you make assumptions on my motive rather than answer the question. You have been bent on controlling and belittling anyone who doesn't fawn all over your so called facts and even ridiculing those who do agree with you. If your behavior doesn't exemplify zealotry to the religion of science I am at a loss as to what does.

Very good, I have drawn out your position and it’s as I suspected. You are against evolution because you think it “lacks any foundational data” (AS IF creationism has MORE foundational data). And you ice the cake by exacerbating your unflattering distortions that reveal you think my disagreements are an attack. Are you aware that your arguments look like a disguised religious conviction and your reaction to my disagreements resemble a fight-or-flight response, per the OP article?

For confirmation on that appearance, we will see how you proceed. Will you be further exacerbating your mischaracterizations and your misperceptions (that I am “controlling” and “belittling” and “ridiculing” and “exemplifying zealotry”)? Will you be stating that the void in knowledge of origins qualifies as “foundational data”?

[idirtify]

Aside from what moostraks just said, it may not be...but this thread touches on multiple subjects, not just the one you're focusing on. I chose to focus on the aspects that interested me, rather than joining in the pissing match. ;)

Of course I’m sure you know that you are only so free to join in off-topic diversions. But you see, this was never actually off-topic, since it has been revealed as nothing but a clever attempt to discredit evolution (directly related to the topic of “religious conviction”, complete with many of the classic symptoms). And regarding a “pissing match”, any such thing would mainly be an effect of the strong presence of religious conviction in this thread.

[pcosmar]

Of course I’m sure you know that you are only so free to join in off-topic diversions. But you see, this was never actually off-topic, since it has been revealed as nothing but a clever attempt to discredit evolution (directly related to the topic of “religious conviction”, complete with many of the classic symptoms). And regarding a “pissing match”, any such thing would mainly be an effect of the strong presence of religious conviction in this thread.

You are absolutely wrong. I was attempting to point out that evolution IS a religious conviction. It is based on faith.

And as I said repeatedly, you are welcome to your beliefs.
I do dispute the claim that it is science. I consider it pseudoscience. The same as Anthropomorphic Global Warming, or several other"beliefs" that attempt to present themselves as science.

You are welcome to your religion.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

OK, but this is only a guess…We agree that one can come to the most reasonable conclusions about truth/theory through the process of comparing relative validity/evidence. Right?

Let me ask you? If one can validate by creating a process that evaluates evidence, can one also validate by weeding out both the process and the evidence? In other words, this is just how it is! Just like Sir Isaac Newton said about gravity. Things accelerate! Now, do you understand the principle of how things accelerate together? If so, then you can understand how gravity in things attract. You don't understand it vice versa! See, even Sir Isaac Newton was unaware that he was onto something. He thought everyone understood the math he was doing. Then came the day when he realized how they didn't.
Still, gravity has never been substantiated as it can't be substantiated. Something which has always existed cannot exist. Therefore, how can it exist? This might sound crazy, but it is a valid point.

(In other words, think about it this way. Let's say everything is black and has always been black with no evidence of white. Now, if I were to show you the color white, then you could proclaim rightfully that there exists a color black. But that isn't how Newton introduced (proved) the concept of gravity. He said everything accelerates and this does not substantiate gravity. Look, consider how even Einstein did not say that things gravitate together. No, he took the trouble to invent a new kind of math that would explain how three dimensional holes in space fall towards and into each other.

[idirtify]

Originally Posted by idirtify
Of course I’m sure you know that you are only so free to join in off-topic diversions. But you see, this was never actually off-topic, since it has been revealed as nothing but a clever attempt to discredit evolution (directly related to the topic of “religious conviction”, complete with many of the classic symptoms). And regarding a “pissing match”, any such thing would mainly be an effect of the strong presence of religious conviction in this thread.


You are absolutely wrong. I was attempting to point out that evolution IS a religious conviction. It is based on faith.

And as I said repeatedly, you are welcome to your beliefs.
I do dispute the claim that it is science. I consider it pseudoscience. The same as Anthropomorphic Global Warming, or several other"beliefs" that attempt to present themselves as science.

You are welcome to your religion.

I wasn’t talking about you in that post. I was talking about moonstraks. But nonetheless, your claim that evolution is a religious conviction is false. Again, you avoid relative comparison. Since creationism has no real evidence and requires far more faith and a god, it easily qualifies as the religious conviction.

[idirtify]

Let me ask you? If one can validate by creating a process that evaluates evidence, can one also validate by weeding out both the process and the evidence? In other words, this is just how it is! Just like Sir Isaac Newton said about gravity. Things accelerate! Now, do you understand the principle of how things accelerate together? If so, then you can understand how gravity in things attract. You don't understand it vice versa! See, even Sir Isaac Newton was unaware that he was onto something. He thought everyone understood the math he was doing. Then came the day when he realized how they didn't.
Still, gravity has never been substantiated as it can't be substantiated. Something which has always existed cannot exist. Therefore, how can it exist? This might sound crazy, but it is a valid point.

(In other words, think about it this way. Let's say everything is black and has always been black with no evidence of white. Now, if I were to show you the color white, then you could proclaim rightfully that there exists a color black. But that isn't how Newton introduced (proved) the concept of gravity. He said everything accelerates and this does not substantiate gravity. Look, consider how even Einstein did not say that things gravitate together. No, he took the trouble to invent a new kind of math that would explain how three dimensional holes in space fall towards and into each other.

I understood that better, but I’m still not sure how it relates to the topic – or what side of the debate it puts you on.

[Sola_Fide]

You can use induction to probabilistically determine whether a hypothesis is consistent with the world, and whether it will serve as a useful prediction for the future. The more experiences you have that are consistent with each other, the more confident you can become in your hypothesis/theory.

Does this mean every scientific theory is an absolute truth? Of course not. It can always be incomplete or even wrong, because induction is probabilistic only. That said, theories may nevertheless be true as well. Therefore, it is incorrect to say you cannot arrive at a universal truth through induction. You can in fact arrive at universal truths, and you will generally arrive at them faster and more frequently than using some other methods (e.g. blind guessing).

Instead, the weakness of induction is simply that it cannot be used to prove that your belief is a universal truth. However, this weakness is NOT unique to induction; deduction shares a similar weakness in that it must start from axiomatic assumptions. These may or may not be correct, but it is impossible to prove their correctness. To justify our axioms logically, the best we can do is demonstrate their consistency with the world we live in...which ironically uses induction. (We could also try justifying them through circular claims to authority, but I find this much less convincing.)

Note that I am NOT defending the academic community's over-reliance on induction, empiricism, and positivism. (I'm also not interested in joining the evolution debate in this thread.) A lot of fields, like economics, simply have too many interdependent (and hidden) variables for people to arrive at useful/sane theories through induction, and attempts have often been disastrous (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html). Deductive reasoning from fundamental axioms can result in a much more consistent, reliable understanding in fields like this, and empirical evidence is better used to test a theory than justify/form it initially.


Deductive reasoning never needs to be "tested" or "verified" empirically. Its truth can be determined by its logical consistency.

But I do appreciate that you admit that inductive reasoning from sensation can never lead to a universal truth. I think that might help the people here who think science is the new infallible religion. Science itself begins on a fallacy (the inductive fallacy). You can never obtain a true statement from an inductive argument.

Also, hypotheses are ALWAYS assumed beforehand. The scientific method commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent.

(If P, then Q,
Q, therefore P).

An example of this:
If a person drops a ball, gravity will bring it to earth. Gravity has brought a ball to earth, therefore a person dropped it.

^^^The "scientific method" is based on this simple inductive fallacy. Atheists like Bertrand Russell and David Hume have admitted it. Most today just carry on like its logical and perfectly reasonable.

[AFPVet]

Deductive reasoning never needs to be "tested" or "verified" empirically. Its truth can be determined by its logical consistency.

But I do appreciate that you admit that inductive reasoning from sensation can never lead to a universal truth. I think that might help the people here who think science is the new infallible religion. Science itself begins on a fallacy (the inductive fallacy). You can never obtain a true statement from an inductive argument.

Also, hypotheses are ALWAYS assumed beforehand. The scientific method commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent.

(If P, then Q,
Q, therefore P).

An example of this:
If I drop this ball, gravity will bring it to earth. Gravity has brought this ball to earth, therefore I dropped it.

^^^The "scientific method" is based on this simple inductive fallacy. Atheists like Bertrand Russell and David Hume have admitted it. Most today just carry on like its logical and perfectly reasonable.

Exactly. The scientific 'methods' (empirical) assumes something... hypotheses are based upon research which are found upon investigating research questions. This is why empirical data does not provide a lot of answers. I prefer interpretive data which is subjective rather than objective—as in the case of sociological field research.

Take for example, a survey which asks what your favorite RPF theme is. In the empirical/scientific paradigm, the categories are selected prior to asking anyone anything; however, with interpretive, the categories are chosen based upon the responses.

However, this is not to say that interpretive is always better than empirical or critical—only that it depends upon the context of the question you are attempting to answer.

[Sola_Fide]

An example of this: If a person drops a ball, gravity will bring it to earth. Gravity has brought a ball to earth, therefore a person dropped it.

AFPVET,

That is the example I meant to use. I forgot to try to make it a universal truth rather than a subjective truth:) sorry.

[Slutter McGee]

Here,,,perhaps not. But in the larger world the religion of "humanism" is forcing these teachings in both schools and governance.
Eugenics (based on Darwin's theories) has been responsible for atrocities here in the US and world wide.

So yes, Force does concern me.

Eugenics is a complete bastardization of Darwin's theories. Humanism is not a religion either. Simply put, it is the belief that humanity can be a force for good. Now I realize that is a complete simplification of the term, but to call it a religion would be to ignore the generally accepted definition of "religion". Yay for 22 pages of scientific ignorance.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[AFPVet]

AFPVET,

That is the example I meant to use. I forgot to try to make it a universal truth rather than a subjective truth:) sorry.

I gotcha :) I agree... science can be extremely limited. While an experiment may be reliable and valid to a point, it generalizes and results in one reality instead of multiple realities.