"The Argument From Incredulity" Snark

Discussion in 'Science' started by ChemEngineer, Oct 10, 2019.

  1. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Any mention of nature's wonders by a Believer instantly elicits a snarky comment from some atheist: "The Argument From Incredulity", chuckle, chuckle. (OMG, these Fundies are SO STUPID, aren't they? If they don't know something then "goddidit".)

    What the godless snarks overlook, intentionally, is the incredulity of scientists and scholars much smarter and more learned than they are themselves. Here's just one:

    The scientist’s religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, in comparison with it, the highest intelligence of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work. – Albert Einstein
     
  2. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    26,648
    Likes Received:
    18,822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He was wrong about Quantum Mechanics too. ;)

    But then we may live in a simulated universe in some highly advanced computer, in some world in the real universes.

    I tend towards the belief that the entire universe is conscious. There is no reason to believe awareness it is limited to organic structures.
     
  3. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    26,648
    Likes Received:
    18,822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interestingly, an emerging paradigm suggests that at the deepest level, all that really exists is information. The resolution of the Maxwell's Demon paradox reveals that information and energy can be equated. Given energy we can calculate mass by Einstein's E = MC^2. From all of this we can determine the gravitational forces associated with the known quantity of mass -> Energy -> Information.

    Loosely stated, it may be that energy is just one manifestation of information. And that implies that all that exists is information.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2019
  4. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    26,648
    Likes Received:
    18,822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correction: It implies that all that exists can be described and quantified as information.
     
  5. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know what you said but you continue to stalk and harass me. How petty of you, HereWeGoAgain.
     
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    46,585
    Likes Received:
    12,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First of all, we can all enjoy the wonders of nature!! Come on!

    Why would anyone suggest that people can't be inspired by the wonders of nature???

    Why would ANYONE think that humans are smarter than the universe? What does that even mean??

    When "goddidit" is used to put a stop to science (since why explore something where we know how it is done - by god) I'd say that some snark is certainly invited.

    Galileo faced "goddidit". Copernicus faced "goddidit". Darwin faced "goddidit".

    "God did it" is the expression of those who believe in a "god of the gaps". When science doesn't have an answer, then GOD is the answer. As science progresses, God shrinks. How can any Christian accept that kind of nonsense?

    Christians know that humans don't know God's methods or intent. So, how can it follow that humans can know what God did or did not do - and what is simply how our universe works?
     
  7. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    26,648
    Likes Received:
    18,822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Stalk and harass you? LOL! Don't be such a drama queen.
     
  8. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was reflecting last night on the comment that animal DNA of all species demonstrates "evolution." This is an extreme example of nonsense.

    1. DNA is a unique structure, no doubt the only one that can hold the information necessary to construct proteins and enzymes which then perform dazzling chemical syntheses and functions.
    2. Evolutionary biologists aver that eyes "evolved" along forty to sixty different pathways convergently, to produce retinol. Retinol switches back and forth from cis- to trans- enantiomers in less than a millisecond, so that humans and everything else can see. This is not blind luck. It is elegant design. How did random mutations all converge on retinol, forty to sixty times? Simple. They didn't.
    3. Carbon dioxide is the natural byproduct of animal respiration and energy use. It is in all of our cells and in normal quantities, is utterly harmless.
    Take away one of those two oxygen molecules and you have poisonous gas. One tiny change, like the tiny changes in DNA of different species, changes EVERYTHING.
    4. Ethylene glycol is antifreeze. It is very toxic to humans and other animals. But when it is polymerized into polyethylene glycol, it becomes a mild laxative, taken by millions of Americans. The sole molecule is deadly. Linked to hundreds of other identical molecules - wonderful medicine. Small changes can and do make huge differences.
    5. The Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny hoax was originated by Ernst Haeckel around 1860. It was then exposed in a German court as a complete hoax! Nevertheless, this hoax was taught in America for decades into the 20th century. It was even repeated in books written in the 21st Century. Why? Because old paradigms die VERY hard.
    And Darwinism is as old and as outdated as any.

    "Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck

    “WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

    “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

    “My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)


    “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

    “When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.” (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

    “Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.” (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
     
  9. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    28,910
    Likes Received:
    30,940
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All the gods have faded into the background as scientific knowledge increases - that's just the history of the beast. Man creates gods to explain the unexplained and quell the fear of death. New gods crop up, new religions, new cultures. This too shall pass.
     
    Capt Nice likes this.
  10. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What a pleasure it is to have a list of ignored people not even appear in any thread I open. Delightful!

    I'm currently watching the Military Channel broadcasting the history of Japan's Tojo. He pursued "science" a la Charles Darwin, who wrote:

    On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life


    Japan's Unit 713 experimented with horrific methods of killing people more efficiently, like the "scientific" Nazis did. Both were "superior races" as they learned from Charles Darwin - "science". Unit 713 murdered tens of thousands. Japanese soldiers bayoneted hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Filipino civilians, Russian and American POWs, anyone they could.
    Ultimately their evil resulted in the deaths of over 2,000,000 Japanese people.

    Incidentally, at a public forum, evolutionist Richard Dawkins was asked the entire title of this seminal book. He was unable to do so.

    Pretty funny that his ignorance was on display for the world to snicker at.
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    46,585
    Likes Received:
    12,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That quote is attributed to Jerry Coyne.

    And, it is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said.

    Coyne was referring to a debate between those who support evolution. The debate was about the comparative effects of many small mutations and singly important/large ones.

    "NeoDarwinists" tended to be on one side of that question.

    NOBODY was disputing evolution. So, not only was it a misquote, but it had to be done with a purpose, because ANYONE who would quote him would surely know that he does NOT support the crazy idea that evolution isn't real.

    Let's be careful who/what we quote.
     
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    46,585
    Likes Received:
    12,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Also, I would suggest it is more than just disingenuous to cite quotes concerning a failed experiment that took place more than 100 years ago. Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson's failed(!) experiment came ~100 years ago. Who the heck knows what he did or what he THOUGHT would happen.

    I don't see any indication that there was a Newton Tahmisian at the Atomic Energy Commission other than the quote attributed to him. Can you help?

    Beyond that, it is very well known that there are those who think God had a hand in creating the laws of the universe. But, that doesn't dispute evolution.
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    46,585
    Likes Received:
    12,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you quote these as "Argument from Incredulity", or was that just an accident?

    Were you hoping for snark?
     
  14. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    1,671
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And from your behavior, it appears your passing will someday advance both science and morality.

    I see you're resorting to Gish gallops now, avalanches of BS. Pity. If you had even one argument that didn't fail completely, you wouldn't have to deflect with the Gish gallops. But you don't, so you do.

    So, what drives your fanatical hatred of anyone who thinks differently than you? You don't see the normal people here starting threads with screaming insults, the way you always do.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2019
  15. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are ignoring content by this member (mamooth). Show Ignored Content

    Not a chance I will show ignored content. Not a chance.
     

Share This Page