I really don't like to go off topic on this magic blog, but I have seen the following video. I never saw such an asshole. He has no idea what he is talking about. He oversimplifies, draws wrong conclusions, if any and even dares to say that he is interested in science. What fucking idiot. And that is not based on science, but my own opinion.This guy made me angry. He is not trying to say that creationism is right, but he is trying to willfully hurt those who use the scientific method to further understand the universe. And the way he does it is by misdirection. He starts with one liners and jokes, which could have been in the repertoire of any close up magician. And then he brushes over the topics in a breathtaking speed which make it hard to argue against, because one is hit with the next wall of bullshit a second later.
I'm all for freedom of speech and all. But he is just an fucking idiot.
Make sure you watch this too... before watching the above video. Kind of stupid of me to set them up in the wrong order!
75 comments:
Also off topic - http://magicrants.blogspot.com/2012/05/being-artist.html
Anyone else think that one fellow arguing for creationism's beard made him look a bit like a monkey?
Related:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wzp1DEh6H3k
(thanks to Tomas Blomberg)
Tensai, reporting in.
But I got nothing to say.
On one side, we got people who think they are correct, and believe the other side is ignorant and pushing their beliefs onto other people.
And on the other side we have a group of people who think they are correct, and believe the other side is ignorant and pushing their beliefs onto other people.
And while we are on the topic of off-topic posts: Oi, Roland. You should find out if your blog can support a different comment system, cause the current one is a bitch to use. I gotta log out of all my other Google controlled accounts (Gmail, Youtube, etc), log onto my Tensai email, log into this comment system itself, post a comment, then wash/rinse/repeat. If ya had a more user friendly comment system, I think more people would offer their input. I've seen other Blogspot Blogs use different systems, so maybe that Trickster kid can help ya. That's my helpful bit of info for today.
Agreed with Tensai. Two parties pushing their arguments. Neither is correct.
Except one uses logic and reason, while the other uses... well, the opposite of that.
@Justin : Not true. Some arguments of evolution are also fallacious. I've studied both sides of the question.
You have studied creationism??? Oh holy fuck. Oh my goodness. What, erm, research did you do Mr Admin? Enlighten us please, as to how the theory of evolution is comparable to literal belief in a religious text. Please, Mr Admin, you can succeed where others have failed!
BS
There is this fallacy that both side are equal. They are not. Science is based evidence. Science offers testable evidence. Religion does not.
But you guys are right that both side claim to be right. But don't forget, that at least science is able to say... "Oh you got me there. That is probably wrong, let me check that!" And the answer is either "Yeah right we were wrong, we still don't know. So let's figure this out." or "Nope so far, based on the evidence this seems to be true, even though it feels wrong. It might be wrong, but so far we see no mistake. If new evidence comes in, we will take a look at that."
Now apply that thinking to religion.
Here's a comparable theory to creationism:
I created the universe and everything in it. Yes, me, Barry Solayme! I even created Admin, though now I realize that was a mistake. Any believers in evolution need to buy my next book, which PROVES my omnipotence, "The Universe: How I Created It!"
What's my proof? BECAUSE I SAY SO, YOU GODDAM HERETIC!!!!!
BS
1. I was referring to this specific instance.
2. But I still uphold what I said in regards to the entire debate (if you want to call what creationists do "debating.")
The thing is, a religion is not based on scientific fact. End of story. We all know that. God is not testable. Sure, there are some fallacious arguments within evolution, but a) those are not the norm, and b) evolution--unlike creationism--is not dependent on an INHERENTLY fallacious system of beliefs.
The theory of evolutin as is taught is BULLSHIT. Read 'In the Minds of Men'. But of course, you won't read it, because something other than Evolution is "inherently fallacious". Talk about concrete minds.
I'm not saying BIBLICAL creationism is true. I'm saying the theory of evolution AS IS TAUGHT is utter crap and the guy in the video is damn right about that one.
"But of course, you won't read it, because something other than Evolution is 'inherently fallacious.'"
I appreciate the mangling of my words, bucko, but I did not say anything other than evolution is fallacious. I said creationism is inherently fallacious. Which it is.
Inherent being the operative word there.
By the way, telling someone to read a book is not debating. It's convenient shorthand for projecting others' beliefs into the conversation, but if you'd like to engage a more intelligent discussion that amounts to more than calling something "crap," try a little harder.
You cannot debate a topic on a comments pasge and a BOOK is required to support all the facts. For this reason, I don't want to try harder!
And WHY IN THE WORLD would creationism be INHERENTLY FALLACIOUS, I have a hard time to understand. Why isn't the Big Bang INHERENTLY fallacious ? Why isn't EVOLUTION AS IS TAUGHT inherently fallacious given the lack of convincing evidence to support it ?
All our opinions are based on what scientists tell us. So we are all "projecting others' beliefs into the conversation" every day of our lives." Some people more than others though. LMAO.
"And WHY IN THE WORLD would creationism be INHERENTLY FALLACIOUS, I have a hard time to understand."
How someone could not understand is beyond me. But rather than taking your approach and saying, "Just read the Bible," I'll give two glaring examples.
1. It's based in a system of beliefs that was originated 2,000 years ago and concerned such clearly real phenomena as a talking bush, men raised from the dead, and pigs possessed by demons.
2. Despite what Christians would love to believe, it is simply not based on testable fact. For my money, testable fact almost always trumps faith-based leaps of logic.
Now, to your question of the Big Bang. The Big Bang is not inherently fallacious because it makes fucking sense. Not only does it makes fucking sense, it's been fucking tested. Scientist have created a Big Bang. They have observed a Big Bang. No word yet on whether they've gotten a burning bush to talk.
You keep saying evolution "as is taught," is fallacious. However, that's ALL you're saying. If you'd like to be more specific, be my guest. Otherwise, it's kind of hard to engage with vague blanket statements.
Haha, what if point 1 of yours were true ?
You clearly haven't read ANYTHING that challenges the Big Bang THEORY.
And so, any argumenting with you is POINTLESS because you do not have the facts of both sides of the story.
And yes, the Big Bang DOES NOT make "fucking sense" that's why many scientists don't believe in it.
It made sense at one time that the Earth was flat. LMAO.
And yes, you haven't watched the 1 hour 55 minutes video that Roland posted. Lol.
Amazing that the counter argument to Evolution is to point to a book (written by man) that depicts a fairy story about an all powerful and utterly capricious twat of an entity and say thats the truth.
N B and lets ignore the fact that this fairy story is an amalgam of hundreds of other fairy stories developed through the millenia.
Roland,
This may cheer you up :-
Since January 2007, Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison sentence after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including 12 tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions. He is incarcerated at the FPC Satellite Camp of the ADX Florence prison in Florence, Colorado.
So essentially he fits in with my rather wide generalisation that folk like this are just in it to collect money from the gullible.
"Haha, what if point 1 of yours were true ?"
lol
"You clearly haven't read ANYTHING that challenges the Big Bang THEORY."
Sure I have. I grew up in the Bible Belt. However, the only stuff that holds any weight for me is SCIENCE that challenges the Big Bang Theory. Not religion. I am not qualified to argue the science, because I don't know shit about it. I will hazard a guess that you don't as well. But I sure as shit know that I'm going to believe in something that's been tested and observed more than I'm going to believe that a pissy sky god put us on this earth thousands of years ago.
"It made sense at one time that the Earth was flat. LMAO."
Creationism refuses to evolve its beliefs, whereas that's what science is ALL ABOUT. I am not saying the Big Bang is absolutely true--I am saying that creationism, by its very nature, invalidates itself.
Justin, you have been drawn in by a cast iron twat. Admin is the only person so egregious that I have deleted his comments.
Check out his blog on conventional medicine, all will become clear. Among his contributions is the headline news that "vaccinations are not immunisations". Well, durr.
BS
Ouch. I figured as much when he recommended the infamous Taylor book. But that's just too much.
So it goes. Or, so it lolz.
Heh heh!
BS, what do you know about vaccination ? LOL.
@Justin : There are numerous scientific theories apart from the Big Bang. What do you mean creationism, BY ITS VERY NATURE, invalidates itself ? EVERYTHING is possible in a holographic universe.
Yes, thank you for free advertising of my blog, BS ;)
I think Admin is double-bluffing and he's secretly one of those darned lizards in disguise.
Somebody warn David Icke .!!!
That's good. As long as you talk about it, more people become aware of it. :) nice.
What do I know about vaccination?
Well, Mr Admin, where do I begin? As a fictional character, a puppet if you will, I know nothing about vaccination other than I used to drink pastis with Louis Pasteur before you were a glint in the escaped convict's eye.
But the guy who has his hand up my asshole? Well, uh, he knows a teensy weensy bit about biomedicine. Just a little.
(shhh, don't tell.)
As for your equating creationism with the theory of evolution in terms of credibility? Pffft. It doesn't take a philosopher to know that you are a major league asshole.
BS
Yeah, that'a what I thought. You don't believe in conventional evolution implies you are an asshole. In fact, you are MORE indoctrinated than the creationists. LMAO.
Well refute the points he is making in the video then, if you think he is wrong. Oh what's that, you can't ? Maybe it is YOU who have a belief system about evolution, not him. That he believes in the Bible is another story, but please, because you are so intelligent BS, please refute his arguments. LOL. What, you can'? Oh yeah, you HAVEN'T WATCHED the video yet. So who's more INDOCTRINATED ? LMAO.
Bwahahahahahaha
Save us all the 2hr crapathon, and instead summarise what you consider to be the cogent arguments that this leading scientist, (sorry, school teacher) puts forward. You seem to confuse intellectual rigour with "being indoctrinated". Do you have a borderline personality disorder?
BS
You kids are still going at it? Seriously?
To both sides, you look exactly the same. Both sides claim to be the 'Logical' and 'Correct Side'. That's how it works, the human believes that his ideas and ways of doing things are the 'Correct' way.
Come off it, Tensai. There is a world of difference between accepting the feasibility of a basic scientific theory on the one hand, and a belief system on the other.
I would never seek to argue against the meaning of belief systems, as such. But the appalling trend in arguing pseudo-science in order to justify theology is beneath my contempt. As should be the case for any thinking individual.
If you seriously put the two on a par, then... I dunno, it's a real shame. There's a cute English philosopher called Steven Law who recently published a book called "Believing Bullshit". I dare you to read it. Or if you can't be bothered, watch the 25min video Roland out up. It's a primer.
Well, from the outside looking in, looks like both sides are just claiming they are right. What makes yours so special?
Why should Tensai pick "Science did it, but we don't really know how." over "God did it, and we will never really know how."?
I've interacted with enough humans to know everyone thinks they are right and they alone have the answers. So what makes your side special?
If you can explain why Tensai speaks in the third person, then go figure.
BS
And you have clearly interacted with a poor subset of humans, intellectually, if they all thought they were right about everything. That's the difference, you see, about scientific approach to belief. Science doesn't care for dichotomy because it's a wee bit primitive. And doesn't make any sense. And is a bit stupid.
BS
1) The comment system is fine, unless of course you are hiding your comments behind a false name/account and are too fucking lazy to log in and out. I haven't heard BS bitching about having to log in, but I've noticed he's a lot more reasonable that that uppity Tensai. So quit your bitching Tensai, if you don't like it, fuck off and don't comment, I doubt there'll be any tears over the loss of your insignificant input.
2) Faith versus Science - Science wins every time because it is provable, but if people want to believe in their imaginary friend in the sky, then good for them. Just keep it out of the public school system, don't base medical decision on it, and if you try and shove it down my throat I'll shove it up your arse.
3) Admin is a brainless fuck wit of a troll
4) Another 1xTS, still showing that he thinks he's better than others and at the same time proving that he's not.
Well, you can't just slap a label of 'Science' on something, and think that makes it correct. There have been lots of 'Scientific' Theories that have been plain bullshit, but we didn't know that until later.
If you believe something, you gotta be able to back it up. You can just say "How do I know I'm right? Well, because(God/Science) says I am."
That's why both sides are pretty much the same. Both sides say they are right, then offer 'evidence' from their respective sides (Be it the Bible or from other Scientists).
Oh, hey Trickster. Didn't see ya there.
By the way, just remember Lack of Evidence doesn't mean an idea isn't true, and vice versa.
Lack of evidence doesn't make it right either idiot, and science adapts to evidence where as faith just ignores evidence and sticks to the same old dogma.
The flat earth is a perfect example, albeit not for the purpose it was used for earlier in this debate. Science proved it was wrong, accepted it and moved on with more study and research. If religions thought the earth was flat they'd ignore the obvious facts and still believe it, and probably claim that some fucking cosmic being was picking you up and carrying you back to the other side when you reached the edge.
@BS re. 3rd person - Because he's a pompous prick?
I reckon you could be right.
BS
Yeah, but the thing is some scientists do that too. A theory comes along and it's not accepted, even when some evidence is presented. They do this because their old beliefs are being challenged.
A nice example is the Big Bang Cosmological Model Theory. When it was first proposed by Lemaître, it was rejected by the majority of the science community, even though he offered actual evidence of it's occurrence.
The fact of the matter is: Humans aren't comfortable with change. This applies to ALL humans, not to just men of Faith. It's just our nature. People who practice Science are not immune to this fear.
Oh, you are talking about bad scientist here... well okay then. You are right in a way. Lots of scientists believe they are smart. And from that comes the inability to say: "I was wrong" and "I don't know"... but those are bad scientist. And fortunately they are in the minority.
Hear.
(and you really need to meet some decent people, Tensai.)
Yep yep, and only a minority of people of Faith are still New Earth Creationists. In America at least, I can't speak for other countries.
wait wait wait, I think we got different numbers. Gallup Poll: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_public.htm says 40% in 2010 in the US. The source is more than fishy... but there we have a number. The scientific method allows for the number to be changed, as new evidence is brought up. For good or for worse. Now YOU!
Well, I got my numbers from something called the 'Us Religious Landscape Survey'. It said that around 78% of American adults were of the Christian religion, which seems consistent with other numbers I've heard.
So I took that number, and I used a little math to figure out what percentage was New Earth Creationism. Around 60% were Theistic Evolution (More Catholics were Theistic Evolutionist than Protestant, which surprised me greatly). So if 60% are for Theistic Evolution, and we leave around 10% for the other beliefs (Old Earth Creationism, etc), then that leaves us with only 30% for New Earth.
That's my reasoning behind it. But then again, I'm not all that good with math. So whatever 30% of 70% of 100% of America is, that should be the amount of people who believe in New Earth Creationism. I hope I'm not wrong in saying that that number is a minority.
That's my reasoning behind it.
Well technically speaking 49% would be a minority from the whole 100%. Numbers are a great thing to play around with. Let's say one person dies of rare disease each year. Let's further say that this year it wasn't one person, but two. That is an increase of 100%... it's a dramatic increase, a horrible epidemic.
So for the record let me state: 40% is not a minority in my humble world view. It's still a fucking lot of people. More than there are scientists.
They are postulated figures.
It doesn't matter, though, who else believes in whatever. It is a matter of using your own intelligence (perhaps God given, perhaps not) to work these things out for yourself.
I haven't noticed anyone bashing faith. But I, and others, will continue to bash pseudoscientific bullshit.
BS(not)
(right on, Roland. Even though you stole my coins across.)
Well, if they can back-up their claims with reason and logic, I'm fine with that. But it must be REAL logic and reason, you can't just say "(God/Science) did it" then not know what you are talking about.
But seriously bro: The comment system is a bitch. Sometimes there is a Captcha System to, and that's even worse than having to log in every single time.
And BS, we are pretty much agreeing on the same point. I don't care what people think, so long as they can back it up. The main reason I commented in the first place is because I noticed several people dismissing other claims. And when I asked how they were so sure their beliefs were correct, they just replied to the effect of: "I'm sure because Science says it's right. How do I know Science is right? Because Science is always right."
That's not exactly a good enough reason, I've seen the same logic used by men of Faith in the form of: "How do I know God exists? Because the Bible says so. How do I know the Bible is right? Because God wrote the Bible, and the Bible is always right."
Those types of logic rarely lead to a nice discussion.
I'm gonna bounce now, I got stuff to do. There is a time and place for intellectual stimulating debate about the existence of a Meta-Physical Entity responsible for the creation of our known reality...
...but the comments section of a blog is neither a time nor a place to do it. Especially not when there are papers I need to write.
Have fun kids.
-Tensai (I signed my name just like they do on the Cafe, just in case you forgot who I am, and to remind myself how good it is to be me)
I was showing this guy how I could make a card come to the top of the deck with magic. He said, "I think you're doing a pass there, or maybe a side steal and shift."
Of course I was outraged. I said, "Well, those explanations are perfectly fine and they might accomplish much the same thing, but I tell you I don't use them. I do real magic."
And then I had to punch him in the face for being a blasphemer. Serves the bastard right with his big mouth.
There is one thing more annoying then strong believers and those are strong atheists who want to push their opinion (including soft "scientific" sounding voices etc).
We all know believers are idiots.If anyone is even dumb enough to believe this bullshit, theyre beyond help. I just leave them be, theyre not my kind of people anyway :)
I fully agree with Tensai.
"Except one [side] uses logic and reason, while the other uses... well, the opposite of that." (Justin)
Creationists start from their theory that the bible is actually meant as a scientific, historical, factual report (which in my humble opinion is not only inaccurate but disrespectful to the very religion they mean to uphold), and try to make the facts match that theory. Nuh-huh, not good. Evolutionists took it the other way round (as it should be) and formed a theory based on observed facts. That theory sounded great and made a lot of sense. Then newly discovered facts started to prick at that theory in an increasingly strong way, but scientists, like most people, have a problem with admitting "I don't know" and feel uncomfortable flushing out their beloved theory without another one to replace it with; therefore they do what religious fanatics do : they defend with teeth and nails what has become little more than another unsupported faith.
My logic-loving mind despises the faulty reasoning of both sides.
"Enlighten us please, as to how the theory of evolution is comparable to literal belief in a religious text." (Barry Solayme)
See above. ;)
"you guys are right that both side claim to be right. But don't forget, that at least science is able to say... «Oh you got me there. That is probably wrong, let me check that!»"(Roland)
We agree that's how it SHOULD work in theory, Roland, but more often than not, it doesn't. The scientific community is usually more comfortable with bending its standards in order to keep an unexplained phenomenon within the realm of what it already masters, than with accepting it as yet unexplained. A funny example: whenever there's a new UFO-like sighting, you'll always see an immediate burst of miscellaneous fanciful scientific explanations, most of them hurriedly made up with little knowledge or consideration of the facts, simply because they fear admitting the phenomenon to be so far unexplained would somehow feel like loosing to the whackos who see aliens everywhere. Same here: most scientists will, consciously or unconsciously, occasionally yield to the temptation of bad science and stick even to the most stupid assumptions required by the evolution theory, only because admitting ignorance (something a good scientist should find himself doing extremely often) would feel like conceding something to creationists whackos. Sorry guys, but you don't fight bad science with more bad science.
"Sure, there are some fallacious arguments within evolution, but a) those are not the norm, and b) evolution--unlike creationism--is not dependent on an INHERENTLY fallacious system of beliefs" (Justin)
A fallacious theory is a fallacious theory, period. Whether it is inaccurate because it started from an inherently fallacious basis or just because, at some point, the reasoning involved a fallacious assumption, the result is still the same : a factual fallacy.
From a practical point of view, I have little interest in HOW a fallacious belief was arrived at; I hardly see how a fallacy reached through faulty logic is superior to a fallacy reached through absence of logic.
"The Big Bang is not inherently fallacious because it makes fucking sense. Not only does it makes fucking sense, it's been fucking tested. Scientist have created a Big Bang. They have observed a Big Bang." (Justin)
No they haven't. The Big Bang is, basically, the sudden existence of space, time, energy and matter born from quantum vacuum (that's "absolute nothingness" to non scientists out there). I'd be curious to know where and when scientists obtained some quantum vacuum to reproduce and observe a Big Bang in...
"Amazing that the counter argument to Evolution is to point to a book (written by man) that depicts a fairy story" (Mike)
Mike, did you actually read ANY of the previous comments? Not one single bible-based argument was invoked against the evolution theory; everyone pretty much agreed creationists are wrong. You're mistaken to say that the counter argument to Evolution is to point to a book; the counter argument is to point to its scientific weakness.
"I am not qualified to argue the science, because I don't know shit about it." (Justin)
Like the vast majority of the population. Kudos to you for admitting so (sincerely!).
Most people believe what scientists say because they assume those guys to know what they're talking about. There's a name for that : trust, otherwise known as faith. But it shouldn't be forgotten that smart and well-intentioned as most of them are, they CAN and DO make mistakes and false assumptions. I've fooled incredibly smart and logical people with a simple HPC pass or a slightly improved version of The Third One In The Pocket: hard as they tried, they couldn't find the fault in the reasoning that ended with coins mysteriously disappearing from one place and ending up in another. And nature plays this kind of spontaneous tricks on us all the time... In a conjuring trick, we're dealing with a limited set of elements, some of them being sometimes unknown to the viewer (like an extra coin, a duplicate card, an invisible wire...). Still, logic often fails the layman in explaining it. In the case of nature, we're dealing with a nigh-unlimited number of elements, a HUGE number of which are unknown to the observer. How can someone be arrogant enough to even think about claiming to know the truth for sure?
"Creationism refuses to evolve its beliefs, whereas that's what science is ALL ABOUT." (Justin)
Correction : what it SHOULD be all about. In the case of Evolution, unfortunately, it fails to do so.
"As for your equating creationism with the theory of evolution in terms of credibility? Pffft." (Barry Solayme)
Agreed, Barry: The theory of evolution stands a great many notches higher than creationism on the credibility scale. The problem is, it hardly matters how credible and reasonable a theory is, if it's still wrong in the end. As I was answering to Justin, reaching a fallacy through blind faith or reaching a fallacy through faulty (if well-intentioned) logic yields the same result in the end: believing in a fallacy.
"Save us all the 2hr crapathon, and instead summarise what you consider to be the cogent arguments that [Hovind] puts forward. (Barry Solayme)
I can't remember which ones Hovind (for whose point of view I have little regard) mentions in his little speech, but I'll give you a couple that I can think of off the top of my mind.
First, the infamous missing links. Let's take birds for instance. It is widely accepted by evolutionists that birds evolved from reptiles. Yet, we have fossils of thousands of various eligible reptile species, thousands of fossils of definite birds, but not a single one (or, possibly, a single one indeed if we accept the largely disputed archaeopteryx as such) of the millions of intermediate stages that must have existed between them. Same goes for whales' alledged land-roaming ancestors, etc. The reason for that absence is currently not known.
Another one : irreducible complexity. In other words, systems containing various elements that interact with each other in a way that removal of any would prevent the whole from working. A typical metaphor for this is a mousetrap: every element, from the spring to the trigger, is indispensable to the whole. Therefore, if mousetraps were living organisms, they'd need to have suddenly evolved ALL of their features at the SAME time. The living world contains a number of "biological mousetraps", who seemingly couldn't have been evolved from more primitive, incomplete stages because said intermediate stages would've been unviable.
See? No bible-thumpin' needed to tackle evolutionist dogma. Just plain old scientific method. ;)
"Oh, you are talking about bad scientist here... well okay then. You are right in a way. Lots of scientists believe they are smart. And from that comes the inability to say: «I was wrong» and «I don't know»..." (Roland)
Exactly. And not only that : there's a scary lot more baseless assumption and circular reasoning going on in scientific circles (pun intended) than you would assume. And most of it is done in perfectly good faith (pun intended), by people who are convinced they're doing good science when they're really doing its opposite.
"but those are bad scientist. And fortunately they are in the minority." (Roland)
I honestly don't know whether they are in the minority or the majority; but regardless they frequently run the show. :(
The scientific community has a problem with saying "the current consensus is that X is caused by some yet-unknowned phenomenon". They prefer to pick the least unplausible theory that's been thought of so far, even if it's still pretty silly and unsupported, and say "the current consensus is that X is caused by Y, even though we can't prove it yet".
"So for the record let me state: 40% is not a minority in my humble world view. It's still a fucking lot of people." (Roland)
So? Who cares! An overwhelming majority of English-speakers speak incorrect English. Numerous as they are, their grammar is still wrong. :)
Haha, now we are talking. Thank-you Tensai and 石榮狼 ...
The FACT is that most of them HAVE NOT watched the video and are sticking to their rigid BELIEF SYSTEM that Evolution is correct and that Creationism (or intelligent design or whatever, or anything-involving-a-superior-consciousness) is incorrect, WITHOUT any convincing proof whatsoever.
This IS INDEED the definition of RELIGIOUS BELIEF. The sad thing is that they hide under the cover of 'science'. LOL.
石榮狼
The video from our creationist chappy -- who is in jail and who claimed to be a teacher with no formal credentials to speak of-- starts off with him picking up a bible and saying thats what he believes in. Then he goes on to try and prove why evolution is for idiots.
I'm sorry if my interpretation is incorrect but for me all this creationist crap isn't aimed at picking holes in evolution because of any perceived scientific fallacy, its aimed at discrediting it because it runs counter to whats in their big book of fairy stories.
And you are naive to think otherwise.
NB I'm with Darwin, I'm an agnostic.
For all I know the universe was created by a superior being -- however it wasn't created by the agenda driven God of any of our made up little religions. And therefore the specious arguments made by their apologists to try and give credence to this guff just annoys me.
My apologies Mike; I thought you were responding to the previous comments when mentionning the bible.
If you were referring to the video, of course, your point is perfectly valid: "my opponent's theory must be false because it contradicts my own, which I know for a fact to be true" was never considered acceptable proof. :)
As for your personal position, I'd say it's a most healthy one. What science needs is more agnostics (whether full-time or temporary ones).
I'll disagree, however with your hasty dismissal of all "our made up little religions": religions were never meant to provide hard facts, even though mistakingly seeing them that way (as do creationists) would still allow the misled believer to partly reap the spiritual benefits thereof... Their true scope and purpose is quite different from what all atheists AND most christians believe it to be, and they can accomplish the said purpose very well when used right - something christians have long forgotten how to do. It's no accident creationism is pretty much exclusively pushed by Christians and not Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists or whatnot: most other traditional religions never lost their way.
I would've been happy to discuss it further but that would be extra off-topic in an already considerably off-topic WMF entry. ;)
I whole-heartedly agree with the gist of your comments - the spiritual aspect of Faith is not to be sneered at -- its just unfortunate that some of the most dogmatic people you hear when it comes to religion are also some of the most evil.
I'm lucky to have a sense of balance because two of my former bosses ( and best friends) are devout Christians but are also clever kind and generous individuals who act more in the spirit of their faith than the letter.
It shows you what real honest Faith linked with intelligence, can bring to the party.
Maybe the guy in the video made some good points. I can't be sure since I'm not an expert on the subject, but I did see multiple logical fallacies in his argument and when he used a 5 year old kid to support his view, I stopped watching. Please make your own arguments.
What annoyed me most is that he called people out on supposed bad science when he obviously knew nothing about it. The so-called chemical evolution he mentioned at the start has been proven. It exists in the sun where it turns hydrogen into helium and the same sort of process was used by scientists to make the last couple of dozen elements in the periodic table.
Also, his mention of the Miller experiment had a massive fallacy. According to him Ammonia would've been destroyed by UV light unless the ozone layer protected it. Who is to say that the soup didn't have some protective properties? Still, if the ozone layer existed it would have no effect on the lack of oxygen. There was no MOLECULAR oxygen in the experiment because life couldn't form under those conditions. (Very similar to how we need oxygen, but would die if we got 100% of it). Ozone is made from oxygen ATOMS. There is no reason that the two shouldn't be able to co-exist.
Another fallacy is how he takes the spinning direction of some planets as evidence that God did it, rather than it happening naturally because of the conservation of angular momentum. Depending on what you believe you have either millions or 6000 years for something to happen since creation or the Big Bang. Who is to say the spin direction of all planets stayed the same during that time? A comet of a sufficient size could make anything change its orbit or spin direction without the need for a God to be involved. It could be true, but a lack of evidence for a particular cause is not good evidence that He did it.
I ended up struggling through most of the other 1,5 hours and I discovered multiple other fallacies. The misuses of the words race and species and using that to imply not only that Darwin was a racist, but to imply that Hitler was an evolutionist as well irked me even more.
It's true Hitler believed to be an inferior race, but that had nothing to do with evolution.
It also implies that evolution is bad because Hitler supported it. Does that mean we should throw out art and democracy because he supported those too? No, a bad supporter doesn't make something bad by association.
Scientists portray themselves as 'evidence-based' (I'm a scientist myself), but it's really more complicated than that. Let's say they choose the evidence they like and dismiss any evidence they don't like. And sometimes there isn't any. Think of parallel universes and worm holes. There is not a shred of evidence for that, but the reason it is widely accepted is that it fits nicely in the scientific doctrine. Science, just like religion, has its dogmas. But the scientific method is designed to auto-correct itself...
石榮狼 said...
"Another one : irreducible complexity. In other words, systems containing various elements that interact with each other in a way that removal of any would prevent the whole from working. A typical metaphor for this is a mousetrap: every element, from the spring to the trigger, is indispensable to the whole. Therefore, if mousetraps were living organisms, they'd need to have suddenly evolved ALL of their features at the SAME time. The living world contains a number of "biological mousetraps", who seemingly couldn't have been evolved from more primitive, incomplete stages because said intermediate stages would've been unviable.
See? No bible-thumpin' needed to tackle evolutionist dogma. Just plain old scientific method. ;)"
You are probably referring to Behe. I could refer you to Miller, et al. It could go on, and on. Neither will convince the other, is my magical prediction.
However.
Pointing out that evolution, or relativity, or gravity, or any other scientific theory are 'wrong' is meaningless. They are, by definition, incomplete; they are theories. They may also be wrong. But the whole point of how we define science recognises its limitations. Science is not a matter of faith, nor does it claim infallibility.
Richard Dawkins in some ways does the image of science a disservice, in that he is a prosletyzing atheist scientist. He chooses to declaim on matters of theology, perhaps correctly, with all guns blazing. It does not follow that science in general is trying to shoot down religion.
Science is not a religion; it is not a belief system. It is not, by definition, concerned with religion. Comparing creationism with science is just, plain, wrong.
How many times did science help you today?
And....? Well, it's a matter of faith.
BS
"Neither will convince the other, is my magical prediction." (Barry Solayme)
I wasn't trying to convince you, just pointing out that you needn't be a creationist, nor even a religious person, to poke holes at the evolution theory. ;)
"Pointing out that evolution, or relativity, or gravity, or any other scientific theory are 'wrong' is meaningless. They are, by definition, incomplete; they are theories." (Barry Solayme)
Agreed; with one major reserve: still hypothetical as they are, relativity and gravity are damn-well-polished jewels of scientific theories, with pretty much every single observable fact tending towards their confirmation. The evolution theory as currently accepted, even though I'm convinced it must be not TOO far from the mark, is still a long way from being that accomplished and fails to explain, or even be compatible with, many observable facts. I am therefore of the opinion that it should be treated with a lot more caution than is currently applied, and certainly not presented as FACT, as is often the case.
"Science is not a matter of faith, nor does it claim infallibility." (Barry Solayme)
There again, you're decribing things as they should be - not necessarily as they are. Don't get me wrong, I fully agree with you on the principle; but I observe exceptions to that virtual perfect state way more often than my scientific mind feels comfortable with.
"Richard Dawkins in some ways does the image of science a disservice, in that he is a proselytizing atheist scientist." (Barry Solayme)
Indeed. He sure is a very smart guy, but he clearly knows nothing about what a religion really is. To his defense, neither do the vast majority of religious people; but that's still no excuse for attacking their philosophy of life with such crass nastiness.
"Science is not a religion [...]" (Barry Solayme)
Definitely; way too many people treat it just as such, though.
"[...] it is not a belief system" (Barry Solayme)
Neither is a religion, fundamentally, even though a primitive way to use it would be to treat it as such (and a huge majority of people do so in Christianity, Islam and Judaism).
Let me illustrate my postulate... A ridiculously high proportion of the most brilliant mathematical/scientific thinkers to ever walk this earth were/are from India, and were/are devout hindus. Hinduism is probably one of the religions out there that features the most outlandish deities. I mean, six-armed, elephant-headed, blue-skinned gods? Seriously?!
An atheist would see a contradiction there. He'd be wrong.
He'd be wrong because a religion ISN'T primarily a belief system, and was never meant to provide FACTS to its followers. "Belief", if present, is only a tool (out of several possible ones) to reach the true goal of religion. And actual, factual truth, when present, is merely accidental. For instance, whether Jesus Christ was an actual historical figure who was really crucified is hardly relevant to the intrinsic spiritual value of Christianity's symbol system (you'll find the very same thing happening in old Norse religion with Odin instead of Jesus and the sacred ash Yggdrasil instead of the cross; and I can guarantee you that Odin is no historical figure!).
A religious zealot would be nothing short of laughable if he was to open a science book and proceed to challenge scientists' "belief" that the space-time continuum is a huge rubber membrane and that CO² gas is composed of tiny red and black marbles; someone would quickly point out to him that those are not intended as facts but are merely visual representations used to deal with things that the human mind is fundamentally unable to picture in their true nature. Yet that's exactly what atheists do when they attack the "factual inaccuracy" of sacred texts, which makes them just as laughable, to those who actually know something about religion. Atheists have one major thing in common with creationists: they interpret religion like kids (and not very bright ones).
"[Science] is not, by definition, concerned with religion. Comparing creationism with science is just, plain, wrong." (Barry Solayme)
Agreed. They don't overlap – unless, like creationists do, you choose to treat religion LIKE a science. Spiritually speaking it can work, but scientifically speaking it doesn't. Therefore, if one is to choose that spiritual path, one has to surrender one's logical thinking at some level. It's perfectly acceptable as a personal choice, but trying to push such a belief onto others is clearly a big no-no.
"How many times did science help you today?" (Barry Solayme)
A great many times... why? How's that relevant? In case there's been a misunderstanding, I was never out there to diss science, quite the opposite in fact: I'm a science lover myself. Which is why it drives me mad when I see people treating my beloved rational thinking in such a cavalier fashion... In the same way religion shouldn't be treated as science (that's the creationists' mistake), science shouldn't be treated as a religion - an unfortunate process I - alas! - often witness from ignorant (or not-so-ignorant) people, especially when dealing with the evolution theory.
Post a Comment