| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
13 Aug 2006 05:49:41 PM |
| Object: |
Why Science Fears The Idea Of Designed Universe |
http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/08/what-passes-for-science.html
Friday, August 11, 2006
What passes for science...
From New Scientist, we have the top 10 weirdest cosmologies:
1/ Clashing branes
Could our universe be a membrane floating in higher dimensional space,
repeatedly smashing into a neighbouring universe? According to an
offshoot of string theory called braneworld, there are large extra
dimensions of space, and while gravity can reach out into them, we are
confined to our own "brane" universe with only three dimensions. Neil
Turok of Cambridge University in the UK and Paul Steinhardt of
Princeton University in New Jersey, US, have worked out how the big
bang could have been sparked when our universe clashed violently with
another. These clashes repeat, producing a new big bang every now and
then - so if the cyclic universe model is right, the cosmos could be
immortal.
2/ Evolving universes
When matter is compressed to extreme densities at the centre of a black
hole, it might bounce back and create a new baby universe. The laws of
physics in the offspring might differ slightly, and at random, from the
parent - so universes might evolve, suggests Lee Smolin of the
Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada. Universes that make a lot of
black holes have a lot of children, so eventually they come to dominate
the population of the multiverse. If we live in a typical universe,
then it ought to have physical laws and constants that optimise the
production of black holes. It is not yet known whether our universe
fits the bill.
3/ Superfluid space-time
One of the most outlandish new theories of cosmology is that space-time
is actually a superfluid substance, flowing with zero friction. Then if
the universe is rotating, superfluid spacetime would be scattered with
vortices, according to physicists Pawel Mazur of the University of
South Carolina and George Chapline at Lawrence Livermore lab in
California - and those vortices might have seeded structures such as
galaxies. Mazur suggests that our universe might have been born in a
collapsing star, where the combination of stellar matter and superfluid
space could spawn dark energy, the repulsive force that is accelerating
the expansion of the universe.
4/ Goldilocks universe
Why does the universe have properties that are "just right" to permit
the emergence of life? Tinker with a few physical constants and we
would end up with no stars, or no matter, or a universe that lasts only
for the blink of an eye. One answer is the anthropic principle: the
universe we see has to be hospitable, or we would not be here to
observe it. Recently the idea has gained some strength, because the
theory of inflation suggests that there may be an infinity of universes
out there, and string theory hints that they might have an almost
infinite range of different properties and physical laws. But many
cosmologists dismiss the anthropic principle as being non-science,
because it makes no testable predictions.
5/ Gravity reaches out
Dark matter might not really be "stuff" - it could just be a
misleading name for the odd behaviour of gravity. The theory called
MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics), suggests that gravity does not fade
away as quickly as current theories predict. This stronger gravity can
fill the role of dark matter, holding together galaxies and clusters
that would otherwise fly apart. A new formulation of MOND, consistent
with relativity, has rekindled interest in the idea, although it may
not fit the pattern of spots in the cosmic microwave background.
6/ Cosmic ghost
Three mysteries of modern cosmology could be wrapped up in one ghostly
presence. After making an adjustment to Einstein's general theory of
relativity, a team of physicists found a strange substance popping out
of their new theory, the "ghost condensate". It can produce repulsive
gravity to drive cosmic inflation in the big bang, while later on it
could generate the more sedate acceleration that is ascribed to dark
energy. Moreover, if this slippery substance clumps together, it could
form dark matter.
7/ It's a small universe
The pattern of spots in the cosmic microwave background has a
suspicious deficiency: there are surprisingly few big spots. One
possible explanation is that the universe is small - so small that,
back when the microwave background was being produced, it just could
not hold those big blobs. If so, space would have to wrap around on
itself somehow. Possibly the oddest suggestion is that the universe is
funnel-shaped, with one narrow end and one flared end like the bell of
a trumpet. The bent-back curvature of space in this model would also
stretch out any smaller microwave spots from round blobs into the
little ellipses that are indeed observed.
8/ Fast light
Why do opposite sides of the universe look the same? It's a puzzle
because the extremes of today's visible universe should never have been
in touch. Even back in the early moments of the big bang, when these
areas were much closer together, there wasn't enough time for light -
or anything else - to travel from one to another. There was no time for
temperature and density to get evened out; and yet they are even. One
solution: light used to move much faster. But to make that work could
mean a radical overhaul of Einstein's theory of relativity.
9/ Sterile neutrinos
Dark matter might be made of the most elusive particles ever imagined -
sterile neutrinos. They are hypothetical heavier cousins of ordinary
neutrinos and would interact with other matter only through the force
of gravity - making them essentially impossible to detect. But they
might have the right properties to be "warm" dark matter, buzzing about
at speeds of a few kilometres per second, forming the largish dark
matter clumps mapped by recent observations. Sterile neutrinos could
also help stars and black holes to form in the early universe, and give
the kicks that send neutron stars speeding around our galaxy.
10/ In the Matrix
Maybe our universe isn't real. Yale Philosopher Nick Bostrum has
claimed that we are probably living inside a computer simulation.
Assuming it ever becomes possible to simulate consciousness, then
presumably future civilisations would try it, probably many times over.
Most perceived universes would be simulated ones - so chances are we
are in one of them. In that case, perhaps all those cosmological
oddities such as dark matter and dark energy are simply patches, stuck
on to cover up early inconsistencies in our simulation.
It appears that all manner of (often untestable--or when they are
tested against gross cosmological observations, found to be wanting)
cosmologies are worthy of serious discussion-with the notable
exception of Cosmological Intelligent Design. You will note that in the
"Goldilocks Universe" the (correct) fact of our universe's fine-tuning
is accepted and with it the implicit assumption is made that there must
be an inifinite or nearly infinite number of universes. The discussion
is only in the (untestable) details of this or that multiverse. In
other words:
The indisputable fact of fine-tuning is tantamount to a proof that
multiple universes exists because
the alternative of a single, fine-tuned universe, with its attendant
theological implications, is unthinkable.
As I understand them (and I might be wrong) "theories" 3, 5, 6, 7, 8,
and 9 can be trashed for offering no explanation of our universe's
razor's-edge hospitability for any kind of life. An explanation for the
miracle of the mere existence of galaxies, metallic stars, and rocky
planets is requirement-one for any cosmology.
.
|
|
| User: "Matti Partonen" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Science Fears The Idea Of Designed Universe |
14 Aug 2006 01:22:25 AM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:1155509381.316393.307640@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/08/what-passes-for-science.html
[....]
It appears that all manner of (often untestable--or when they are
tested against gross cosmological observations, found to be wanting)
cosmologies are worthy of serious discussion-with the notable
exception of Cosmological Intelligent Design. You will note that in the
"Goldilocks Universe" the (correct) fact of our universe's fine-tuning
is accepted and with it the implicit assumption is made that there must
be an inifinite or nearly infinite number of universes. The discussion
is only in the (untestable) details of this or that multiverse. In
other words:
The indisputable fact of fine-tuning is tantamount to a proof that
multiple universes exists because
the alternative of a single, fine-tuned universe, with its attendant
theological implications, is unthinkable.
As I understand them (and I might be wrong) "theories" 3, 5, 6, 7, 8,
and 9 can be trashed for offering no explanation of our universe's
razor's-edge hospitability for any kind of life. An explanation for the
miracle of the mere existence of galaxies, metallic stars, and rocky
planets is requirement-one for any cosmology.
It appears that ID is based on the same kind of muddled thinking that this
poster shows in the subject line.
Science is not a conscious being that can fear, or not fear, anything.
Science is a strategy of conscious beings (humans) to gain understanding of
themselves and their environment. One basic constituent of this strategy is
the requirement that whatever is proposed must be testable in one way or
another.
As soon as ID proponents can present something that has explaining power and
is testable, I am sure scientists would welcome it. Until that, there is no
reason for scientists to be interested.
Matti P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Science Fears The Idea Of Designed Universe |
25 Aug 2006 07:37:54 AM |
|
|
Matti Partonen wrote:
Science is not a conscious being that can fear, or not fear, anything.
Science is a strategy of conscious beings (humans) to gain understanding of
themselves and their environment. One basic constituent of this strategy is
the requirement that whatever is proposed must be testable in one way or
another.
As soon as ID proponents can present something that has explaining power and
is testable, I am sure scientists would welcome it. Until that, there is no
reason for scientists to be interested.
Matti P.
exactly. humans when engaging in "science" should immediately
discharge all proposals that seek to manipulate data toward religious
dogma.
among the various dogmatic ideologies concerned include 'creationism'
and its derivatives (whose most annoying adherents are proponents of
the Abrahamic religions),
and 'evolution theory' which is unfortunately a scheme during the last
century where scientists somehow feel compelled to propose answers to
religious questions.
humans engaging in scientific methods should restrict themselves to the
data and ignore ideologists from all quarters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Linda Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Science Fears The Idea Of Designed Universe |
25 Aug 2006 09:58:15 AM |
|
|
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Matti Partonen wrote:
Science is not a conscious being that can fear, or not fear, anything.
Science is a strategy of conscious beings (humans) to gain understanding of
themselves and their environment. One basic constituent of this strategy is
the requirement that whatever is proposed must be testable in one way or
another.
As soon as ID proponents can present something that has explaining power and
is testable, I am sure scientists would welcome it. Until that, there is no
reason for scientists to be interested.
Matti P.
exactly. humans when engaging in "science" should immediately
discharge all proposals that seek to manipulate data toward religious
dogma.
among the various dogmatic ideologies concerned include 'creationism'
and its derivatives (whose most annoying adherents are proponents of
the Abrahamic religions),
and 'evolution theory' which is unfortunately a scheme during the last
century where scientists somehow feel compelled to propose answers to
religious questions.
humans engaging in scientific methods should restrict themselves to the
data and ignore ideologists from all quarters.
==============================================================
I agree. They ought to all admit they just do NOT KNOW, rather than
teach children theories presented as fact.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Howard Brazee" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Science Fears The Idea Of Designed Universe |
25 Aug 2006 08:22:34 PM |
|
|
On 25 Aug 2006 05:37:54 -0700, "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]"
<hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote:
exactly. humans when engaging in "science" should immediately
discharge all proposals that seek to manipulate data toward religious
dogma.
among the various dogmatic ideologies concerned include 'creationism'
and its derivatives (whose most annoying adherents are proponents of
the Abrahamic religions),
and 'evolution theory' which is unfortunately a scheme during the last
century where scientists somehow feel compelled to propose answers to
religious questions.
humans engaging in scientific methods should restrict themselves to the
data and ignore ideologists from all quarters.
Interesting ideology you have here. Very Righteous, you are.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Science Fears The Idea Of Designed Universe |
13 Aug 2006 06:00:13 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:1155509381.316393.307640@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Isn't that more like "Why the Fundies Fear a Universe that isn't going to
give them a Sugar Daddy?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Science Fears The Idea Of Designed Universe |
17 Aug 2006 03:33:50 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:00:13 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
<gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
Isn't that more like "Why the Fundies Fear a Universe that isn't going to
give them a Sugar Daddy?"
“But we all recognise the primary foible of frail humanity — our
propensity for embracing hope and shunning logic, our tendency to
believe what we desire rather than what we observe.”
~ Steven J. Gould, Rocks Of Ages
“We long to situate ourselves on a benevolent, warm, furry,
encompassing planet, created to provide our material needs, and
constructed for our dominion and delectation. Unfortunately, this
pipedream of succor from the realm of meaning (and therefore the
magisterium of religion), imposes definite and unrealistic demands
upon the factual construction of nature (under the magisterium of
science). But nature, who is as she is, and who existed in earthly
form for 4.5 billion years before we arrived to impose our
interpretations upon her, greets us with sublime indifference and no
preference for accommodating our yearnings.”
~ Steven J. Gould, Rocks Of Ages
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rick++" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Science Fears The Idea Of Designed Universe |
06 Sep 2006 08:24:29 AM |
|
|
As I understand
Using that word is big stretch in anything you've written.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Science Fears The Idea Of Designed Universe |
17 Aug 2006 03:30:51 AM |
|
|
On 13 Aug 2006 15:49:41 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
These clashes repeat, producing a new big bang every now and
then - so if the cyclic universe model is right, the cosmos could be
immortal.
That is not quite how I would describe it.
Immortal means never dying. Universes die and other, completely
unrelated are born. Each has its own private time. A cyclic model
does not in the least imply immortality, any more the cyclic
appearance of leaves implies leaves are immortal.
It is more like Buddhist or Hindu cosmology.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Science Fears The Idea Of Designed Universe |
16 Aug 2006 02:06:42 PM |
|
|
On 13 Aug 2006 15:49:41 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
What passes for science...
If life were designed, then the designer was a bungling idiot, hardly
an infinitely intelligent being.
Consider the design of the human.
Why put the ***** so near the vagina, risking infection?
Why put have food and air go down the same pipe, inviting choking if a
little valve does not close perfectly every time you swallow?
Why is the back to prone to discs wearing out? It is a 4-legged design
kludged for two legs. Surely a designer would give us a proper spine.
Why don't teeth replace themselves when they fall out?
Why does nearly everyone need glasses?
Why don't people naturally stop eating when they have had enough?
Where were designed with hunger to prevent undereating, but nothing
but physical discomfort to prevent overeating.
Why do people crave sugar, drugs, alcohol and other chemicals that are
harmful?
Why do men have nipples?
Why don't testicles have some sort of protection?
Why can other animals eat almost anything organic without harm, but
humans are thrown off by just a few bacteria?
Why don't humans make their own vitamins?
Why do men go bald, but not women?
Why do humans die just as soon as they get a bit of experience under
their belts?
Why are humans so vulnerable to parasites, infectious diseases and
disabilities?
Why is childbirth so painful?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Science Fears The Idea Of Designed Universe |
19 Aug 2006 03:37:28 PM |
|
|
On 13 Aug 2006 15:49:41 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
What passes for science...
Part of your problem is a lack of understanding of the word "theory".
When we talk of the theory of evolution we don't mean a hypothesis or
hunch, we mean theory in the sense of the logic to describe the
observations, like music theory, or the mathematical theory of Abelian
groups, or Newton's theory of gravitation. It does not imply
tentativeness.
Evolution has been observed tens of thousands of times.
The fundamentals of why it occurs are extremely simple. Others of
Darwin's time hit themselves for not thinking of something so obvious.
Darwin is famous mainly because he was the first with the guts to go
against the religious superstition of his time.
The fundamentals are:
1. life is not a level playing field. Animal and plants are born with
advantages and disadvantages to survival and breeding.
2. life spontaneously creates mutations (we now understand these are
DNA transcription errors). Most of these put an animal at a relative
disadvantage. Very rarely they help.
3. Mutations are inherited.
Even the most rabid fundies can't very well dispute any of these three
pillars. How can they possibly deny the effects of plant and animal
husbandry using these principles?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Science Fears The Idea Of Designed Universe |
19 Aug 2006 10:02:34 PM |
|
|
Roedy Green wrote:
On 13 Aug 2006 15:49:41 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
What passes for science...
Part of your problem is a lack of understanding of the word "theory".
When we talk of the theory of evolution we don't mean a hypothesis or
hunch, we mean theory in the sense of the logic to describe the
observations, like music theory, or the mathematical theory of Abelian
groups, or Newton's theory of gravitation. It does not imply
tentativeness.
Evolution has been observed tens of thousands of times.
Selective breeding has been observed. Minor adaptation has been
observed. Evolution? Not really. No new species, no new organs, no
new creatures.
The fundamentals of why it occurs are extremely simple. Others of
Darwin's time hit themselves for not thinking of something so obvious.
Darwin is famous mainly because he was the first with the guts to go
against the religious superstition of his time.
Darwin was famous for framing a tautology in 500 pages of dense text,
then scratching an itch the rich boys in the Royal Society of London
wanted scratched.
The fundamentals are:
1. life is not a level playing field. Animal and plants are born with
advantages and disadvantages to survival and breeding.
2. life spontaneously creates mutations (we now understand these are
DNA transcription errors). Most of these put an animal at a relative
disadvantage. Very rarely they help.
3. Mutations are inherited.
Even the most rabid fundies can't very well dispute any of these three
Silly statement. If a "rabid fundie" disputed your statements, you
would dismiss her for being a "rabid fundie."
pillars. How can they possibly deny the effects of plant and animal
husbandry using these principles?
Animal husbandry is called "breeding," not evolution. And breeders
have not produced 10 ft, chickens or 5 lb. eggs for all their selective
breeding. If you knew something about the subject, you would know why.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Mayhar" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Science Fears The Idea Of Designed Universe |
19 Aug 2006 11:00:28 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 21:02:34 -0700, Terry Cross wrote:
Selective breeding has been observed. Minor adaptation has been
observed. Evolution? Not really. No new species, no new organs, no
new creatures.
Liar.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-06/stri-bse061206.php
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060601213407.htm
Silly statement. If a "rabid fundie" disputed your statements, you
would dismiss her for being a "rabid fundie."
More of the usual dishonesty from Terry Cross. That's right, don't
address the argument, insult the person who made it.
pillars. How can they possibly deny the effects of plant and animal
husbandry using these principles?
Animal husbandry is called "breeding," not evolution. And breeders
have not produced 10 ft, chickens or 5 lb. eggs for all their selective
breeding. If you knew something about the subject, you would know why.
And it's because those characteristics are not within the range of
expression of the genome in question. _Not_ because evolution didn't
happen, but because _that_ particular species doesn't have ten-foot
chickens or five-pound eggs within its repertoire, and for reasons that
would be obvious to anyone less absurdly dishonest than yourself. Your
assertion has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution and everything to do
with you having an axe to grind and no compunction about lying.
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Science Fears The Idea Of Designed Universe |
20 Aug 2006 07:49:28 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
On 13 Aug 2006 15:49:41 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
What passes for science...
Part of your problem is a lack of understanding of the word "theory".
When we talk of the theory of evolution we don't mean a hypothesis or
hunch, we mean theory in the sense of the logic to describe the
observations, like music theory, or the mathematical theory of Abelian
groups, or Newton's theory of gravitation. It does not imply
tentativeness.
Evolution has been observed tens of thousands of times.
Selective breeding has been observed. Minor adaptation has been
observed. Evolution? Not really. No new species, no new organs, no
new creatures.
That is incorrect. Speciation has been observed, both in the lab and
in the wild.
The fundamentals of why it occurs are extremely simple. Others of
Darwin's time hit themselves for not thinking of something so obvious.
Darwin is famous mainly because he was the first with the guts to go
against the religious superstition of his time.
Darwin was famous for framing a tautology in 500 pages of dense text,
then scratching an itch the rich boys in the Royal Society of London
wanted scratched.
What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential
reproductive success. This is not circular or tautologous. The fittest
were not those which survived, but those which could be expected to
survive on the basis of their traits. It is a prediction that can be,
and has been, experimentally verified
The fundamentals are:
1. life is not a level playing field. Animal and plants are born with
advantages and disadvantages to survival and breeding.
2. life spontaneously creates mutations (we now understand these are
DNA transcription errors). Most of these put an animal at a relative
disadvantage. Very rarely they help.
3. Mutations are inherited.
Even the most rabid fundies can't very well dispute any of these three
Silly statement. If a "rabid fundie" disputed your statements, you
would dismiss her for being a "rabid fundie."
Actually, being impervious to logic, rabid fundies can dispute
anything. Evidence is not important, or acceptable, if it conflicts
with their fringe beliefs.
pillars. How can they possibly deny the effects of plant and animal
husbandry using these principles?
Animal husbandry is called "breeding," not evolution. And breeders
have not produced 10 ft, chickens or 5 lb. eggs for all their selective
breeding.
Who the hell would *want* to produce "10 ft chickens or 5 lb. eggs"???
If you knew something about the subject, you would know why.
Irony knows no bounds...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "What, Me Worry?" |
|
| Title: Science Does Not Fear |
14 Aug 2006 10:05:05 PM |
|
|
Science does not fear. It doesn't require faith. It cannot believe.
Science is eternal. It is not a religion. You can't burn Science as a
heretic.
Science will still be here long after your religion is gone and forgotten.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Does Not Fear |
15 Aug 2006 11:58:05 AM |
|
|
"What, Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
news:g-OdneGOxul3pHzZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@insightbb.com...
Science does not fear. It doesn't require faith. It cannot believe.
Science is eternal. It is not a religion. You can't burn Science as a
heretic.
Science will still be here long after your religion is gone and forgotten.
Let's hope so. Religion offers nothing of real value to man. And when you
think about it, it never has. Morality? Hah! It's like class; you either
have it or you don't.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Real Scientists Do Not Oppose Religion |
15 Aug 2006 12:09:04 PM |
|
|
Greywolf wrote:
"What, Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
news:g-OdneGOxul3pHzZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@insightbb.com...
Science does not fear. It doesn't require faith. It cannot believe.
Science is eternal. It is not a religion. You can't burn Science as a
heretic.
Science will still be here long after your religion is gone and forgotten.
Let's hope so. Religion offers nothing of real value to man. And when you
think about it, it never has. Morality? Hah! It's like class; you either
have it or you don't.
Greywolf
For proponents of Evolution, you demonstrate little faith in your own
doctrine. Evolution should tell you that if humans have religion and
monkeys do not, religion is a development with greater survival value.
However, it has been obvious from the beginning that you had no faith
in your own doctrines. The primary faith of Evolutionists is Nihilism
- worship of the Chaos and the Void.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Real Scientists Do Not Oppose Religion |
16 Aug 2006 12:50:09 AM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> writes:
For proponents of Evolution, you demonstrate little faith in your own
doctrine. Evolution should tell you that if humans have religion and
monkeys do not, religion is a development with greater survival value.
It should also be obvious that since human beings have
genocide and monkeys do not, genocide is a development with greater
survival value. Does that make it "moral?" Of course not.
The real problem for the God-soaked is that if we take the
tools of evidence, the tools by which we judge everything from the
efficacy of the medicines we take to the quality of the cars we drive
to the punishment of our criminals, and we apply them to religion--
religion has nothing to offer. It gets a pass because it's special--
and because unlike it's lack, it gives you a good feeling and an
excuse when the time comes to slaughter the other guys.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Real Scientists Have No Morality |
16 Aug 2006 01:42:27 AM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> writes:
For proponents of Evolution, you demonstrate little faith in your own
doctrine. Evolution should tell you that if humans have religion and
monkeys do not, religion is a development with greater survival value.
It should also be obvious that since human beings have
genocide and monkeys do not, genocide is a development with greater
survival value. Does that make it "moral?" Of course not.
Get real. Morality has nothing to do with Evolution or with Science.
Nobody has ever found "morality" in a microscope or a telescope.
Morality has no weight and does not occupy space. Nobody can agree on
a definition of morality, what it looks like, or where it comes from.
Morality is a fantasy, invented by Atheists to make themselves feel
better. It is easily proven - morality has no survival value. It is a
vestial myth of a bygone age when humans lived in small tribes and the
altruistic individual brought greater survival to the tribe.
All that is gone, now. Humanity is global, and no single individual
can change events. Get up off your knees and start acting like Homo
Erectus.
The real problem for the God-soaked is that if we take the
tools of evidence, the tools by which we judge everything from the
efficacy of the medicines we take to the quality of the cars we drive
to the punishment of our criminals, and we apply them to religion--
religion has nothing to offer.
Apply your science to your own fairy tales. Morality has nothing to
offer. Wipe away the fog of primitive humanity. Use your science for
rationality, not forwarding superstition.
It gets a pass because it's special--
and because unlike it's lack, it gives you a good feeling and an
excuse when the time comes to slaughter the other guys.
Use your science to feel good when you line them up beside the mass
grave just before you pull the trigger. Remember the Morality you once
felt - What you cannot see does not exist. Morality is just a phantom
nursemaids tell to children to make them behave.
TCross
A-Atheist #1
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Real Scientists Have No Morality |
21 Aug 2006 08:56:28 PM |
|
|
On 15 Aug 2006 23:42:27 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
Morality is a fantasy, invented by Atheists to make themselves feel
better. It is easily proven - morality has no survival value. It is a
vestial myth of a bygone age when humans lived in small tribes and the
altruistic individual brought greater survival to the tribe.
Evolution of parasites and hosts tends to evolve to symbiosis or at
least greater tolerance for each other. Nature understand the mutual
benefit of this. Someday it may come clear to you too.
You are pretending you don't understand the benefits of commerce. In
commerce, in every transaction both parties believe they will be
better off than if they did not complete the transaction, even if they
believe they did not get as good as deal as they should. This ethic
is what has created most of the world's wealth, not plunder.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Real Scientists Have No Morality |
16 Aug 2006 12:07:56 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> writes:
For proponents of Evolution, you demonstrate little faith in your own
doctrine. Evolution should tell you that if humans have religion and
monkeys do not, religion is a development with greater survival value.
It should also be obvious that since human beings have
genocide and monkeys do not, genocide is a development with greater
survival value. Does that make it "moral?" Of course not.
Get real. Morality has nothing to do with Evolution or with Science.
Nobody has ever found "morality" in a microscope or a telescope.
Morality has no weight and does not occupy space. Nobody can agree on
a definition of morality, what it looks like, or where it comes from.
Right. The atheists brought us morality. I always thought it was the
Jews and the Buddhists.
Morality is a fantasy,
This explains a lot of "Christian" behavior.
invented by Atheists to make themselves feel
better. It is easily proven - morality has no survival value.
You have no proof. In fact, there are some genetic studies showing that
it does in fact enhance reproductive chances at a genetic leve.
It is a
vestial myth of a bygone age when humans lived in small tribes and the
altruistic individual brought greater survival to the tribe.
You are contradicting your earlier statements, but since they were
wrong, that is a good thing.
We still live in tribes today, albeit larger ones.
All that is gone, now. Humanity is global, and no single individual
can change events. Get up off your knees and start acting like Homo
Erectus.
As the Arabs say, even to this day: "Me against my brother, me and my
brother against my cousin, and me and my brother and my cousin against
the world."
The real problem for the God-soaked is that if we take the
tools of evidence, the tools by which we judge everything from the
efficacy of the medicines we take to the quality of the cars we drive
to the punishment of our criminals, and we apply them to religion--
religion has nothing to offer.
Apply your science to your own fairy tales. Morality has nothing to
offer. Wipe away the fog of primitive humanity. Use your science for
rationality, not forwarding superstition.
Spoken like a Christian fanatic
It gets a pass because it's special--
and because unlike it's lack, it gives you a good feeling and an
excuse when the time comes to slaughter the other guys.
Use your science to feel good when you line them up beside the mass
grave just before you pull the trigger.
Most murders of this type were perpetrated by people who were raised in
a religion. Obviously it failed.
Remember the Morality you once
felt - What you cannot see does not exist. Morality is just a phantom
nursemaids tell to children to make them behave.
To paraphrase the late Barry Goldwater "Extremism in the pursuit of
religion is no vice."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Real Scientists Have No Morality |
21 Aug 2006 08:58:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:07:56 GMT, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
As the Arabs say, even to this day: "Me against my brother, me and my
brother against my cousin, and me and my brother and my cousin against
the world."
here is the Islamic version of the Golden Rule:
"No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that
which he desires for himself. "
~ Sunnah
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: Real Scientists Do Not Oppose Religion |
15 Aug 2006 12:45:02 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155661744.330713.13440@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Greywolf wrote:
"What, Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
news:g-OdneGOxul3pHzZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@insightbb.com...
Science does not fear. It doesn't require faith. It cannot believe.
Science is eternal. It is not a religion. You can't burn Science as a
heretic.
Science will still be here long after your religion is gone and
forgotten.
Let's hope so. Religion offers nothing of real value to man. And when you
think about it, it never has. Morality? Hah! It's like class; you either
have it or you don't.
Greywolf
For proponents of Evolution, you demonstrate little faith in your own
doctrine. Evolution should tell you that if humans have religion and
monkeys do not, religion is a development with greater survival value.
However, it has been obvious from the beginning that you had no faith
in your own doctrines.
Good point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Real Scientists Do Not Oppose Religion |
15 Aug 2006 04:10:31 PM |
|
|
Fred Liken wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155661744.330713.13440@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Greywolf wrote:
"What, Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
news:g-OdneGOxul3pHzZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@insightbb.com...
Science does not fear. It doesn't require faith. It cannot believe.
Science is eternal. It is not a religion. You can't burn Science as a
heretic.
Science will still be here long after your religion is gone and
forgotten.
Let's hope so. Religion offers nothing of real value to man. And when you
think about it, it never has. Morality? Hah! It's like class; you either
have it or you don't.
Greywolf
For proponents of Evolution, you demonstrate little faith in your own
doctrine. Evolution should tell you that if humans have religion and
monkeys do not, religion is a development with greater survival value.
However, it has been obvious from the beginning that you had no faith
in your own doctrines.
Good point.
Not necessarily; quite the contrary in fact, because religion has not
contributed to survival, especially for those who espouse the wrong one
for the time and place.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Real Scientists Do Not Oppose Religion |
15 Aug 2006 04:25:09 PM |
|
|
cactus wrote:
Fred Liken wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155661744.330713.13440@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Greywolf wrote:
"What, Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
news:g-OdneGOxul3pHzZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@insightbb.com...
Science does not fear. It doesn't require faith. It cannot believe.
Science is eternal. It is not a religion. You can't burn Science as a
heretic.
Science will still be here long after your religion is gone and
forgotten.
Let's hope so. Religion offers nothing of real value to man. And when you
think about it, it never has. Morality? Hah! It's like class; you either
have it or you don't.
Greywolf
For proponents of Evolution, you demonstrate little faith in your own
doctrine. Evolution should tell you that if humans have religion and
monkeys do not, religion is a development with greater survival value.
However, it has been obvious from the beginning that you had no faith
in your own doctrines.
Good point.
Not necessarily; quite the contrary in fact, because religion has not
contributed to survival, especially for those who espouse the wrong one
for the time and place.
Studies of Evolution show that only long term empirical tests in the
actual environment can prove which attributes lend survival and which
do not. For example, the Irish elk cannot be anticipated by any known
explanation to be the front-runner among all possibilities, given its
13 ft. antlers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Elk
Yet the Irish elk was prevalent throughout Eurasia, from Ireland to
China during the Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene epochs.
In a word, the Irish elk was not a short-timer.
On the other hand, those human regimes that tried to banish religion
were relative short-timers in the history of nations. They did not
reach prosperity even at their height, and they did not linger long
among the living. As experimental societies, they were abysmal
failures.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Real Scientists Do Not Oppose Religion |
21 Aug 2006 08:27:26 PM |
|
|
On 15 Aug 2006 14:25:09 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
For example, the Irish elk cannot be anticipated by any known
explanation to be the front-runner among all possibilities, given its
13 ft. antlers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Elk
The article you quote gives several possible explanations.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Real Scientists Do Not Oppose Religion |
15 Aug 2006 02:10:44 PM |
|
|
In article <44e207ac$0$33407$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com> "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> writes:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155661744.330713.13440@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Greywolf wrote:
"What, Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
news:g-OdneGOxul3pHzZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@insightbb.com...
Science does not fear. It doesn't require faith. It cannot believe.
Science is eternal. It is not a religion. You can't burn Science as a
heretic.
Science will still be here long after your religion is gone and
forgotten.
Let's hope so. Religion offers nothing of real value to man. And when you
think about it, it never has. Morality? Hah! It's like class; you either
have it or you don't.
Greywolf
For proponents of Evolution, you demonstrate little faith in your own
doctrine. Evolution should tell you that if humans have religion and
monkeys do not, religion is a development with greater survival value.
However, it has been obvious from the beginning that you had no faith
in your own doctrines.
Good point.
Not really. The possible Darwinian advantages of religion are, and
long have been, a topic of cheerful speculation and debate, particularly
among those involved with evolutionary psychology and sociobiology.
The most commonly offered hypothesis is that religion enhances
social cohesion.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Real Scientists Do Not Oppose Religion |
21 Aug 2006 08:24:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:10:44 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
Not really. The possible Darwinian advantages of religion are, and
long have been, a topic of cheerful speculation and debate, particularly
among those involved with evolutionary psychology and sociobiology.
The most commonly offered hypothesis is that religion enhances
social cohesion.
One interesting fact along those lines is we have a "god spot" in the
brain. If this region is stimulated, the subject automatically
believes themselves to be in the presence of a deity.
Presumably this mechanism evolved for social cohesion. It strikes me
as disadvantageous for an individual, leaving him open to
bamboozlement my the priest class or the TV evangelists who know the
secrets of stimulating this response.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Real Scientists Do Not Oppose Religion |
15 Aug 2006 12:56:47 PM |
|
|
On 15 Aug 2006 12:45:02 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in message
<44e207ac$0$33407$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155661744.330713.13440@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Greywolf wrote:
"What, Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
news:g-OdneGOxul3pHzZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@insightbb.com...
Science does not fear. It doesn't require faith. It cannot believe.
Science is eternal. It is not a religion. You can't burn Science as a
heretic.
Science will still be here long after your religion is gone and
forgotten.
Let's hope so. Religion offers nothing of real value to man. And when you
think about it, it never has. Morality? Hah! It's like class; you either
have it or you don't.
Greywolf
For proponents of Evolution, you demonstrate little faith in your own
doctrine. Evolution should tell you that if humans have religion and
monkeys do not, religion is a development with greater survival value.
However, it has been obvious from the beginning that you had no faith
in your own doctrines.
Good point.
Actually, it's a very bad point. The ToE doesn't address the value of
religious beliefs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Real Scientists Do Not Oppose Religion |
15 Aug 2006 01:31:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:56:47 -0400, in alt.atheism , IAAH
<iaah@dodgeit.com> in <1m24e2p7mpg92vstpsalsb9jfon7sueb2g@4ax.com>
wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 12:45:02 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in message
<44e207ac$0$33407$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155661744.330713.13440@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Greywolf wrote:
"What, Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
news:g-OdneGOxul3pHzZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@insightbb.com...
Science does not fear. It doesn't require faith. It cannot believe.
Science is eternal. It is not a religion. You can't burn Science as a
heretic.
Science will still be here long after your religion is gone and
forgotten.
Let's hope so. Religion offers nothing of real value to man. And when you
think about it, it never has. Morality? Hah! It's like class; you either
have it or you don't.
Greywolf
For proponents of Evolution, you demonstrate little faith in your own
doctrine. Evolution should tell you that if humans have religion and
monkeys do not, religion is a development with greater survival value.
However, it has been obvious from the beginning that you had no faith
in your own doctrines.
Good point.
Actually, it's a very bad point. The ToE doesn't address the value of
religious beliefs.
That is not quite true. We can certainly examine culture with an
evolutionary perspective. But it is not at all as simplistic as "it
exists therefore it has survival value".
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Snyder" |
|
| Title: Re: Real Scientists Do Not Oppose Religion |
15 Aug 2006 01:18:48 PM |
|
|
On 15 Aug 2006 12:45:02 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155661744.330713.13440@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Greywolf wrote:
"What, Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
news:g-OdneGOxul3pHzZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@insightbb.com...
Science does not fear. It doesn't require faith. It cannot believe.
Science is eternal. It is not a religion. You can't burn Science as a
heretic.
Science will still be here long after your religion is gone and
forgotten.
Let's hope so. Religion offers nothing of real value to man. And when you
think about it, it never has. Morality? Hah! It's like class; you either
have it or you don't.
Greywolf
For proponents of Evolution, you demonstrate little faith in your own
doctrine. Evolution should tell you that if humans have religion and
monkeys do not, religion is a development with greater survival value.
However, it has been obvious from the beginning that you had no faith
in your own doctrines.
Good point.
On the contrary, it's obvious and utter nonsense. Cockroaches have
been surviving as a species much longer than humans. Even the
dinosaurs stuck around for 'way longer than we've managed so far. So
much for the "greater survival value" of any human institution; the
time to start bragging about stuff like that will be a few billion
years from now, if we're still around to do it.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
