Page 4 of 22 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 535

Thread: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

  1. #76

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    On a neat little sidenote, Thomas Jefferson, the father of the separation of Church and state, was a noted deistic teleologist, who explicitly rejected teleology being a religious concept, but one based on reason and evidence.
    Horse and buggy era. Doesn't count.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to PaceBalls For This Useful Post:


  3. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thingfish View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Aww, well hell. I'm sure I can use all these quotes again soon...
    Being familiar with how often those from your side resort to quote mining, I'm sure you'll use them time and time again, in short snippets, completely removed from context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thingfish View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Really, anything you say after bashing one of the greatest thinkers in the last 300 years, constantly referring to him as ignorant, will no doubt be ridiculed.
    Charles Darwin may have been a great thinker, but the theory of evolution wouldn't be evidence for this, and when I say that, I'm not referring to the quality of the argument. I'm referring to the fact that nearly every concept addressed in the book originated elsewhere. Darwin's real claim to fame wasn't that he originated some breakthrough scientific revolution; it's that he had the social clout to get his largely unoriginal work published.

  4. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thingfish View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Horse and buggy era. Doesn't count.
    Some ideas have withstood the test of time. Others have not.

  5. #79
    Rebound King Kstat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    27,924

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Teleology is a take on the purpose of life, not the creation/origin of life itself.

    Given that teleology is about one degree short of darwinism (Darwin himself was arguably a teleologist), I'm going to go ahead and call BS on this one, unless he's really been trying to argue "Darwin was a complete and utter fool....but I still believe he was 95% accurate" all this time.
    Last edited by Kstat; 04-29-2013 at 03:09 PM.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Kstat For This Useful Post:


  7. #80

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The Discovery Institute is a great organization with top-notch thinkers with elite educations. Their Evolution News & Views blog is a daily read for me.

    Unfortunately, the fact that they challenge Darwinian evolution makes them public enemy #1 to a certain class of people, which in turn has lead to a massive smear campaign against them. It's shameful and dishonest, but shameful and dishonest is the name of the game when it comes to protecting outdated ideas like Darwinian evolution.

    ------

    As for intelligent design, as an I.D. proponent myself, I'll have to object to your claim that it's repackaged creationism. This is a myth that was started in order to try to refute I.D. without having to actually address it's argument. It's what we call a straw man argument; an intentional misrepresentation of an argument in order to create the illusion that you've actually refuted the real argument.
    Here's a page on intelligent design from the Discovery Institute:

    http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

    Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
    Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
    Design implies designer, does it not? "Intelligent cause." Who exactly is designing all of these things in nature? If you're trying to tell me that ID is not relabeled creationism, the definition above from the Discovery Institute is not helping your cause. Just because they're being intentionally and underhandedly vague, doesn't mean that they're not referring to a creator.

    The Discovery Institute's criticism is earned. As I said earlier, they are a wolf in sheep's clothing. They purport this image of a scientific organization when they are really an organization devoted to promoting socially conservative causes (ie limited government, Judeo-Christian beliefs). Peruse their "About Us" page and you'll see that they don't even deny their theistic ties.

    http://www.discovery.org/about.php

    Discovery Institute is an inter-disciplinary community of scholars and policy advocates dedicated to the reinvigoration of traditional Western principles and institutions and the worldview from which they issued. Discovery Institute has a special concern for the role that science and technology play in our culture and how they can advance free markets, illuminate public policy and support the theistic foundations of the West.

    ----

    Mind, not matter, is the source and crown of creation, the wellspring of human achievement. Conceived by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks and Christians, and elaborated in the American Founding, Western culture has encouraged creativity, enabled discovery and upheld the uniqueness and dignity of human beings.

    Linking religious, political, and economic liberty, the Judeo-Christian culture has established the rule of law, codified respect for human rights and conceived constitutional democracy. It has engendered development of science and technology, as well as economic creativity and innovation.

    ---------

    Religion and Public Life. The worldview of scientific materialism has been pitted against traditional beliefs in the existence of God, Judeo-Christian ethics and the intrinsic dignity and freedom of man. Because it denies the reality of God, the idea of the Imago Dei in man, and an objective moral order, it also denies the relevance of religion to public life and policy. Our program on Religion and Civic Life defends the continuing relevance of traditional religious faith to public life within a pluralistic democracy. Specifically, it seeks to defend the importance of Judeo-Christian conceptions of the rule of law, the nature of man and the necessity of limiting the power of government. Thus, it also seeks to protect religious liberty, including its public expression in pluralistic democracies.
    Quote Originally Posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    First of all, what evolutionary theory are you referring to? Notice how I'm always careful to specify not just evolution, but Darwinian evolution? That's not an accident. My primary objection isn't to the common descent, but to the laughable random mutation/natural selection nonsense. If that's the variation of evolution you're referring to, then I'll have to strongly disagree with your claim that it was developed using observation, evidence, and proper scientific methodology.
    I wasn't a biology major, so I can't go into detail as to the different aspects evolutionary theory. I was taught natural selection/random mutation in high school and it doesn't seem "ridiculous" to me. But I'm not certain of it. I'm not digging my heels or dying with my last breath to defend it. I think everyone should be at least somewhat skeptical about what they learn. If natural selection proves to be incorrect someday, I'll say "OK, cool," and move on. But I'll take natural selection/mutation any day over "God did it" or "Whoa, this looks really complex! There's no way this could've occurred naturally. This must have been created designed by God an intelligent agent!"

    Like I said, science doesn't have all of the answers and I don't expect it to have them. Quite frankly, I'm only mildly curious about we got here. Until we can actually invent a time machine to go back and witness things happen, we'll never know for sure. All I know is that I'm here now and while it'd be great to know for sure how things got here, it really doesn't affect my everyday life. The only reason I'm participating in this discussion is because intellectual dishonesty and pseudoscience bother me.

    To me, intelligent design reeks of religious parents being scared that science class will turn their children away from religion. To combat this, they try to spread this idea that there's a "controversy" regarding evolution and that evolution/natural selection is old and outdated. You tell a lie enough times and some people are bound to believe it, especially if it fits with their religious beliefs.

    Scientists have no reason to defend evolution/natural selection to the death if there are legitimate, scientific challenges to it. You don't see this in any other area of science.
    WE ARE NOT GETTING ERIC GORDON

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Aw Heck For This Useful Post:


  9. #81

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Personally, I don't buy the allegation that the 7 days stuff could mean some kind of 'special God days' versus just plain old 24 hour days. The only reason I can see for anyone to assume that spin is to make what would otherwise be a square peg fit in a round hole, in my opinion. Not that you can't believe that if you want, but I find it dubious and contrived myself.
    I think one of the major driving forces to this point of view is a learned attempt to deal with the immensity of time since the beginnings of the universe and, in contrast, the paucity of time since the appearance of homo sapiens on our planet.

    The known age of the universe since the big bang, by current best scientific estimates, is about 13.8 billion years. The earliest homo sapien, by current best scientific estimates, first walked our planet about 250,000 years ago. Many young Earth creationists seem to focus on 6,000 years as a purported age of everything.

    Those numbers are a bit too disparate to appreciate (at least to me, anyway!) without an example, if you forgive me.

    Let's scale the history of the universe to one of our calendar years, such that the big bang occurred at midnight the morning of January 1 and right now it is midnight one year later. The earliest homo sapien, by current best scientific estimates and scaled to this one year concept, first walked our planet (if my math is correct) 9.5 minutes ago, or 9.5 minutes before midnight on December 31. The 6,000 year period favored by many young Earth creationists began 13.7 seconds before midnight on December 31. Jesus, if you believe in him, may have lived and died at about 4.6 seconds before midnight, after which the Bible was written , a book telling (in some people's opinion) the entire accurate history of that whole year! The oldest person on Earth (116) was born 0.26 seconds ago, based upon this one year scaling concept. Your lifespan is likely one-fifth of a second, if you are fortunate.

    Bottom line: The history of mankind is very very small relative to the history of the universe, based upon our current knowledge. 13.8 billion years = 13,800,000,000. The history of everything living that we can see, or that ever lived, is incredibly small as well. The first age of dinosaurs began about 240 million years ago, or late in the day on December 25th, by our scaled year analogy.

    A side point, if you will. If the history of everything only amounted to 6,000 years, the scientific evidence to support such a recent date would be completely clear and unmistakable. There would be no fossil record dating back beyond that time point. There would be evidence of simultaneous emergence, or at least regularly staged emergence, of all currently-existing species in the fossil record. You would not see objects in the sky whose light must have taken more than 6,000 years to get to us. That fact alone would make the heavens a dull, dark place. There are many more inconsistencies between established data and the 6,000-old proposal, but entire textbooks have been written on the subject, so a message board post by me would be but a paltry summation.

    Hey, I don't put myself forward as the be-all-and-end-all of science knowledge or qualified to "speak for science". I have a Ph.D. and am a faculty member in a scientific discipline, involved in interdisciplinary research in chemistry and biology. That fact makes my opinions neither right nor wrong. It does help me understand and appreciate disparate pieces of scientific evidence in support of an "old" universe. The totality of evidence as I see it is clear and is consistent with the formation of galaxies, of stars, of planets, the emergence of life, the emergence of species, the recorded history of speciation, and (if you happen to afford some particular significance to it) the emergence of man as all being events fully driven by natural laws, acting over an enormous abundance of time. If you wish to invoke a God as a "source" for the existence of these natural laws or as the driving force behind the existence of the big bang singularity, it is certainly your prerogative. There's no data as to that position, to my knowledge, so it is solely in the realm of faith. I respect faith. Mine is wavering at times, admittedly. I have never fully embraced agnosticism nor any particular religious belief, though I do find the concept of a God to be comforting to many, and at times to myself.
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 04-30-2013 at 09:29 AM.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Slick Pinkham For This Useful Post:


  11. #82
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by vapacersfan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    When did the 24 hours makes a day system come into effect?

    I honestly never thought of that before, but I could see where translations get changed years after years (or hundreds or thousands, etc). Just think of how much the message in the telephone game gets changed, and that is usually a group/class of 15-20 people and 45 seconds
    I mean, I don't know when it started being cut into 24 pieces, but I think for all of human history a day was seen essentially as one "sun cycle", to speak. You have one day and one night, and then repeat. They may not have thought of it as 24 hours, but it's the same span of time.

  12. #83
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aw Heck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't take issue with anyone's religious beliefs. People are free to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old if they want to. Or that God created the universe. You can believe whatever you want to, as long it doesn't affect others negatively.

    What I DO take issue with is people trying to shoehorn their religious beliefs into the science classroom. Organizations with names like the "Discovery Institute" have been trying to dress up the wolf in as much sheep's clothing as they can, but the wolf is still a wolf and people can see it. Organizations like the Discovery Institute, which use underhanded tactics to try to get religion into science textbooks, are the reason that scientists have gotten so defensive.

    Disagree with evolutionary theory all you want, but it was developed using evidence, observation, scientific testing and the scientific method. Creationism was not. Evolutionary theory is not perfect, it hasn't delivered all of the answers yet (many will never be able to answered definitively), but it never claims to. Scientists continuously search for new answers and expound on old ones. That's the great thing about science. It's never satistfied. It continues to look to expand knowledge. That's why evolution belongs in the classroom and creationism (or Intelligent Design or whatever name people try to use to hide their true intentions) does not.
    I'm broadly in agreement with you here (I don't really know anything about Discovery Institute), but it makes me wonder: If science is 'never satisfied' and scientists 'continuously search for new answers and expound on old ones', why do many so-called science lovers/team science/whathaveyou (and this really isn't necessarily targeting you or any one person, but broadly) tend to be so dismissive of the ideas they don't subscribe to? Such as on topics such as psy, the possibility of an afterlife, or even a rare species of ape that some people might call 'Bigfoot'? Why do they go from 'never satisfied' and 'continuously searching' to close-minded know-it-all's depending on which topics they do or do not feel fits their paradigm?

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  14. #84
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thingfish View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This is where I get to quote you! I knew you were a young earth creationist! Totally called that one out LOL. So let's look at your quote and think about how far the human race has come from the Bronze Age to Charles Darwin. Now, let's let this quote sink in a while.

    "I believe Darwin was an ignorant product of an ignorant time". - GRH 2013
    I think you may have just put your foot in your mouth. I'm 99% positive he is into old Earth creationism, and the "(I believe)" later in the quote as him approximating the beliefs of young Earth creationism believers.

    This post kind of demonstrates the point some of us have made about the attitudes of some athiests materialists with this "LOL gotcha!" kind of post...

  15. #85
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thingfish View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Horse and buggy era. Doesn't count.
    Huh? Explain.

  16. #86

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Hicks, a scientific mind is rooted in skepticism, which is NOT a bad word. A skeptic asks you to show me the evidence for what you believe to be true, if you want me to give you an opinion. Every cop, judge, juror, etc. is a good skeptic.

    I think that the feeling that there is a "scientific arrogance" and "religious fanaticism" both come out of a fundamental clash between 1) those who demand evidence as a starting point to begin any discussion and 2) those who totally dismiss the concept that any such evidence should ever be needed, often because "I think that God says it to be so" or because "to me it makes a good story, and I don't trust science"

    I am perfectly willing to accept the existence of Bigfoot or the existence of a 6,000-year old history of the universe as fact if you should me the evidence. If you have no evidence that passes even the minimum scientific muster, I will oppose your efforts to pretend otherwise on scientific grounds. I will certainly oppose any efforts to teach it to our youth as being established fact.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Slick Pinkham For This Useful Post:


  18. #87

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm broadly in agreement with you here (I don't really know anything about Discovery Institute), but it makes me wonder: If science is 'never satisfied' and scientists 'continuously search for new answers and expound on old ones', why do many so-called science lovers/team science/whathaveyou (and this really isn't necessarily targeting you or any one person, but broadly) tend to be so dismissive of the ideas they don't subscribe to? Such as on topics such as psy, the possibility of an afterlife, or even a rare species of ape that some people might call 'Bigfoot'? Why do they go from 'never satisfied' and 'continuously searching' to close-minded know-it-all's depending on which topics they do or do not feel fits their paradigm?
    I think if you presented a scientist with evidence as to the existence of "psy, the possibility of an afterlife, or even a rare species of ape that some people might call 'Bigfoot'," they would not be so quick to be dismissive or seemingly "close-minded." It's probably not great that some scientists can come off as arrogant know-it-alls and people should probably try to be more patient, but I think they just get tired of it after a while. I mean, 9/11 truthers claim to have mountains of evidence that the government planned and executed 9/11, but a lot of people are dismissive and take a condescending attitude towards them. Should people be more polite towards this (conspiracy) theory as well?

    I don't think any of the concepts you mentioned are new to scientists. I'm sure they've considered them and run their own tests. I think if there was anything to those things, they would be a part of scientific study already. What do scientists have to gain by dismissing truths? I would think a groundbreaking discovery would be welcomed in the scientific community, not shunned.
    Last edited by Aw Heck; 04-29-2013 at 05:20 PM.
    WE ARE NOT GETTING ERIC GORDON

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Aw Heck For This Useful Post:


  20. #88
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Hicks, a scientific mind is rooted in skepticism, which is NOT a bad word. A skeptic asks you to show me the evidence for what you believe to be true, if you want me to give you an opinion. Every cop, judge, juror, etc. is a good skeptic.
    Absolutely. I have no issues with skeptics. My issues is with all of the others who call themselves skeptics, but what they really are are cynical, goal-post-moving, naysayers. Essentially their attitude boils down to, "If it doesn't fit my paradigm, I don't believe you, and there will never be the requisite evidence to change that no matter what facts you may bring forth." Those are the 'skeptics' I have a problem with. Speaking of wolves in sheep's clothing.

    But a true, honest skeptic like you describe? I'm with you on them. That's where I try to be, that's where I wish more people tried harder to be. But it's easy to fall out of that mode and start leaning on your beliefs. Some people are more aware that they're doing that than others.

    I grew up in and around Christianity, became a materialist atheist, and now I roughly consider myself something else but not sure what. I think it's left me with a reasonably open and skeptical mind, but I know like any other human being I have to base at least some things on belief. The trick is to not be a dick about those beliefs.

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  22. #89

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Absolutely. I have no issues with skeptics. My issues is with all of the others who call themselves skeptics, but what they really are are cynical, goal-post-moving, naysayers. Essentially their attitude boils down to, "If it doesn't fit my paradigm, I don't believe you, and there will never be the requisite evidence to change that no matter what facts you may bring forth." Those are the 'skeptics' I have a problem with. Speaking of wolves in sheep's clothing.

    But a true, honest skeptic like you describe? I'm with you on them. That's where I try to be, that's where I wish more people tried harder to be. But it's easy to fall out of that mode and start leaning on your beliefs. Some people are more aware that they're doing that than others.

    I grew up in and around Christianity, became a materialist atheist, and now I roughly consider myself something else but not sure what. I think it's left me with a reasonably open and skeptical mind, but I know like any other human being I have to base at least some things on belief. The trick is to not be a dick about those beliefs.
    The thing is Hicks, there are people with the attitude you describe everywhere. I think it's indefensible in the scientific field and everywhere else.

    I consider myself an agnostic and skeptic. I don't believe in a higher power. I'm open to the possibility, but I don't think that it's likely. I have my own thoughts and beliefs, but I try not to shove them down people's throats. I try to keep myself in check, so I hope I have not come off that way in this thread.
    WE ARE NOT GETTING ERIC GORDON

  23. #90
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aw Heck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think if you presented a scientist with evidence as to the existence of "psy, the possibility of an afterlife, or even a rare species of ape that some people might call 'Bigfoot'," they would not be so quick to be dismissive or seemingly "close-minded."
    And that's the problem: You'd think so, but from what I've read that doesn't seem to be the case. There are those who do research into things like psy, and typically the response from 'skeptics' is to dismiss the evidence, even when it's people who appear to be doing honest, solid work (Dean Radin comes to mind). They bend over backwards to come up with alternatives instead of what the evidence (in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of most generally open-minded if uncertain people) would suggest that there IS something to psy. I even recall one skeptic (name escapes me, but he's out there to be Googled) who basically was eventually forced to admit that the evidence, when judged by the same standards as other fields of study (the ones that AREN'T dismissed as woowoo), seems to suggest psy is real, so what did he say in the same breath? That it was time to RAISE the standards because of this! He's so dug in to his belief system that it can't be real, that when his own standards suggest otherwise, rather than adjust his beliefs, he wants to change the standards. I find that incredible.

    It's probably not great that some scientists can come off as arrogant know-it-alls and people should probably try to be more patient, but I think they just get tired of it after a while. I mean, 9/11 truthers claim to have mountains of evidence that the government planned and executed 9/11, but a lot of people are dismissive and take a condescending attitude towards them. Should people be more polite towards this (conspiracy) theory as well?
    I could only answer this after examining the alleged evidence myself. I know you're wanting me to say "Of course not," but while it's true my default assumption is the 9/11 was not a government conspiracy, why would I jump to a conclusion without examining what they have to present? Sure, I doubt it, but I wouldn't be arrogant and say "I know they're full of crap." Maybe they are. I might even assume they are. But unless I'm going to take the time to examine the alleged evidence for myself (which is the attitude I believe Buddha preached, by the way), who am I to give them a bad attitude? Now, if they start hurting people in the name of their allegations, I have a problem with THAT, but that would be a different concept.

    I don't think any of the concepts you mentioned are new to scientists. I'm sure they've considered them and run their own tests. I think if there was anything to those things, they would be a part of scientific study already. What do scientists have to gain by dismissing truths? I would think a groundbreaking discovery would be welcomed in the scientific community, not shunned.
    Generally, what they gain is they keep their positions and their scholarship money by not rocking the apple cart. What I've read multiple times is that when scientists start to look into psy, the 'powers that be' in the scientific community basically threaten to blacklist them from certain jobs and scholarships if they try to pursue it. They're kept in line by fear, in those cases. If you really take the time to read into it, it's not nearly as neat and tidy as you might like to think. Contrary to idealistic beliefs, many scientists DO hold onto THEIR belief systems, even though they're not based in religion, and they WILL cop an attitude when their peers start to push back against them. At least when it's a topic they consider 'woowoo' like psy. I find it childish myself.

  24. #91
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aw Heck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The thing is Hicks, there are people with the attitude you describe everywhere. I think it's indefensible in the scientific field and everywhere else.

    I consider myself an agnostic and skeptic. I don't believe in a higher power. I'm open to the possibility, but I don't think that it's likely. I have my own thoughts and beliefs, but I try not to shove them down people's throats. I try to keep myself in check, so I hope I have not come off that way in this thread.
    I agree, there are people with that attitude everywhere. Certainly within religions, but not by any means exclusively within religions. It's just that when a scientist or a skeptic gets dogmatic about his or her beliefs, they tend to be in denial about it because they reject religion, they reject superstition, so 'how could they possibly' be dogmatic about any of their beliefs. But they are.

  25. #92
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Seriously, just read this book and see if you still think exactly the same way about how open-minded all of the scientists are:

    http://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Univ.../dp/0061778990

    Don't read some cynic's refutation of the book, don't read a fanboy's praise of the book, just read the book and let it speak for itself.

  26. #93
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Apparently I'm losing my mind; I think I've been meaning to type 'psi' not 'psy'. Oye. Stupid brain.

    Well, there's only one way to leave this embarrassment behind:


  27. #94

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And that's the problem: You'd think so, but from what I've read that doesn't seem to be the case. There are those who do research into things like psy, and typically the response from 'skeptics' is to dismiss the evidence, even when it's people who appear to be doing honest, solid work (Dean Radin comes to mind). They bend over backwards to come up with alternatives instead of what the evidence (in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of most generally open-minded if uncertain people) would suggest that there IS something to psy. I even recall one skeptic (name escapes me, but he's out there to be Googled) who basically was eventually forced to admit that the evidence, when judged by the same standards as other fields of study (the ones that AREN'T dismissed as woowoo), seems to suggest psy is real, so what did he say in the same breath? That it was time to RAISE the standards because of this! He's so dug in to his belief system that it can't be real, that when his own standards suggest otherwise, rather than adjust his beliefs, he wants to change the standards. I find that incredible.

    -----

    Generally, what they gain is they keep their positions and their scholarship money by not rocking the apple cart. What I've read multiple times is that when scientists start to look into psy, the 'powers that be' in the scientific community basically threaten to blacklist them from certain jobs and scholarships if they try to pursue it. They're kept in line by fear, in those cases. If you really take the time to read into it, it's not nearly as neat and tidy as you might like to think. Contrary to idealistic beliefs, many scientists DO hold onto THEIR belief systems, even though they're not based in religion, and they WILL cop an attitude when their peers start to push back against them. At least when it's a topic they consider 'woowoo' like psy. I find it childish myself.
    I'm not familiar with psi or those who study it, beyond just a quick glance at a Wiki page a moment ago. And I'll admit that I am idealizing the scientific community. There are some bad apples out there, I'm sure.

    But, as I said earlier, if there is legitimacy to psi or any of the other things you mentioned, the truth will win out eventually, even if there are scientists out there actively scheming to stamp it out now. There are too many scientists worldwide conducting experiments. And I'm sure there are proponents of psi out there doing their own research as well. If there's legitimacy to it, it will show eventually.

    I think part of the problem is that there is so much pseudoscience out there that some scientists are too skeptical for their own good.
    WE ARE NOT GETTING ERIC GORDON

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Aw Heck For This Useful Post:


  29. #95
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aw Heck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm not familiar with psi or those who study it, beyond just a quick glance at a Wiki page a moment ago. And I'll admit that I am idealizing the scientific community. There are some bad apples out there, I'm sure.

    But, as I said earlier, if there is legitimacy to psi or any of the other things you mentioned, the truth will win out eventually, even if there are scientists out there actively scheming to stamp it out now. There are too many scientists worldwide conducting experiments. And I'm sure there are proponents of psi out there doing their own research as well. If there's legitimacy to it, it will show eventually.

    I think part of the problem is that there is so much pseudoscience out there that some scientists are too skeptical for their own good.
    I think that's correct.

  30. #96
    Member BearBugs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    67
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    I am a Christian and believe Dinosaurs existed. This is a very good article to read if you are skeptical. http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-and-the-bible

  31. #97
    Rebound King Kstat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    27,924

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BearBugs View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I am a Christian and believe Dinosaurs existed. This is a very good article to read if you are skeptical. http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-and-the-bible
    ....and there it is...the flintstones theory.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

  32. The Following User Says Thank You to Kstat For This Useful Post:


  33. #98
    Tree People to the Core! indygeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cumberland
    Posts
    15,239
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    I'm no great shakes of a scientist. I did post-grad microbiology work at Butler but didn't complete my masters. I spent 40 years in various labs for Lilly. But that's practical science not theoretical. Anyway.... I've posted this elsewhere and I'll challenge all of you here.

    Take a volume of space, any size you want but it must be completely devoid of ANYTHING. No heat, no light, no electrons, no quarks, nothing, nada, zip, zilch. The challenge? Create something within that space. GO!

    Even the "god-particle" had to come from somewhere.
    =======================

    Even while I was an undergrad (back in the '60s) Natural Selection was being scoffed at.
    My understanding was that the theory of the Earth being merely 5,000 years old was being taught by one particular sect of one certain denomination of Christianity. That is was just a minor group of people that held this belief.
    Last edited by indygeezer; 04-30-2013 at 02:07 AM.
    If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around..

  34. #99

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think you may have just put your foot in your mouth. I'm 99% positive he is into old Earth creationism, and the "(I believe)" later in the quote as him approximating the beliefs of young Earth creationism believers.

    This post kind of demonstrates the point some of us have made about the attitudes of some athiests materialists with this "LOL gotcha!" kind of post...
    I'm not an atheist though. His quote(s) could be held against him no matter what he says really. Darwin was one of the greatest thinkers we have ever had.

  35. #100

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Hicks, I certainly can't speak for Team Science and generalizing anyone "scientific" into some sort of cynical dismissive group seems silly.

    I try to be objective and open minded, but I have a pretty good bullsht detector. It was beeping hard in this thread. Didn't you feel that too?

Similar Threads

  1. The Evolution of Roy Hibbert
    By pizza guy in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-22-2012, 07:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •