roflroflroflrofl

[RichardT]

I'm a 6 day geocentric creationist and I find this hilarious rofl..

 

[random_guy]

While I find it funny, too, it's not really fair. I don't think Creationists are mentally retarded (or worst). They tend to reject science because of their environment and upbringing. It's hard to accept a different view if all your life, you've been taught that the Earth is 6000 years old, all the scientists are wrong (or being mislead by Satan, or there's a massive conspiracy against God), had bad teachers not explain what evolution actually is, and you can either accept science or the Bible, but not both.

 

[Assyrian]

I am glad you can have a sense of humour about it Richard, mayby it was funnier in the original animation, but to me it is just a cheap slur.

 

[RichardT]

because I actually watched family guy lol

I don't think I watch it anymore..

 

[Mallon]

I feel the same way as the other TEs here. I can't help but chuckle at the joke, but in reality, it is insulting, even if I'm not a creationist. As much as I disagree with creationist theology/philosophy, we're all still brothers and sisters in Christ, so I can hardly support such cheap jabs.

 

[shernren]

There is a difference between intellectual assent to something assumed to be right based on wrong information and/or wrong presuppositions, and intellectual assent to something known to be wrong. In my experience creationists do more of the former than the latter. As a former creationist, once I understood the evidence I knew I couldn't stay one for much longer; and most of the creationists I know who stay creationists are not convinced by the evidence, or do not misunderstand the evidence. I don't know any who understand and accept that the majority of evidence points to evolution, and still believe in creationism.

To accept something you know is wrong, is stupid, and possibly downright insane.
But to accept something because you have wrong evidence or starting points is merely mistaken. Lazy at worst. But definitely not stupid.

 

[Assyrian]

Mind you I do find this one very funny...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz77QIoAc0Q

 

[Cooch]

There's an old saying to the point that the first person to resort to insult in an argument, is tacitly acknowledging that he/she can no longer support their argument with evidence and logic.

Please recall that the arbitrary exclusion of any proposition which includes the supernatural, is in itself an unscientific position taken in blind faith.

Please consider......... Peter

 

[Dannager]

Please recall that the arbitrary exclusion of any proposition which includes the supernatural, is in itself an unscientific position taken in blind faith.

Thankfully, the scientific methodology that excludes supernatural explanations does not do so arbitrarily. It does so because by definition supernatural explanations cannot be found - if something has a measurable, definable explanation it is by definition natural. The scientific world encompasses all that can be observed and measured empirically. That which is supernatural cannot be observed and measured empirically. Please stop trying to define the practice of science to be something that it patently is not. At best it makes you appear ignorant of what you argue againt; at worst, it makes you appear intellectually dishonest. It may be extremely tempting to attempt to shift science to the same level as a religion, but it won't get you anywhere.

 

[Cooch]

Thankfully, the scientific methodology that excludes supernatural explanations does not do so arbitrarily. It does so because by definition supernatural explanations cannot be found - if something has a measurable, definable explanation it is by definition natural. The scientific world encompasses all that can be observed and measured empirically. That which is supernatural cannot be observed and measured empirically. Please stop trying to define the practice of science to be something that it patently is not. At best it makes you appear ignorant of what you argue againt; at worst, it makes you appear intellectually dishonest. It may be extremely tempting to attempt to shift science to the same level as a religion, but it won't get you anywhere.

You contradict yourself. The definition which you use to disclaim arbitrary choice, is in itself, arbitrary.

Do recall that the majority of scientific history has been spent looking for what could not then be seen, and seeking ways in which it could be observed and measured. Science still does this. How many examples do you need?
Are you possibly suggesting that we now have the technology to observe, examine and quantify everything which does or which may possibly exist?
Even the assumption that the "supernatural" has certain qualities that may exclude scientific examination is a religious position and smells of circular reasoning.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge.
Properly held, science acknowledges that there are explanations of what we observe, that we cannot currently examine using scientific method. This is accepting the limits of our method, but does not vprove that the explanation is not valid in an objective sense.
Arguing that we can only accept explanations which we can prove currently by scientific method is arbitrary and .... well you get my drift.

Regardless of the theory, science works with and depends on unproven and unprovable assumptions on a regular basis.
Acknowledging this requires a little of that intellectual honesty which you mention.

BTW, if it has to be observable and measurable to qualify as science, how do you explain this debate? http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Thoughfully............. Peter

 

[Deamiter]

Do recall that the majority of scientific history has been spent looking for what could not then be seen, and seeking ways in which it could be observed and measured. Science still does this. How many examples do you need?

Of course! Science seeks to explain the things we do not yet understand. A large part of this is being able to measure things that we are not yet able to measure. For example, I am currently working with 50 femtosecond (1/1000000000000000th of a second) long laser pulses (with 2.5mJ per pulse for anybody who cares). We are certain we can make the pulses shorter than 50 fs, but we don't have the ability to measure anything that short! Measuring the shortest period of time is crucial to accurately measuring MANY things, and although scientists have gotten much shorter than my 50fs, they will NEVER be able to measure an infinitely small time period.

Are you possibly suggesting that we now have the technology to observe, examine and quantify everything which does or which may possibly exist?

Of course not. But if we CAN measure it, it is not, by definition, supernatural. If it is measurable, it falls under the pervue of science. Not that it's not if we are able to measure it now, it's if the quantity is measurable at all.

Even the assumption that the "supernatural" has certain qualities that may exclude scientific examination is a religious position and smells of circular reasoning.

Note that none of these definitions from dictionary.com are consistant with measurable phenomena:

Supernatural
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge.
Properly held, science acknowledges that there are explanations of what we observe, that we cannot currently examine using scientific method. This is accepting the limits of our method, but does not prove that the explanation is not valid in an objective sense.

Sort of.... I think I agree with what you're trying to say, but it was a bit unclear so I will offer some clarification.

There is nothing that is even partially observable that cannot be examined using the scientific method (though there may be forces about which the scientific method is unable to draw conclusions). The scientific method does NOT acknowledge that there ARE things we cannot observe. It does not assume that everything is observable. It uses what we CAN observe to make conclusions about other parts of the natural world we can observe.

Arguing that we can only accept explanations which we can prove currently by scientific method is arbitrary and .... well you get my drift.

Nothing in science beyond logic and mathematics is EVER proven. And scientists are always open to new explanations -- which is why there are always some purely theoretical fields in which scientists try to describe the limits of what we have observed and design experiments that could disprove those descriptions.

Regardless of the theory, science works with and depends on unproven and unprovable assumptions on a regular basis.
Acknowledging this requires a little of that intellectual honesty which you mention.

No scientists (again, besides mathematicians) have ever proven ANYTHING. That includes gravity, germ theory, electricity etc... I've never met a scientist in real life or read a paper by one in which he claimed that something was proven. Whether assumptions are evidenced or not is an entirely different subject, but since it seems you're hung up on proof, I'll stop there.

BTW, if it has to be observable and measurable to qualify as science, how do you explain this debate? http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

This debate? The letter does not substantiate any of it's many claims against the worldwide scientific community. It claims that there are theories besides the Big Bang that explain many (or most?) of the current evidence, but it provides no support for these claims.

I'd explain it quite simply as a group of people who want to challenge the scientific community without actually going to the work of challenging scientific theories themselves. You should note that it is NOT in fact, a debate, but a call for research into alternatives into other explanations for cosmological observations. I would certainly support such an endeavour, but I'd want to know much more about the background and agenda of the organization (I recognize some of the original signers as self-proclaimed "activists" who do not professionally do research -- that makes me a bit suspicious as to their motives).

There will always be a few scientists who reject common understanding of the universe, and some of them will even be right (like Galileo and Einstein). The vast majority are utterly wrong, and publications like these that are designed to drum up public support and not to address the science itself are largely produced by people looking for money and fame, not searching for further understanding about the universe.

 

[Dannager]

You contradict yourself. The definition which you use to disclaim arbitrary choice, is in itself, arbitrary.

Cooch, if we avoided what you are calling "arbitrary" definitions entirely, language would not exist and all such words would be meaningless because they lack definition. I suggest taking a course in linguistics or perhaps symbolic logic, or at the very least brushing up on these topics.

Do recall that the majority of scientific history has been spent looking for what could not then be seen, and seeking ways in which it could be observed and measured. Science still does this. How many examples do you need?
Are you possibly suggesting that we now have the technology to observe, examine and quantify everything which does or which may possibly exist?

No, but we'll never ever be able to measure something that is fundamentally immeasurable. You're missing the point here. Deamiter did a good job of explaining it.

Even the assumption that the "supernatural" has certain qualities that may exclude scientific examination is a religious position and smells of circular reasoning.

The word "supernatural" means that is it not of the natural world. As the definition (scientifically speaking) for that which is natural is that which can be measured, "supernatural" things cannot be measured. It's language, Cooch. It is very important that you know how it works.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge.

Yes, but it is pursuit of knowledge by way of scientific methodology.

Properly held, science acknowledges that there are explanations of what we observe, that we cannot currently examine using scientific method. This is accepting the limits of our method, but does not vprove that the explanation is not valid in an objective sense.
Arguing that we can only accept explanations which we can prove currently by scientific method is arbitrary and .... well you get my drift.

No, I don't get your drift, because your drift is doing nothing but abstracting the word "science" into meaninglessness.

Regardless of the theory, science works with and depends on unproven and unprovable assumptions on a regular basis.

Such as...? What, methodological naturalism? That's the only one you could possibly bring up with anything resembling validity, and methodological naturalism is a restriction that scientific study freely accepts because without it scientific conclusion would lack meaning.

Acknowledging this requires a little of that intellectual honesty which you mention.

I have yet to meet a scientist who doesn't acknowledge relying on methodological naturalism. Of course, I have yet to meet a scientist who believes that this is a problem.

BTW, if it has to be observable and measurable to qualify as science, how do you explain this debate? http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

That's not a debate. That's an open letter. Debate in the scientific community does not happen via cop-out open letters.

 

[shernren]

Even the assumption that the "supernatural" has certain qualities that may exclude scientific examination is a religious position and smells of circular reasoning.

Of course it's circular. It's a tautology ... and tautologies are true by definition. There would be no reason to call anything "supernatural" other than precisely because it cannot be adequately investigated by naturalistic means.

 

[Cooch]

Of course it's circular. It's a tautology ... and tautologies are true by definition. There would be no reason to call anything "supernatural" other than precisely because it cannot be adequately investigated by naturalistic means.

Do you not acknowledge that many things are called "supernatural", only because we do not currently possess the ability to observe them by natural means?

Humanity has a long history of confusing the two, all I ask of you is an acknowledgement that we may still be doing so, and that we need the humility to recognise this.

Please consider......... Peter

 

[artybloke]

Do you not acknowledge that many things are called "supernatural", only because we do not currently possess the ability to observe them by natural means?

Such as?

 

[Cooch]

Gents....

in an attempt to disentangle this thread, let me state the following....

What I see, is the position taken by many scientists that any explanation of what we see, that depends on the supernatural, must be excluded. I further see - as per the initial post in this thread - that anyone who accepts the possibility of the supernatural as an explanation for what we observe, is to be assumed to be mentally retarded.

Regardless of whether the available evidence as measured by science is consistent with a supernatural explanation the poisition is that this explanation must be excluded as a possibility..

Do you gentlemen take that position? If, as Deamiter says, scientists are always open to new explanations, then this must include explanations that rely on the supernatural, and does not imply that those who do so are idiots.

Do you claim that we are currently able to observe and measure everything that exists? This includes the assumption that we actually know of everything that exists.

Dannager....
I will pass your question as to which areas of science rely on unproven assumptions, back to Deamiter who states that "Nothing in science beyond logic and mathematics is EVER proven".. Me, I would have settled for the norms of observable, measurable and repeatable evidence, but I think I understand the sense in which he makes that statement.
I merely like to make a point with those who make such an issue of what they can and can't measure, that even in this they have a certain level of dependance on faith and assumption.

Can we agree?

Curiously......... Peter

 

[Cooch]

Such as?

Examine your history....

Many forms of medication (think "witch trials").
Natural disasters.
A whole bunch of "technology" when first introduced to less tech-savvy people.

My point is that we sometimes confuse the issue through lack of knowledge, and sometimes by making an unreasonable distinction.

Hypothesize for a minute that God is real in an objective sense, just that he exists in a form that we are not currently able to observe.
If He then chooses to make himself visible, we are now able to observe Him, but he is no more or less real than He was before. Why is he then not classed as "natural" ?

That's what I mean about drawing an arbitrary line between the natural and the supernatural. We choose to make the distinction, but the distinction may be more a product of our assumptions, than of reality.

Cheers........ Peter

 

[artybloke]

Many forms of medication (think "witch trials").
Natural disasters.

Oh, I thought you were talking about scientists, not superstitious idiots, priests and preachers with no scientific understanding whatsoever.

 

[Cooch]

Oh, I thought you were talking about scientists, not superstitious idiots, priests and preachers with no scientific understanding whatsoever.

I'm talking about the knowledgeable people of their day and age.
These days we put a white coat on them and call the scientists.
(Figuratively speaking, of course.)

Just pointing out that we don't know what we don't know, and that assuming we know everything that we need to know on the subject sounds rather conceited. Who says that we're immune from the mistakes of our ancestors?

Not I.

Peter... (Making the mistake of attempting to produce a coherent argument while seriously sleep-deprived.)

 

[shernren]

Do you not acknowledge that many things are called "supernatural", only because we do not currently possess the ability to observe them by natural means?

Humanity has a long history of confusing the two, all I ask of you is an acknowledgement that we may still be doing so, and that we need the humility to recognise this.

Please consider......... Peter

But anything we are able to observe and study by natural means de facto becomes natural, not supernatural.

Gents....

in an attempt to disentangle this thread, let me state the following....

What I see, is the position taken by many scientists that any explanation of what we see, that depends on the supernatural, must be excluded. I further see - as per the initial post in this thread - that anyone who accepts the possibility of the supernatural as an explanation for what we observe, is to be assumed to be mentally retarded.

Regardless of whether the available evidence as measured by science is consistent with a supernatural explanation the poisition is that this explanation must be excluded as a possibility..

Do you gentlemen take that position? If, as Deamiter says, scientists are always open to new explanations, then this must include explanations that rely on the supernatural, and does not imply that those who do so are idiots.

Do you claim that we are currently able to observe and measure everything that exists? This includes the assumption that we actually know of everything that exists.

Dannager....
I will pass your question as to which areas of science rely on unproven assumptions, back to Deamiter who states that "Nothing in science beyond logic and mathematics is EVER proven".. Me, I would have settled for the norms of observable, measurable and repeatable evidence, but I think I understand the sense in which he makes that statement.
I merely like to make a point with those who make such an issue of what they can and can't measure, that even in this they have a certain level of dependance on faith and assumption.

Can we agree?

Curiously......... Peter

Firstly, in the first few posts of the thread many TEs have said that this particular clip (putting "creationists" below "retarded") is just silly and cheap. So don't shoot at us!

Secondly, we've been having that particular brawl (over the detectability of miracles) over here for a while now: http://www.christianforums.com/t3876112-to-what-extent-can-scientists-affirm-miracles.html come on and join in if you want!