HEY member Flintc! An internet memo from reva; Here is a little something to read while I gather some basic information to educate you and prove that atheist scientists with an anti-religious agenda exist and have existed. Also after reading your critical and insulting comments directed to me allow me to give you a bit of advice; To debate intelligently and with any degree competency you should not need me to teach you the basics! Really, this is not advanced material. With all due respect please be prepared next time you attempt to debate, critique , or especially criticize me or my material. That goes double for you Takioo! Ok as promised; Carl Sagan) states: (added material, ie LOLs etc’s etc by reva, aka superman) “ We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs (VERY VERY TRUE!) in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It's not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.[2] Hope you enjoyed it....its called eating crow~ reva
You wish to "educate" with news of the obvious, or just demonstrating thatyou know how to set up a straw man? I should say not! Didnt we go round, with you thinking a theory can be proved, or was that someone else? For the slow and uninformed, please tell us, with an economy of words, what point you are making and why anyone should "eat crow".
That quote isn't form Carl Sagan. It's from Richard Lewontin in his review of Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World. Furthermore, every time a theist uses this quote to somehow tarnish science, they always use the cherry-picked version that fails to include the reasoning that followed. Here's the entirety of the quote (along with the link): Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." His point is that, despite any gut reactions we may have to scientific research, it's the best tool we have for investigating the material world. As so many theists are happy to point out when backed into a corner, we can't scientifically investigate truly supernatural occurrences (assuming, for the sake of argument, that they're real). That means we stick to the material when investigating the material. To attempt to use a material process to investigate the immaterial is simply impossible. This is not about being anti-religion, it's about using a tool (science) solely for the application that it is appropriate for (material investigation). That you and other theists try to attack science with these kinds of quotes is sad. And it's ironic as hell when you do it over the internet, accessed through a computer, that runs on electricity. Ask your average 19th century citizen about having more information than exists at their local library accessible at any moment, from nearly anywhere, and they would have said that's patently absurd. Yet here we are. So by all means, complain about science while you sit in your climate-controlled home, perhaps while watching TV or listening to the radio, while communicating with someone hundreds or thousands of miles away at the blink of an eye, as electricity cooks your food, lights your world, and keeps you comfortable. Try not to choke on the irony.
Tsk, now who would have thought a creationist would misrepresent anything, or use a dishonest quote mine for the purpose of deception?
I enjoy the study of physics more than any other subject save for metaphysics (religion etc) astronomy and cosmology. Anyway, to answer your comment, why do you think I told Taikoo we understand time in general*? *(by 'in general' I meant there are some aspects of time that are unanswered, time in general is well understood. To expand. That is why I mentioned the ‘arrow of time‘. According to our physics an egg should un-break easily as it breaks. The arrow of time seems to be related to entropy, and maybe even gravity. If I had know the member was so challenged I would have simply said time as a dimension is well understood! Of course there are novel length published material concerning more of the above…uuugh! Anyway fine detail is material for another thread, eh? If you are wondering I disagree with your comment! A straw man? Absolutely not! Btw, the he is a she, and she made an ridiculous, near unforgivable blunder! It is because of related things (attempting to insult me for no reason other than being a Christian etc) I do not answer many of her replies. So what you think as a straw man is only a exercising in verbal sparing, which both of us are guilty of. Anyone who is debating even high school level science should have learned in freakin’ MIDDLE school what a ToE and a GUT is and know the differences, ESPECIALLY when they engage in predatory debate gleefully insulting their debate partners. When I have a history with someone that is forever insulting my religion and questioning my creditability (without one shred of proof save from her own speculations yes I might get a little ‘pissed off‘ at said member. accusing him of ignorance of the subject. I hope you are not a usual suspect as well. (Usual suspect= someone who is bigoted against religious belief etc) At least ‘at second’ it came to you. When debating a subject its mandatory one knows the basics about the subject, especially if the debate partner has in the past and the debate partner has in the past and present accused me of not knowing the subject or anything else for that matter, lol! Look, if anyone does not understand a word or concept a member has rebutted etc, Hey, LOOK IT UP ! Don’t do as Tak’ did and does, and simply ‘guess’. For example; Look here i jest typed in GUT and gollopy gee whiz’ lookey aat this; GOOGLE… About 6,520,000 results (0.65 seconds) for ; ‘physics what is a GUT’ [/] the dang contraption told me the answer!!! Now tell me why couldn’t she do that? If you would have read (or not ignored) the posts that led up to this mess of an personal attack masquerading as a science discussion, and if you posses normal intelligence, and if do not hate religion and the religious with a seething passion the Nazis inflicted upon the hated Jewish and other undesirables, you should know your accusations is biased to the extreme. reva reva
So, we have a lot of personal personal from the person who decries it and wishes to discuss facts and data. How about some put up or shut up?
Excerpts of Burzmali post that I take issue with ; Burz>>>; "His point is that, despite any gut reactions we may have to scientific research, it's the best tool we have for investigating the material world" Reva;>>> I have OFTEN said I am pro-science in most of its forms and instances. Hmmm' you should have known that. However, I also say science is clumsy and is nearly useless when attempting some investigations prompting (I think it may have been Hawking) to say we need a 'new physics' to understand what happened 'before' the big bang or the processes of a black holes interior.. (not exact wording). Burz>>>; they always use the cherry-picked version that fails to include the reasoning that followed. Rev>>>; Yes, I could of not 'cherry picked' and instead I could have filled a couple of PF pages with the entire web page in que3stion, but you would not have read the most important sentence that validated my point, ie ; "Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door". Are you saying that its not true that a large portion of the science community despises METAPHYSICS??? caps meaning Google or library it if you do not understand what metaphysics entails. Burz>>>; To attempt to use a material process to investigate the immaterial is simply impossible. This is not about being anti-religion, it's about using a tool (science) solely for the application that it is appropriate for (material investigation). Rev>>>I have said very often that I am pro-science and support science in general (See above). I have also said metaphysics (which includes religion) can NOT be used in applied sciences or biology etc. What I HAVE said many times here at PF is science ie positivism etc and metaphysics are an equal in some aspects of origins, such as the origins of the universe and life. I am being short here because I am time poor. But ask any theoretical physicist what caused the big bang to bang or if the bang began at all ie why the universe began to exist etc and they will parrot theory. I will parrot Craigs version of the KCA which relies heavily on metaphysics AND conventional science ie Logical positivism AKA logical empiricism or neopositivism. Burz>>>That you and other theists try to attack science with these kinds of quotes is sad. Rev>>>>>No lol, its quite sad when members make fools out of yourself blathering all about what I think or what they think I say and it comes out as a slanderous lie. Maybe youall' enjoy slandering others, I don’t know, but its common pratice whether its intentional or not. Burz>>>>>And it's ironic as hell when you do it over the internet, accessed through a computer, that runs on electricity. How is that ironic? Lol, no its not ironic it simply is. AGAIN X a zuillon times (which is how many times I h av said this very same thing; applied science is wonderful! Love it really do! Love biology (except the origin of life which science doesn’t really address anyway), love chemistry, love Astor money etc. It’s only ironic in your and others mind. Those minds that despises deviation from Darwin’s little warm mud puddle theory of evolution, which btw has changed more than evolution can change a bug to whatever you find in the fossil record. A mind that can not understand anything or anyone unless they fit the Darwinist explanation and framework that they were force fed since birth. Now that is a profound example of sad. Whew, all the above said, I do not have a personal issue with atheists or non believers UNLESS an until they evolve from a… well better not say that make a good thread something ugly and personal where I must waste my time defending my creds. reva
The wait for some data to show that there is any actual problem with ToE will prove to be an indefinite wait.
What was the point of posting that quote from Lewontin if you agree with it and don't actually have a problem with science in general? I don't believe for a second that "a large portion of the science community despises METAPHYSICS." The Lewontin quote certainly isn't evidence of that. And I'm sorry if you can't see the irony of complaining about the scientific community's alleged eschewing of metaphysics while using the fruits of that very same scientific research. It's like someone complaining about the treatment of cows in food production through a mouth full of a McDonalds hamburger.
But this is the religious path to knowledge: ASSERT what you wish to be the case, and see how many people you can persuade. It's not like there's any reality to use as a benchmark. ALL of religion is made up.
here is something even more remarkable made up by the same person: tho there may be an "out". He does not say who 'we" would be in "our" physics. I suppose the physics of fluddies and the 6 day poofters could easily include unbreaking eggs.
This thread has become not much more than a personal attack. It began with a certain Ms making snide comments then was followed up with a straw man reply by her groupies. It seems the usual suspects are not happy unless everyone agrees that science is to be worshiped and can do no wrong. Of course religion and science has been at odds since the dark ages and later when the brilliant but incredibly stupid Galileo taunted the power that be back then, ie the church which was akin to a modern totalitarian government/dictatorship. Not that the church didnt give Mr Galileo many chances to circumnavigate punishment while saving face of the pope etc. Anyway in the future I will not respond to any reply that has even a bit of personal animosity. Post something on topic and I will respond. One more thing, lol, I will not answer any posts that criticize my verifying sources or credibility* without posting proof and their own validations that my source is corrupted or fraudulent etc. Notes; * By having to posting a valid source to prove that I did make something up or that I was incorrect ie by proving me should end the mindless prattle and will stop most of the off topic BS to allow more time to debate the subject instead of what color or size my turds are. Regards and my thanks to the civil members here; Reva
No one calls you a liar every time you express your negative opinions about opposing views. Don't you get tired of doing it?
I get tired of people who claim to be good "Christians" and then feel it is fine to bear false witness, making up anything that suits them and presenting it as fact. Did I ever actually lie, here? Prease give an example if you think that I do that. this.. Th.... is not an "Opposing view" , is simply a falsehood. The 'everyone", the "worship" and, the "do no wrong". If you honestly cannot tell the difference between an opinion and a falsehood, perhaps that explains some things. meanwhile, as I said of the atrocious nature or anyone who would say it is good and holy, the OT thing about how a rape victim is to marry her tormentor, and of those who support those saying it, those are contemptible human beings. Supporting liars in their lies is not necessarily better. I trust that is not what you are doing for our preacher here.
Creo challenge for this thread, or any other: Post something with not one personal comment, that has some factual material supporting creationism, or discrediting evolution. Our creo will be amazed at the attention he gets, all focused on these facts! In the total absence of same, its inevitable that conversation drifts off to into comments on the falsehoods they post in lieu of, you know, that ever elusive data.
Seriously? That is so easy! Everything is wearing down, getting worse. That is the Second Law of Thermodynamics!
In other words, Iron Age morals have merely depreciated too much and should be recycled into something better and more modern?
