Why Darwin Matters
POSTED BY: misbehaven
UPDATED: Monday, September 11, 2006 18:05
VIEWED: 12064
PAGE 7 of 9
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
People - even scientists- are notoriously illogical, contextual non-thinkers. There are several examples how most people are wrong most of the time which will take too long to type up. Suffice it to say, I do not find this a compelling argument.
Sig: There is no way to blend.
CTS: People do it all the time, so obviously there is a way.
Sig: Well, their way is wrong.
So you are now saying there is no RIGHT way to blend the natural and the supernatural. And who gets to define which is the RIGHT way?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No they don't they compartmentalise, they say so themselves.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Well, that may be the crux of our disagreement. Like I said, plenty of very well respected and well published scientist do that very blending, so I am concluding there must be a way to blend. You call that way "schism," and they call that way, "way."
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is there an Association of Scientific Blenders I don't know about? Who's "they"? I mean, specifically, who do you know said this? And does that one or two or however many people you can quote represent all scientists who blend?
Originally posted by citizen:
No they don't they compartmentalise, they say so themselves.
I personally know at least a handful of professional research scientists (people who do scientific research for a living) who are very religious, and they don't compartmentalize.
Maybe some scientists do compartmentalize, and other scientists blend. The fact is blending does occur. Now SignyM is saying the blenders aren't doing it right. I'd like to know what that means.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm flying out to Atlanta in two days time, and that's a lot of work you want from me there, I'll try and get too it after my trip.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Fringe, kook whackos out there killing and claiming to be doing " God's work " are far and few between. The disparity between a random 'abortion doctor killer' and an Islamic suicide bomber are is on an absurdly large scale. Muslims killing other Muslims and other's rates in the 10,000's, if not higher, where as Christian killers are ...what, in the single digits for the year? If that ? Maybe if you did an honest, side by side comparison of identified terrorist and the #'s of victims each has tallied, I could admit my error. Until then, nah.
Quote:I said how dangerous it would be if Fundamentalist Christians ever gained control of America, then I said Inquisition. I thought it would be obvious that I meant an inquisition would occur after a turn to theocracy.
My 'jealous' comment was ,in part, tongue in cheek. I was trying to come up with some reason why you'd use such an overreaching word as 'Inquisition' to describe Christianity here in the U.S. From my point of view, such hyperbole was worthy of a 'neener neener' reply on my part.
Also I think you really under estimate the fundamentalists. They aint a bunch of no teeth red necks marrying their pigs in the mountains man, they have schools, finishing schools that are teaching the 'cream' of American Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians to become the next presidents of the united states. Teaching them to say the right things to get the common vote, teaching them to win any debate no matter how untenable their position. Teaching how wrong Evolution is in the face of Creationism in science class (I kid you not).
These aint a bunch of slack jawed yokels with pitch forks and an eye for the sow, their organised and committed to playing the long game to break down the barrier between church and state.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You're asking me for evidence you don't provide yourself. Just thought that needed to be said.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Is there an Association of Scientific Blenders I don't know about? Who's "they"? I mean, specifically, who do you know said this? And does that one or two or however many people you can quote represent all scientists who blend?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Pfft.
Originally posted by citizen:
You're asking me for evidence you don't provide yourself. Just thought that needed to be said.
I already gave you general information on the scientists on my end. To reiterate, they are professional scientists I personally know. If you want, I can email their names, credentials, and scientific fields privately but that will take some time because I would have to get their permission first.
I mean you provided absolutely NO clue, except to say "they." All I want is general information on who "they" are. Are they people you know? People you read? People quoted by authors you read? Friends of people quoted by authors who were quoted by some newspaper article?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All of the above.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS- Well, possibly we're just hacking over a definitional problem.
So, when you say something is "outside of nature" maybe a description of what that means to you would eliminate whole swaths of disagreement.
Perhaps you view (or you think others view) "nature" as fully testable, knowable, or predictable... a kind of mechanistic clockwork about which we know the important "stuff" already... we just need to work out the details. How do you view "nature"?
Or to reverse the question: What would you define as being "outside" of nature? A phenomenon that behaved in contradiction to all known laws- like a miracle? A phenomenon that was exceptionally random- like luck? A feeling of invisible support? A code of ethics? Free will?
It would be a great disappointement to me if the universe turned out to be fully knowable. I hope there are aspects of the universe we will never become aware of, simply because we can't perceive the parameter. (Our perceptions are often limited by our ideas. Having one idea blocks out others.) I am confused about "free will"... I suspect it is not anywhere near as "free" as people like to think. (I think our brains do an analogue add/ subtract along possible lines of action. If I'm bothered by a radio I may not get up to shut it off unless I'm also itchy, for example.) I wonder whether the future is already determined.... if you start out with two physical entities that are exactly the same in every aspect, will you always get the same result?
I honestly don't know. Perhpas it is thsi state of unkowingness that you think of as supernatural.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Signy, CTS,
There's something seems to be missing from your discussion. I think Signy's framing of the debate as natural vs. supernatural is a big part of the problem. Signy's argument seems to imply that anyone who believes in God (however you define it), is doing so entirely at a whim. They just like the idea, or "It seems like a pleasant notion, everyone's doing it and it sure would be nice to live in such a world so I'll say there's a God."
Here's the wacky religious scientist, with all her hard data and crunchable numbers, nonetheless saying to herself, "Now I'll posit a Universal Invisible Friend to keep me 'company' while I study the result of my latest double blind trials."
Well, it sounds completely goofy.
Here I am for instance. I don't believe in God or Angels or Demons; I don't posit them as a pleasing fiction or crutch to comfort me when I'm blue. I've actually had to deal with things that match the standard descriptions of such critters to a degree sufficiant that I find these terms useful when describing my experience.
I ain't saying that all these religious scientists are full-blown shamanistic mystics or nothin', but I'm thinking that the difference between one of me and one of them may be more a matter of degree than of kind.
Scientists who believe in God have some level of personal anecdotal evidence, subjective and intuitive perception at least, that there's something more to the world than the official five senses can varify and that this "something more" seems to perceive them, seems to will or intend something for them. Sure, sure, it could just be their subconsious or a problem with brain hemispheres, but they've prolly thought of that too and their gut still says, "Hrmmmmm, not so much."
Their gut says, "Just 'cause I can't prove my feeling in a lab, doesn't mean I should abandon it like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny."
Naturally, to someone of a scientific bent, such a provocative notion needs investigating, but hardcore science has nothing to offer them. And yet they have that nagging feeling.
So, they turn to religion. They read some holy book or other and something of this feeling that they have, this sense of what the Universe is up to, is reflected (prolly rather imperfectly) in the book. So they stick with the book even though the book is full--and I mean chock FULL--of illogical, disquieting garbage, because they haven't found their deepest intuition about the nature of the Universe reflected anywhere else.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
.... Teaching them to say the right things to get the common vote, teaching them to win any debate no matter how untenable their position. Teaching how wrong Evolution is in the face of Creationism in science class (I kid you not).
These aint a bunch of slack jawed yokels with pitch forks and an eye for the sow, their organised and committed to playing the long game to break down the barrier between church and state.
Oh, these things occur, on that we'll agree. And it's likely far more involved than most folks would think. Even Katherine Harris, Congresswoman from Florida and trying to win a US Senate seat has said more Christians need to be voted into office, and save this country from sin. Those kooks are out there, but there's no real threat of them overrunning the Gov't any time soon ( not in my life time, at least ). Ms Harris, btw, is expected to do very poorly and be soundly defeated in the Nov. election.
As for the CreatioNAZIS, I've been debunking their kind for a decade or more. Not that they really NEED help debunking, as they do an o.k. job of it themselves, if anyone happens to listen to them.
On a lighter note, Kent (Dr. Dino ) Hovind was arrested once again, for tax fraud. This guy has a 'degree' from an uncredited clown college that was nothing more than a few tables and chairs in some guy's basement. I personally think the guy is mentally touched, but that's for another thread.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME