Mistrust of Science - Evolution vs Creationism in the classroom

TheComebackKid said:
This is the theory of evolution in a nut shell. Its all pretense. They make a claim or present a piece of evidence that they cannot verify. Yet they present it as scientificly proven. When in reality all they've done is simply get enough other scientists to sign on to this claim in order to create a consensus around it. They then treat that consensus as scientific proof on which they create more unverified claims. This is what their "mountain" of evidence consists of.
Click to expand...
Yet it's more stringently verified than anything in the bible.
 
jgarner said:
I never understood how religious people can insist that something with properties of the universe requires some sort of intelligent design from some entity, but they don't see the irony in simultaneously holding that belief without thinking that said entity wouldn't need its own intelligent designer.

The biggest issue they also fail to grasp is that if there were an entity that we discovered under scientific scrutiny, then that's fine. The universe being "all things" would now include said entity and we could start using science to discover how that entity exists.

The real biggest issue is that religion is fucking stupid and you have to be gullible as fuck to believe that nonsense when we're sending technology to Mars and have quantum computers.
Click to expand...

I think its easy to visualize how that could be true. As an atheist, I will assume that you think consciousness can reduced down to a purely physical interactions. Lets start there. That means that in theory, without enough cpu power, you could program conscious beings into a computer simulation. But because it is a computer simulation written by you, you can also define parameters so that they differ from our real world. For example, you could program in an a constraint that objects only move to the left or stay stationary; they never move to the right. No matter what happens in your simulation, the universe will always tend to the left, and in fact has been written so that it is "smeared" to the left, i.e. it spreads out over time as not all things move to the left equally quickly. The conscious beings in your universe will eventually become curious and start trying to model their reality and figure out its rules. They will develop physics that describe their universe that only moves to the left and spreads out over time. But they will have a big question to answer. They will deduce that at some finite point in the past, all matter was to the right of where it is now, and it was all compressed. There is no physics they can uncover, because it isn't coded into their simulation, that lets matter move right or compress...so how did it all get there? At that point, the religious among them will begin to wonder if their universe was actually set up by a creator who doesn't obey their rules, and who can act outside their rules. They will tell stories of the great, all-powerful creator who could set all objects to the right with just the flick of his wrist. Can they prove that? Probably not. But its not a stupid idea.

You can call it "god of the gaps", and maybe it is, but that doesn't make it wrong. We are in analgous situation right now in physics. Our current physics paradigm tell us the universe evolves in one direction. It start with a big bang and expands infinitely until nothing is in causal contact with anything else. It had a beginning a finite time ago. There is no physics consistent with our current theories that describes how that beginning can happen. In fact, much about the beginning requires physics that we don't observe today. For example, if you just naively try to use modern General Relativity to try to simulate how an early, dense universe expands to our current universe, you actually fail miserably. Instead, our current observed universe is one that didn't evolve according to GR, but rather is described by "inflation". That's a big problem, because it means that it looks like the physical laws in the early universe are completely different than our physical laws today, and despite the best efforts of theorists, there isn't much progress made on how the two are related. Now, I don't know how you jump from this to an intelligent creator, but it does start to look to me eerily isomorphic to claims made by deists... that there is a set of laws governing our universe today, but there may be *something* else out there, that follows a completely separate set of laws, and that only interacted with us in the opening moments of the universe.

The real biggest issue is that religion is fucking stupid and you have to be gullible as fuck to believe that nonsense when we're sending technology to Mars and have quantum computers.
Click to expand...

See, I don't think those two things earn us bragging rights. We put some conductors in a box, lit an explosion under it, and crashed it into the other floating rock that is closest to us? Monkey's reach South America by getting caught on logs during a storm. In a few billion years our sun is going to swallow that rock and it won't be there. In 10^21 years, there will be no planets at all. Only super massive black holes. And for 10^64 years, there will be only those black holes. The universe will exist in a state dominated by black holes for an unfathomably longer time than planets will have existed in it. Yet the physics of black holes are incredibly poorly understand. So I don't think its worth bragging that we shot some shit from one planet to another. Its like a UFC fan who wrestles his brother in his basement trying to wear TAPOUT and act hard.
 
Last edited:
Regal Boy said:
Movement of electrons in your brain make up thoughts. We already know this because we can turn off your thoughts or change what your brain is capable of doing by manipulated the movement of those electrons using trans-cranial magnetic stimulation. There is a litany of research on this already.
Click to expand...

You do not know if it is the electrons that produce thoughts or if electrons are part of the physical mechanism in which thoughts are expressed through. By scrambling electrons you do not know if you are scrambling your thoughts are the mechanism you're thoughts express themselves through. Youll get the same result either way.

What evidence do you have of the mind being immaterial?
Click to expand...

NDEs
 
KeepingItReal said:
Please point out to me where I used the words "pervasive" and "problem".
Click to expand...

Ok so corruption with scientists is an issue but not a major problem, is this what you're stating? And the people that that mistrust the entire scientific community because of a few corrupt scientists are being cynical?
 
Hadron90 said:
You can call it "god of the gaps", and maybe it is, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Click to expand...

It makes it completely unsupported, or if you prefer, supported the same amount as Santa Claus. The gaps are closing, and the truly pathetic thing is that believers are without shame in clinging to their beliefs (aka "faith") while being continually humiliated by science.
 
Strategery said:
It makes it completely unsupported, or if you prefer, supported the same amount as Santa Claus. The gaps are closing, and the truly pathetic thing is that believers are without shame in clinging to their beliefs (aka "faith") while being continually humiliated by science.
Click to expand...

That's an emotional argument, not a rational one.
 
Human programs machine with limited human brain. Human plugs human interpreted data into computer. Machine magically produces data. Human inteprets data. Human produces data to puclic as facts.

Ask Greta Thunberg you liberal science disciples. She knows everything. She can even see C02 in the air. Even though your buddy scientists says that c02 is a invisible gas.

What happened to the old Socates quote?
"I have no fuc*king clue. I know nothing"

Enjoy your science religion. I'm with Christ. I don't claim to hold the facts, I'm just into something called faith.

Flame me for it. (If I had been a muslim nobody would say I thing)...

Anyway, if God created the universe. There would be science involed anyway. He used the elements to create. Divine science if you'd like.

Ask Neil DeGrasse Tyson or your favorite oprah-show scientist about the missing link. If they can't explain that, forget about trusting these arrogant science nuts with solving the greatest mystery of all time.

(For open minded people, read about the Sumerians. They explain our origin, they knew about or solar system. And how the only species (humans) on earth that can't survive on this planet as we are born. We are all made of stardust they say? Ok. But we were also bred. That explains the great leap. Evolution takes millions of years.)

We need cothes. Which animal, or mamal like sharks needs a jacket or needs to farm?)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Strategery said:
It makes it completely unsupported, or if you prefer, supported the same amount as Santa Claus. The gaps are closing, and the truly pathetic thing is that believers are without shame in clinging to their beliefs (aka "faith") while being continually humiliated by science.
Click to expand...
What's your research?
 
TomC said:
Human programs machine with limited human brain. Human plugs human interpreted data into computer. Machine magically produces data. Human inteprets data. Human produces data to puclic as facts.

What happened to the old Socates quote?
"I have no fuc*king clue. I know nothing"

Enjoy your science religion. I'm with Christ. I don't claim to hold the facts, I'm just into something called faith.

Flame me for it. (If I had been a muslim nobody would say I thing)...

Anyway, if God created the universe. There would be science involed anyway. He used the elements to create. Divine science if you'd like.

Ask Neil DeGrasse Tyson or your favorite oprah-show scientist about the missing link. If they can't explain that, forget about trusting these arrogant science nuts with solving the greatest mystery of all time.
Click to expand...
<Prem973>
 
Regal Boy said:
I agree with you about Google, I do not like them, but they're building these computers nonetheless. They should be legally regulated along with other AI companies but that's another topic.

I don't see how consciousness is different from sensory awareness and computation.
Click to expand...

The claim from Carl Jung that consciousness seems to exist outside of time and space seems to be the truth, or at least I can't find any faults in it. That's probably why we still have such a hard time trying to grasp it from a materialistic viewpoint. The idea that consciousness is just a byproduct of the brain's processes seem like nonsense to me. How does it create this self-awareness, which is more often self-defeating than not, and why is it necessary? What benefit could we possibly have to so acutely aware of our finitude, the evils of existence, and the possible fruitlessness of it all? The ideas presented in the spiritual books are that an aware observer is a necessary precondition to the cosmos, and that without an observer to describe its qualities you cannot say it exists. As in both the observer and the observation are required for either to be real. This is reflected in the Bible, miraculously enough, in John 1:1
In the beginning of the word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
This refers to God as the conscious word that creates from nothing, and that creation cannot exist without this consciousness. This is an ancient idea that predates the Bible. All the mythological stories in the Bible are far older than the books themselves, and they were created before the written word and survived the test of time. The Bible, when interpreted correctly with our scientific knowledge in mind, is a treasure of metaphysical truths that predate the oldest recorded civilizations. This is why the marriage of science with spiritual books are necessary so that we can extract the metaphysical truths from these stories, and not take them as literal accounts of history which defeats the purpose of these books that are designed to enlighten you.

"Modern man can't see God because he doesn't look low enough" -Carl Jung
jgarner said:
I never understood how religious people can insist that something with properties of the universe requires some sort of intelligent design from some entity, but they don't see the irony in simultaneously holding that belief without thinking that said entity wouldn't need its own intelligent designer.

The biggest issue they also fail to grasp is that if there were an entity that we discovered under scientific scrutiny, then that's fine. The universe being "all things" would now include said entity and we could start using science to discover how that entity exists.

The real biggest issue is that religion is fucking stupid and you have to be gullible as fuck to believe that nonsense when we're sending technology to Mars and have quantum computers.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,282,982
Messages
58,474,487
Members
176,048
Latest member
gibberish

Share this page

Back
Top