Scientists' quotes

[Jan Volkes]

Why not have God embed a fake fossil record and be done with it?

Creationism goes way beyond a joke.

 

[The Cadet]

Can we share quotes from any scientist?

I'm trying to figure out this one from Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno:


I get the point he's making, but I'm not as familiar with those characters.

http://blog.syracuse.com/entertainment/2009/11/post_6.html

On one hand, I want to shout at you for not watching the old Star Trek series. On the other, I want to be a snob and say "The Next Generation was better, go watch that first". Decisions, decisions...

 

[Herman Hedning]

Can we share quotes from any scientist?

I'm trying to figure out this one from Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno

I'm sorry, but that name is hilarious when seen in the context of this forum! This Guy, Consolmagno - Consol the great - I hope he's not our Consol.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

On one hand, I want to shout at you for not watching the old Star Trek series. On the other, I want to be a snob and say "The Next Generation was better, go watch that first". Decisions, decisions...

Just be grateful we're not related or else you'd have to disown me for having thought Star Trek was based on the Star Wars movies for years. I've never seen either. Pitiful, I know. I was only corrected a couple of years ago after Leonard Nimoy did a lovely photography exhibit and very awesomely invited high school artists to it. My brother clued me in so thankfully I didn't say anything disgracefully stupid.

I'm sorry, but that name is hilarious when seen in the context of this forum! This Guy, Consolmagno - Consol the great - I hope he's not our Consol.

AV has mentioned that user before but I don't think I've seen him in the year I've been here. I wonder if his user name was inspired by the priest or if that's a coincidence. Consolmango would be more fun. No mango for you. I have no idea where that's from but I hear it all the time. Is consolmagno an actual word and not just a surname? I'm gonna Google. Sorry I babble like crazzzzzzzzy when I'm this sleepy.

 

[paulm50]

The FIFTH MIRACLE Published: 1998

Unlike the bible and the creation theory, science moves forward all the time. We are now finding life forms living off streams of gases and lava from volcanic plumes at the bottom of the sea. Making the creation of life more possible than we thought.

How does this reinforce the Creationist debate? It doesn't, it's another nail in it's coffin.

According to the Creation Theory, god came down to Earth and made everything. He didn't kick off the basic process. Unless the Creationist have moved their goalposts, yet again.

 

[paulm50]

What's so hard to understand about no origin of life - no life - no evolution? You can't just say oh geee, life exists so it evolves. Your theory demands it comes from non-life - through no one knows what mechanism, or conditions or even how. Your only observation is that life was not, then it was - everywhere all over the globe at once, except for man and the animals with him which was the last creation, because they had not had time to spread out far before the continents were separated at Babel.

When was there no life on Earth?

Think about it before jumping to reply.

 

[Jan Volkes]

before the continents were separated at Babel.

Where on earth did you drag that from answers in genesis? if you did they are lying to you and doing you harm.

 

[Astrophile]

Let's see how this works for other fields of science.

No origin of matter, no atmosphere - no meteorology?

Are you saying that in order to have a natural explanation for how weather changes we also have to have a natural explanation for the origin of the universe?

Is it possible to do chemistry without knowing how the chemical elements were formed?

 

[Loudmouth]

Is it possible to do chemistry without knowing how the chemical elements were formed?

Absolutely. Chemistry was a thriving field of science well before we discovered nucleosynthesis in supernovae.

 

[rockytopva]

"Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists." - Blaise Pascal

 

[Loudmouth]

"Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists." - Blaise Pascal

If you believe in the wrong god, do you go to hell or heaven?

What if the real creator deity hid from us and expects people to not believe in any god? What if entry into heaven will only be given to atheists? Better be an atheist, just in case.

 

[bhsmte]

"Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists." - Blaise Pascal

Some people can't convince themselves of things that can't be reconcile with reality and they would only be playing mind games with themselves in attempting to.

 

[The Cadet]

"Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists." - Blaise Pascal

What if the one true god is a god who really, really hates terrible, irrational arguments, and who will send you to hell unless you use your rationality to reject his existence? Suddenly, this wager, far from losing nothing, ensures that you lose everything!

Also, relevant:

 

[dysert]

Here's a scientist who says that evolution is anti-science. Sounds like "evolution of the gaps" ;-)

In his book A Different Universe, Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin, a professor of physics and applied physics at Stanford University, wrote that evolution is anti-science and actually impedes scientific investigation. Laughlin wrote he is concerned that much "present-day biological knowledge is ideological" and cannot be tested.

Here is an excerpt of what he wrote: "Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an anti-theory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable…. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!"

 

[The Cadet]

Here's a scientist who says that evolution is anti-science. Sounds like "evolution of the gaps" ;-)

That's nice, but Robert Laughlin is not an expert in biology, neurology, or biochemistry in any meaningful sense. His opinion on evolution is about as relevant as his opinion on the most reasonable treatment of Glioblastoma. Again, you can find all kinds of experts in other fields. You can even find a handful of experts within the field. But their personal opinion is not impressive in any meaningful way.

 

[dysert]

That's nice, but Robert Laughlin is not an expert in biology, neurology, or biochemistry in any meaningful sense. His opinion on evolution is about as relevant as his opinion on the most reasonable treatment of Glioblastoma. Again, you can find all kinds of experts in other fields. You can even find a handful of experts within the field. But their personal opinion is not impressive in any meaningful way.

I guessed that would be your reply. It may give others pause, though, before swallowing everything hook, line, and sinker.

 

[The Cadet]

I guessed that would be your reply. It may give others pause, though, before swallowing everything hook, line, and sinker.

It shouldn't. Even for people talking right within their field of expertise, there is no guarantee that they have any idea what they're talking about. Dr. Oz is one of the best heart surgeons in America, and he believes in Reiki (read: "Faith Healing, but more mystical because it's from China"). Dr. Duesburg is a solid pathologist who happens to believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Laughlin isn't even speaking in his field. He has no training in biology, no published articles in biology, and no expertise. His opinion on the subject should be taken as the opinion of a well-educated layman. For what it's worth, I tried to look into what he was saying, and of his statements:

• I could find absolutely no information on proteins violating laws of mass action. This seems to be pulled directly out of his kiester.
• The claim of molecules-to-man evolution (or molecules-to-chicken in this case) is not just some baseless claim where evolution is asserted, it is a pathway that is well-established through countless intermediary stages, fossil evidence, genetic evidence, and phylogeny. He's wrong that we use evolution as a way to plaster over missing information.
  
• The logical principles of the human brain are not well-understood, and our inability to emulate them is based on that. This has nothing to do with the evidence for evolution and is nothing more than a baseless argument from incredulity.

So he's not an expert and he's totally wrong. So I dunno, why should we take him seriously?

 

[dysert]

It shouldn't. Even for people talking right within their field of expertise, there is no guarantee that they have any idea what they're talking about. Dr. Oz is one of the best heart surgeons in America, and he believes in Reiki (read: "Faith Healing, but more mystical because it's from China"). Dr. Duesburg is a solid pathologist who happens to believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Laughlin isn't even speaking in his field. He has no training in biology, no published articles in biology, and no expertise. His opinion on the subject should be taken as the opinion of a well-educated layman. For what it's worth, I tried to look into what he was saying, and of his statements:

• I could find absolutely no information on proteins violating laws of mass action. This seems to be pulled directly out of his kiester.
• The claim of molecules-to-man evolution (or molecules-to-chicken in this case) is not just some baseless claim where evolution is asserted, it is a pathway that is well-established through countless intermediary stages, fossil evidence, genetic evidence, and phylogeny. He's wrong that we use evolution as a way to plaster over missing information.
  
• The logical principles of the human brain are not well-understood, and our inability to emulate them is based on that. This has nothing to do with the evidence for evolution and is nothing more than a baseless argument from incredulity.

So he's not an expert and he's totally wrong. So I dunno, why should we take him seriously?

We should take him seriously because what he says is consistent with common sense. After all, if the offspring of a fish is always a fish, adding a hundred million years to this process doesn't mean that the offspring eventually becomes a bird.

 

[The Cadet]

We should take him seriously because what he says is consistent with common sense. After all, if the offspring of a fish is always a fish, adding a hundred million years to this process doesn't mean that the offspring eventually becomes a bird.

"Common sense" is not applicable in almost all of science. The evidence is. And it's perhaps important to remember that "fish" and "bird" are relatively arbitrary* boxes drawn around what amounts to a spectrum. A fish will always give birth to a fish, but to a slightly different fish, and eventually those differences add up. If you were to view the entire evolution of dinosaurs in real time (imagine, for the moment, that you are immortal), you could go from early theropods to modern seagulls and at no point would you look and say, "that's no longer a dinosaur", but if you were given an early therapod and a modern bird, you could easily draw some boxes. Make sense?

*There are non-arbitrary characteristics, but how the boxes are drawn and what characteristics are chosen are, to a certain extent, arbitrary. To make this clear, if you look at this image:

You could say that red stops at "actually", at "purple", or at "tiny changes", and it would be hard to claim that any is more valid than the last. That's what I mean by "arbitrary". When we draw a box between "humans" and "non-human apes", we have a similar difficulty determining what in the fossil record can count as each.

 

[whois]

Unlike the bible and the creation theory, science moves forward all the time. We are now finding life forms living off streams of gases and lava from volcanic plumes at the bottom of the sea. Making the creation of life more possible than we thought.

really?
let's see what eugene koonin, lead investigator of NCBI, and a molecular biologist has to say about it:
The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-live research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.
-Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391