Creationism Vs Evolution

ZOMG RANT ALERT

It sickens me how many people in this country don't believe in evolution.  I heard a statistic that it's around half, but I doubt it's that many.  Science is about rational thought and testable ideas and experiments.  Rejecting the scientific theory of the origin of the human race is like not believing in friction, saying something like that it's god's will that things don't move infinitley.  Even though most fundamental scientific principles are proved indirectly at first (like the spherical nature of the earth), when we are able to directly observe it, we are right because it has been tested indirectly so much.  Religious extremists dismiss evidence like fossils as "tricks by god to test our faith" or something like that.  I bet if someone took a born again christian or another religious extremist in a time machine back 65 million years ago, observed dinosaurs, and returned, they would still reject their direct observations as "hethanistic trickery" or something like that.  Courts have ruled in some places that scientific arguments in favor of creationism can be taught in public schools, what will they have to show?  This intelligent design theory they yammer about is nothing more than pseudoscience, and a lazy underestimation of the power and magnitude biodiversity, natural selection, and time can accomplish.

>>79
Uh, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over.

"God may exist in the 12th dimension" is a meaningless noise.

What testable predictions stem from such a hypothesis, if hypothesis it be?

clearly it is not a hypothesis evidenced by the word 'may' - no assumptions are made

yet there is too much we dont currently understand to rule out the possibility of a "god"(as a creator, not a maintainer)

nothing in theoretical physics directly negates the possibility of "god". again, origin has never been satisfactorily explained

once we are able to alter the frequency of vibration of p-branes competently(likely never - as they are still a theoretical construct) we will have obtained the power of "god"

some say a "theory of everything" IS god, in a metaphysical sense

our universe is comprised of fractals, from the orbits of planets around stars to the electron rings around a nucleus at the atomic level.. its simply a question of scale

most suspect there is a unified theory out there, yet to be fully understood

though its quite possible we may never comprehend it.. certainly not within any of our lifetimes

There is too much we don't currently understand to rule out the possibility of invisible pink unicorns.

Nothing in theoretical physics directly negates the possibility of invisible pink unicorns.  Again, invisible pink unicorns have never been satisfactorily explained.

Once we are able to alter the frequency of vibration of p-branes (p is for pink, as in pink unicorns--the invisible kind) we will have obtained the power of invisible pink unicorns.

Some say a "theory of everything" IS an invisible pink unicorn, in a metaphysical sense.

>>83 how boring

>>83
>p is for pink, as in pink unicorns--the invisible kind

p is for n or x or * or ? - its a variable relating to a class

*=branes are a class of sub-atomic structures that depending on their shape and vibration produce various higher-level atomic structures.. electrons, protons.. this is the deepest level on the universal fractal that we are somewhat familiar with and can see(at the moment)

logically one then asks: what makes up an electron? something must... this is the problem that m-theory(super-string theory) uses the "p"-brane class to address

now, if mastery of the sub-atomic level of matter is not "god's power".. then tell me what is... because it happens to be the ultimate goal, as well as comprehending the knowledge gleaned while working towards the end of a "unified theory"

of course all theories must be mathematically tested, and m-theory has gone the farthest with the least perturbations... we are clearly getting closer

as per theory, one would be able to conjure up arbitrary atomic structures at will by modifying the frequency that the sub-atomic particles vibrate at... ofcourse many years of development will be required to arrange and control these particles that we can barely conceptualize(at the moment)

but it will happen, sooner or later... this problem is far too large to be cracked by one person in their lifetime, it will require generational contributions through time(the 4th dimension) to beat this particular game

as for god...

the fact that some entity may have already mastered all scales and dimensions and started a reaction going one day(what caused the big bang?)is not beyond probability... we are just reaching the edge of comprehension of a particular realm which must be "gods" domain... in the view of religious people..

>>83
"There is too much we don't currently understand to rule out the possibility of invisible pink unicorns.
Nothing in theoretical physics directly negates the possibility of invisible pink unicorns."

Yes, you are exactly correct.  In fact, they must exist inside our own universe somewhere within some other hubble volume, if not in this one.  However, I suspect you were just talking about whether they exist on our planet.  A lack of evidence for something is not contrary evidence.  You forget that there is a world of difference between not believing in something and believing that something does not exist.

For instance - say I know a girl named Melissa, but not very well.  I don't know whether she has any dogs.  At this point, I shouldn't assume that she has dogs for no reason, so I would not believe that she has dogs.  However, I also would have no reason to be sure that she has no dogs, so I wouldn't believe that they don't exist - believing in something's non-existence without evidence is not much better than beleiving in something's existence without evidence.  This is why I don't respect athiests much more than theists.

Now, as far as the unicorns go... yes, you'd be a fool to believe that they exist on earth with no evidence.  However, you wouldn't be much better to go around supporting their non-existence with no evidence of that, either; although, admittedly, it seems a more likely case.

p-branes? moer liek peabrains AM I RITE?

>>86
Atheism is a lack of acceptance of the "god" hypothesis, not a positive assertion that gods do not exist.  Atheism is the default state, though most children are brainwashed out of it by their parents and society as they grow up.

o rly?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism

Perhaps you meant some form of agnosticism?

Yes, rly.

Agnosticism is a personal position of not knowing whether the "god" hypothesis is valid or not, which some extend to saying that questions about "god" are inherently unanswerable.

Atheism is lack of belief.  Theism is belief in gods, and the a- prefix is a negation.  A-theism is lack of belief.

Atheism and agnosticism are compatible; it is possible for a person to be both at once.

The "god" hypothesis is by its nature untestable, and is therefore not really a hypothesis at all.  As it cannot be tested, it tells us nothing, and is semantically null and void.

I do not claim to be able to prove that there isn't a Starbuck's on Mars, but I find the idea improbable.  What does that make me?

You know... just because you believe a word to mean something does not make it so.  Please show us a some evidence that this is the main definition of athiesm, since the dictionaries I'm checking seem to disagree with you.  Your etymology sounds good, but the meaning of words changes, as I'm sure you know.

Your belief about Mars is reasonable.  It does seem unprobable based on any factors we could know.  Only if you made a positive assertion that there definately was no Starbucks on Mars would you be acting unreasonably.

Did you hear about the agnostic dyslexic insomniac? 

He stayed up all night wondering if there really was a dog.

oh shutup.. you know you love it
you guys just like to argue endlessly about bullshit

The burden of proof is on those who make the positive existential claim.  Let those who claim to believe in a "god" prove their assertions.  Unless and until they do, I will not take them or their bizarre superstition seriously.

>>94
there is likely more than the physical plane of matter
theoretical physics only addresses the physical universe... and has a tenuous understanding of that universe at best

who can explain conciousness is the real question,
how these arrangements of minute particles can somehow percieve and are somehow aware..

all of you who are so ready to write off the entire spiritual realm because of a reactionary disgust with religious zealots may want to rethink that
though admittedly organized religion is more of a cult and a mass population control mechanism than anything else

>>95
What makes it "likely"?

>>96
reading comprehension anyone?

conciousness is what makes it "likely"

>>97

Non sequitur.

How does consciousness make such a thing likely?  Explain.  And while you're explaining, explain how consciousness can be anything but a phenomenon of the flesh-and-blood brain in light of the case of Phineas Gage.

phineas gage from the 1800s? they exhumed his body and tried to discern the state of brain damage pre- CAT scan era

please, is that your great case study that conclusively invalidates the possible existence of a spiritual plane?

consciousness is the one inexplicable "phenomenon" in the human brain - the base from which we perceive. flesh and blood indeed
we understand the processes of the brain, synapses and neurons, electrical impulses - but that is purely the technical level..

consciousness is almost too fantastic to explain with science, even if we were to completely master the physical world and exactly replicate a human brain from it's sub-atomic components... i would doubt we could make it "conscious"

the intricacies of "mind"(vs brain) are so immense that any reasonable person would accept the _possibility_ of a non-physical plane in which "mind" exists

the leap from possible to likely solely depends on your personal intuition and level of skepticism toward the immeasurable coincidence and inexplicable nature of "consciousness"

100get orsth

things like "the son of god" are utterly ridiculous though

all forms of organized religion, ritiual and tradition are laughable

but individual consciousness being attached to something greater... as an abstract argument... is wholly plausible

>>99

Phineas Gage was brain-damaged.  Phineas Gage's personality changed completely as a direct result of the brain damage.  This is the norm when people survive severe brain damage.  If a person's personality is governed by something intangible called a "soul," how is it that damaging a few ounces of meat inside his head changed him so much?

If the human mind exists in some "non-physical plane" (can you define that concept without making meaningless noises, by the way?) then how come drugs and alcohol can alter the manner in which our minds work?

It's implausible.  It's completely implausible.  It's as implausible as a claim that there's a Starbuck's on Mars.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

>If a person's personality is governed by something intangible called a "soul," how is it that damaging a few ounces of meat inside his head changed him so much?

who said anything about personality?
and his personality degraded... as with most brain injuries - this is a surprise to you?

personality is but an outward manifestation of "mind".. via the speech center and motor control sections of your "flesh and blood brain"

if you damage a section of your brain, or lose a leg, or fail a kidney... those respective parts of your body will cease to function in a direct cause-and-effect result

gage, in 1848, had severe frontal lobe damage from what we know(which is incredibly anecdotal) he therefore ceased to be "his old self" due to non-functioning sections of "his old self's" brain

just as with a fake leg, you would limp... its a physical inevitability

if his "mind" can no longer use a once-relied-on section of his brain due to the fact it is no longer there, how can you expect his demeanor in the physical plane to be same as before

likewise releasing chemicals into your blood stream, this blood reaches the brain and alters its operation... on a technical level
think of it as packet loss between neurons due to increased unplanned activities brain-wide, each chemical has its own activity patterns in the brain..

most chemicals suspend "normative operation" of the brain therefore altering your "mind's" perception of reality, since it is viewing reality through the body organ of the brain...
akin to how covering your eyes would drastically cut the input to your brain's visual center and your "mind" would then be missing that particular resource (visual input is measured in bits/sec as are all synapse-neuron transactions in the brain)

"non-physical plane"
think of the brain as an interface for "mind" and the body as an array of peripherals

this interface analogy is related to jung's "collective subconscious" as an extension

if archetypes can be distributed by sheer biomassive conception... then what else can be, and how "completely implausible" is a non-physical dimension.. even if we only exhibit a vague trace of a similarly transcendental "collective subconscious".. keep in mind our brain organs run at fractional capacity

there have been scientific collective conscousness experiments, one currently ongoing at princeton, there have been mountains of anecdotal evidence.. scientific breakthroughs have happened simultaneously around the world among separate teams of intellectually devoted researchers

it is far from completely implausible, how much coincidence will you ignore

the last point is.. your world view on this issue is really about a modus vivendi for your life
will you stand hardnose as a zealot for your only lifetime defending a cold purely accidental universe with no imperceivable aspects... looking only with our 5 senses and based on the limited experimental verification of our _current_ scientific _theory_
or will you try and contribute to the research

>>103
>>who said anything about personality?

I did.  Please try to keep up.

>>and his personality degraded... as with most brain injuries - this is a surprise to you?

No, it isn't a surprise, because the mind is, as far as science can determine, 100% a phenomenon of the meat.  Damaging the meat damages the mind.

>>"non-physical plane"
>>think of the brain as an interface for "mind" and the body as an array of peripherals

Can I think of it as an invisible pink unicorn?

>>this interface analogy is related to jung's "collective subconscious" as an extension

Maybe it's related to "an invisible pink unicorn" as an extension.

>>if archetypes can be distributed by sheer biomassive conception...

Leaving aside the questions of what an "archetype" is and what "sheer biomassive conception" even means, that's a pretty big "if."  As my mother would say, "You're trying to make an awful lot of soup out of one onion, aren't you?"

>>there have been mountains of anecdotal evidence..

"Anecdotal evidence" is an oxymoron.  As Heinlein said, "if you don't have facts and figures, it is opinion."

There are "mountains of anecdotal evidence" that Elvis Presley is flipping burgers at a Dairy Queen in Chattanooga, Tennessee with Richard Nixon running the cash register.  There are "mountains of anecdotal evidence" that little green men from Neptune are raiding rural America in flying saucers, performing disturbing proctological experiments on hillbillies.  There are "mountains of anecdotal evidence" for the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, ghosts, elves, leprechauns, dragons, and the Boogie Man.  Do you find these claims as plausible than mystical conjectures about "souls" and "gods?"  If not, why not?

>>it is far from completely implausible, how much coincidence will you ignore

As Douglas Adams said, "It's only 'coincidence' in the same sense that it's a 'coincidence' that a puddle of water is shaped EXACTLY like the depression in the ground where it lies."

>>a cold purely accidental universe

This is the logical fallacy of argument from adverse consequences.  Two and two make four regardless of whether you personally feel bad about that fact or not.

>>looking only with our 5 senses

Which of our 5 senses do we use to perform positron emission tomography?  Which of our 5 senses do we use to examine human heredity in the Human Genome Project?

>>and based on the limited experimental verification

Well, yes.  If it's not experimentally verifiable, it's meaningless noise.

Occam's Razor is simple:  "do not multiply entities beyond what is needful."  If you have multiple hypotheses to choose from, you start with the one that assumes the fewest number of things to exist that you didn't already know to be real.  So far neuroscience is making rapid advances without requiring any hypothesis involving a "soul."

>>103 gage, in 1848, had severe frontal lobe damage from what we know(which is incredibly anecdotal)

The man's head is on display in a jar of formaldehyde at Harvard Medical Center. How is this anecdotal?

                       0 --< WRYYYYYYYY
        _   .aaaaa.  ----- >>104
        H   8P""""`.   |
      __H._ 8| o_  |  / \
     |==== \8|((,/ '______
     |  __  Y8a888aP ___   #:
    / ,'   `.Y8888P.'   `. #:
   | :       :888(/       . \
   `-|  (\)  |:=:"|  (\)  | _>
____ \       /(=) `       '________a:f____
      `-._.-  **** `-._.-'   <-- >>103

the _clinical data_ is anecdotal.
his head in a jar is a quaint little trophy, truly meaningless

why you place so much emphasis on gage is beyond me, he is perhaps the earliest documented case of a person who survived a massive brain injury and continued to live in some capacity... but there is no lack of brain damaged individuals today in any hospital in the country.. the difference is today we have properly vetted clinical methods and technology (versus the 1800s)

i applaud technical advances in neuroscience, but even when(if) we understand to the last how the brain works technically... it will still come short of explaining consciousness. this has always been the largest "given" in the neural sciences

retreating to your parroted attempt at reductio ad absurdum argumentation "invisible pink unicorns" is becoming laughable, i suggest you find a less feeble way to make your points

speaking of "invisible" how is the mathematical k-theory currently being used quantify m-theory/sst not an "invisible pink unicorn".. its math, right.. it must be concrete and unchallengeable, right..

mathematics is a conceptual method of processing the observable input gathered by our 5 senses just as mathematics is a way to scrutinize any random theory conjectured out of thin air

at high energy particle colliders data is collected and then visualized into 3 dimensional plots so we can comprehend it's meaning.. the scatter angles of quarks relate to geometry more than anything else

biomassive conception simply means a critical mass of minds thinking the same thing, read jung for his definition of "archetypes" and how they are distributed through the "collective subconscious"

collective consciousness is being scientifically tested as we speak, there has been too much anecdotal evidence collected and more recently directly observed by researchers to ignore. see the princeton study

there is a slight leap from collective consciousness(if verified) to a conclusive "non-physical plane", but it raises a plausible possibility... and that possibility is all that is being argued here

conclusive proof that there is no "god", "soul" etc.. will never be found and conclusive proof to the contrary will never be found
i do not believe in a "god" per-se.. in the classical sense

what strikes me most, is your insistence that there can not be a  plane of the non-physical, what makes you so sure, why do you assume our perceptions are at their ultimate development.. that we can therefore see or know all that exists.. your argument is akin to shouting at the darkness

it is baselessly arrogant to assume we can even theorize(let alone prove) the mechanics of all aspects, planes, dimensions or facets of the universe(physical and otherwise)
our current perceptive abilities are the limiting factor, that fact does not mean supra-perceptive aspects can not exist

the possibility of a non-physical aspect is wholly plausible and is currently being experimentally researched as best it can be ...while we waste time arguing

Give it up.  I dropped a steamroller on you and am currently standing atop it, striking a pose, and shouting "WRYYYYYYYYY."

thats a pretty shitty steamroller

Yeah, but it's still pretty heavy.  WRYYYYYYYYYYY

God and science are orthogonal. Science has nothing to do with God, since (according to most religions) God can't be observed.

What's this whole long thread of wankery about? God may exist. God may not exist. We don't know. I'm sure we can all agree on this?

>>107
I don't know about >>102, but for me it's not that I would make a negative assertion of a "non-physical plane" (whatever that would even mean... way too vague), but just that I would wait to make a positive assertion of one, which you seem to have no problem with.  Based solely on anecdotal evidence and that you like the idea, you're willing to believe it 100%.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you think conscience is some special thing... perhaps that even only humans have it.  Conscienceness, like god, is unobservable and untestable, and thus a moot point.  It's impossible to even see if any human other than yourself is conscious, or even prove that you yourself are conscious.  For all another observer can tell, no one anywhere is actually conscious.  The only way to "know" someone is conscious is to be conscious yourself and "feel" that you are conscious... hardly scientific.  For all we know, all mammals are conscious, all animals are conscious, all living beings are conscious, all ROCKS are conscious, or even ALL ATOMS are conscious.  There would be no way to tell if we couldn't communicate with them, and even then, it's still impossible.  If consciousness isn't some miracle given by the great boot spirit (GBS) to humans, but instead a common way for animal brains to function, then it loses a lot of the implications that it might otherwise have.

>>112

Truth.

I have already told him that there are lots of anecdotal stories about flying saucers, leprechauns, and Elvis hiding out in the Deep South working at a Dairy Queen.  I asked him to tell me whether these anecdotal stories were as convincing to him as his preferred anecdotal stories and mystical conjecture about "souls" and "gods," and, if not, why not.  He did not answer.

Which is why I'm still on top of that steamroller, posing and shouting "WRYYYYYYY."

pff..

and there are 20 Y's in WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

it comes down to intuition, obviously there will be no proof in our lifetimes considering the pace of scientific progress

again. the collective consciousness study at princeton is purely scientific and has nothing to do with anecdotes

keep posing, im taking a picture for later ridicule

and yes, of or belonging to Y

>>114

"It comes down to intuition?"  WTF?  No.  It comes down to empiricism.  Everything else is opinion.

And the only picture you're going to be taking in the foreseeable future is of the bottom of a steamroller.  WRYYYYYYYY

im done with you >>116

>>117

You're not going anywhere, stuck under that steamroller.  WRYYYYYYYY

Someone explain this "WRYYYY..." thing. I've seen it on Japanese pages as well.

ttp://users.tpg.com.au/lauriew/Avatars/mudah.swf <-- the different tabs on the right show different ridiculous, cartoonish martial arts techniques.  The button at the bottom, which changes to "THE WORLD" when the mouse cursor crosses it, is what this is referring to.