Why do unscientific people think they are qualified to attack science? (soul, Revelation)

[highlife2]

Originally Posted by rifleman

If I were to PM you my first mechanical/automotive engineering & geology credentials (UBC in Vancouver, Canada, and then the University of Kentucky, Lexington), would you "buy" their credibility? Would you perhaps like to demo your own strengths in, say, the interpretation of X-Ray stimulation of fluorescence in geo-artifact aging? The algorithms are quite intense and complex, even for your advanced mind!

Then, if I PM you my Biology degrees (Master's & PhD) in applied biolosciences, would you then just discount them as pseudo-science? Even if I did get the last two at one of the now-finest rated science and engineering universities in Canada? Funded by an NRC Grant, no less (National Research Council of Canada), plus scarce The President's annual Research Grant for Original Scientific Research...Hmmm.)

You know, where, at the behest of 5 major Canadian & US oil companies (Shell, Dome Petroleum, Petro-Canada, Esso Resources Canada and Gulf Oil), I consulted to them at very high compensation rates, plus all costs, for research operations in the Canadian and Alaskan arctic regions, all under my senior guidance and direction. They accepted the technical quality of my work as well. How odd, given it was all pseudo-science to your untutored eyes!

This as all probably while you were slowly reading "the letter I" [for intransigence] on Sesame Street. I, meantime, was investigating the interactions & applications of some very technical devices, operating at very low ambient temperatures,in areas previously unexplored, and on resident and dangerous free-ranging polar and grizzly-bear populations, the applications of which required advanced electronics/mathematical research (incl. lasers, sonics, x-ray fluorescence and microwave radiation).

Hmmm. So... in your rat-butt befuddled, highly judgmental and pseudo-intellectually flawed eyes, I'm just a lazy dummy who "took the easy way out!" huh? But one who also happens to know, factually and absolutely, that bio-evolution is exactly how DNA & RNA diversified {through several observed and tested mechanisms} on this planet to generate the ongoing wild diversity of life forms we all see.

Until you can demonstrate specifically & technically how Evolution and ancient earth geology DO NOT WORK, you need to shush-up your embarrassingly drooling pie-hole, and spend your otherwise apparently wasted time to date by reading with your mind opened at least a tiny crack!

Let the light in. It sure won't kill you! In fact, it'll set you free, sparky.

Yup. You are a monumentally loud-mouthed "tupitt guy", furshur, highlife! And... your pseudonym is also the established marketing name of a light, tasteless cheap beer to boot! VERY impressive!

Not only are you intellectually unkempt, but morally discordant and intelletually bereft. And, your spelling? "pedistal"??? What is a pedistal? That concrete post that's holding up your....



I agree. But then again, AREQUIPA, this sort of pre-pubescent presentation of facile ignorance is potentially quite illustrative to those Christians who may be on the philosophical fence now, given the absolute idiocy of this person's parrot-post. It's akin to watching a pre-meditated train-wreck happen in realtime all while some cheer at it all!

But Wait: there's more! For only $19.95, we will send you another contender for idiotic claims & statements! (Just pay for additional mind-numbing shipping & handling materials to swallow!)

Let's read together shall we?



You directly insult scientific researchers everywhere. You also don't understand how peer-review works, now do you? (Can you even provide a summary explanation of the peer-review process and it's value?)

It's really too bad we can't actually deny you fundamentalist types any sort of valid & proven bio-medical information and products when you will eventually really need them! To control, for example, an actively evolving bio-toxic agent (like a very virulent and constantly mutating bacterium).

Both of your thoughtless, banal denials of proven facts are amazing to witness. And the world of scientific biological research still has a long ways to go, particularly in very technically complex arenas like DNA and mRNA mapping and lineage tracking. {Here's where I defy you to provide us even a brief techno-summary of these leading technologies. Absent circa-1950s mis-guided refutals of old style Carbon14 limitations, by the way. no peeking into Answers in Genesis for some quick quote-mining. Show us YOUR detailed understanding of these topics, right off the tops of your well-versed and educated heads!}.

No? Well, that's as I anticipated. It's well out of your lazy-headed league, given your obviously limited religious rote-chanting "education".

The achievement rates of Individual Human Intellectual Macro-Evolution may well be significantly different in different cohorts of humans. Perhaps it's largely influenced by one's early years in education, where the church's Sunday Schools had such a divisive & damaging influence on the free thinking of otherwise naive children.

The evidence for so many diverse areas of scientific understanding is growing exponentially, and is also technically co-supported across many diverse disciplines, and is thus irrefutable! Certainly by the lightweight opposing (snort... cough...) "positions of authority" you two posters have confidently provided us!

Right here, for all to see: two posts that provide us all with absolute proof of institutionalized immaturity and religious intransigence.

And all just to be part of an ill-educated, snarling and chanting street mob in search of a guaranteed afterlife and moral guidance where they can't seem to provide their own by simple critical thinking skills! Wow!

If the rigor is there then I appologize, however im not going to open my mind I like the comfort. If you can conquore death then thats another thing, otherwise we are all going to die and none of this evolution stuff helps me with that problem. I thought my pesudonym was good too lol. I actually perfer coors light or aspen edge.

[highlife2]

Originally Posted by Lucidkitty

Of which i've doubt you passed any of the above.

Oh burn lol.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Until and unless they can explain more than the less than 5% of reality they can currently measure . . . ANY statements by scientists attacking God are far more than just cheeky!

That's where your illogic lets your erudition down.

I did not say 'attack God' I said 'attack God - belief' (1). It is the invalid and faith - based belief in a God that they are justifiably attacking, not a postulated god lurking in the 95% of reality that we know nothing of.

And, even there, you are not straightforward, as it is your claim that the 5% they do know about also contains an obvious and evident 'God', which you claim is scientifically demonstrable.

Where those scientists evidently disagree with you about that, it seems cheeky to attack them since their knowledge of that 5% should be pretty sound.

It's the old 'Have you looked everywhere in the universe' fallacy. The theists -and you- are not talking about a god 'somewhere else' but a god who is supposedly here, in the 5% we know about. And it isn't.

But I want to be fair to you. I understand that you think they are not looking in the right place or in the right way. The evidence is there. but they have failed to put it together. I am not convinced, but it is possible. Possible is not good enough for belief.

(1) I'll repeat it, for your benefit. "Scientists at least should know whereof they speak in attacking belief in God when presented as a "rational scientific position" and it seems a bit cheeky of the unscientific to pretend that they know better."

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by highlife2

good call, its not productive or good for your health to try to disprove God. At the very least it wastes your time and tallent. One can discuss 99% of scientific topics without discussing evolution.

Time for some Theist to English translation

Theist: "its not productive or good for your health to try to disprove God. At the very least it wastes your time and tallent. One can discuss 99% of scientific topics without discussing evolution."

English "I wish science would avoid all subjects that might conflict with my Faith - based preconceptions."

[highlife2]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Time for some Theist to English translation

Theist: "its not productive or good for your health to try to disprove God. At the very least it wastes your time and tallent. One can discuss 99% of scientific topics without discussing evolution."

English "I wish science would avoid all subjects that might conflict with my Faith - based preconceptions."

whats wrong with that.

[Blue Hue]

High life ...do you accept the high prob of evolution or NOT..?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by highlife2

whats wrong with that.

I was clarifying what I reckoned you were actually saying and since you seem to confirm it, let me say 'thanks' by answering your question.

Science can go wherever it darn well pleases, whether theism is comfortable with it or not. If it finds facts that cut across mythological beliefs it has a right and duty to say so, even if those who believe in the myths are offended by it.

We will not be told what we can or cannot research and we will not be silenced.

[catman]

Originally Posted by highlife2

whats wrong with that.

Do you really not know? Not trying to be rude, but I just don't get the idea of believing whatever makes you feel good and not realizing it is anything more than wishful thinking.

[Blue Hue]

Highlife....your in a spot. I would like to see your mathematical expertise discussing whether or not a spot (The number one) ....is a reality or a concept. Many mathematicians have argued, debated and as well written books on this issue. ( its relative to this thread idea) What say you...? Reality or concept?

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by highlife2

good call, its not productive or good for your health to try to disprove God. At the very least it wastes your time and tallent. One can discuss 99% of scientific topics without discussing evolution.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Time for some Theist to English translation

Theist: "its not productive or good for your health to try to disprove God. At the very least it wastes your time and tallent. One can discuss 99% of scientific topics without discussing evolution."

English "I wish science would avoid all subjects that might conflict with my Faith - based preconceptions."

Right on ARE! While I understand only too well that devout faithful theists WANT to (NEED to?) believe what they do, it's also just a tad bit daft to simply rule out all rational alternatives.

I also realize that a Christian's spiritual and even physical life would possibly be devastated by their own acceptance of such stuff, and I know of more than a few theists I've had serious face to face conversations with (where you can't just dodge & run off with an irrelevant off-topic quip, as many here will do when cornered...), who have quietly told me they'd possibly have to take their own "now worthless" lives if there really was/is not an afterlife reality. As if one must have God in one's life in order for it to matter. (Snort. Essentially yet another insult!)

So yeah, the stakes, for so many devout Christian types, are understandably high. But then again.... hmmmm.... perhaps a meaningful personal review of what life might actually hold and "be" for them even absent a fairy-tale belief system is in order?

Given that many (billions, in fact...) atheists seem to be quite happy with their miserable, immoral lives, Christians might want to reconsider! People like me, for instance. Edu-mah-kay-tuhd to all get-out, career-experienced, and thoughful of the entirety of it all for well over 45 years. Now free to being able and allowed to examine and appreciate all that I see around me absent having to grant supreme acknowledgement to some never-present, irrelevant and improbable spirit God or Godz. Godz who also, provably, actually don't ever answer any prayers, except when the prayee purposefully ignores any of the many alternate & unambiguous possibilites for a particular outcome.

My personal deep and intense spiritual trek from the claws of unquestioning Christianity, back in my late teens and early 20s, effectively opened countless (an infinite number, actually) of doors for me, allowing me to think about anything I durned-well chose to, without puerile Godly restrictions, outlandish rules for thinking and deductions, vast feelings of guilt or a facile default to the totally unreasonable.

But then, for Christians, esp. those who are not educated in a specific discipline, to blanket-conflate their essentially intense personal fear of no afterlife or no loving & guiding Fa-Fig (father figure) with some insulting claims that "the biosciences are bogus" and "populated by the intellectually lazy", simply because you don't like their relentless but defensible conclusions?

You might at least be honest in allowing that such knowledge may well be factual, but that you, personally, "just can't handle the truth!" [with apologies to Jack...].. That, at least, would be a clear signal of one's personal intellectual integrity and honesty.

However, you do what you must. Just be clear that it's pretty much a personal but indefensible position to take.

__________________________

Final case in point: this is some of the stuff I pondered some years back, and though this piece is written somewhat for the semi-layman and in less technical terms than the typical published paper on such stuff, it hints at the levels of complexity found now in any biology lab.

Carrier Gases for GC / Editorial / Technical Library / Technical Resources / Home - Restek Chromatography Products and Solutions

(NOte: while you might wish to dismiss this article as all chemistry-oriented, so is life, my friends. All of it is built on the basis of molecular and sub-atomic particle interactions, and such tools and mechanisms as described here are the now-common means by which such bio-processes are defined and understood. They are also not necessarily for the technically faint-of-heart! )

Such levels of investigation surely are not to be simply waved off as biased and inaccurate, or done to "limited technical standards" by intellectually lazy people. In fact, what these precise investigative processes do, and indeed discover, are factual and reproducible, and they also build an unerring base for understanding and finally concluding, what is really happening in the world around us.

Or, for example, one can go with a stupidly simplistic and impossible Noah's Ark rationale for all life on this planet..... (Oh and please, stop ever conflating Evolution with Abiogenesis. (I think you may have done that. If not, my apologies!) That's just abso-nuttzo as well. They are entirely unrelated. As in: one's a proven mechanism, the other's understandably still only an educated hypothesis!)

So sorry. No sale on any denialist Christian propaganda.