Why do people deny evolution?

@Frank Apisa,

It goes back to your insult to science post, Frank. I don't follow the logic of either of you. But I think that's where this exchange started.

2 Replies

@neologist,

I do understand that, Neo.

Here is the essential of my contention:

Quote:

Essentially I am saying that science, logic, and reason cannot get us to "there is at least one god", "there are no gods", "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are gods." The best that reason, logic, and science can do is to show that we do not know if there are gods or not.

I then suggested that "Anything that may account for existence is...and well should be...of extreme interest and relevance to science." (That was pretty much in response to intimations that science finds the question to be irrelevant. )

Blue...is now trying to say that it is not of relevance to meteorologists.

But it is. It should be of relevance to anyone who claims to be scientific...whether it be meteorology, geology, paleontology, or scatology.

Existence is a mystery...and science solves mysteries. Every discipline ultimately is involved. Blue is bothered by the fact that I am pointing out that atheists are full of poopology when they claim that their atheism is a result of logic, reason, and science.

None of those disciplines can lead to any of the basics of theism or atheism. In my opinion, it leads anyone with an open mind to agnosticism.

Not sure why you do not see the logic of what I am saying, Neo, but I guess we will both have to live with that.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Quote:

But it is. It should be of relevance to anyone who claims to be scientific...whether it be meteorology, geology, paleontology, or scatology.

Thiss is where you descend into bullshit assertion. You must really tell me, with the exception of the Creationists and IIDers (whose entire worldview is counter scientific), why would any one involved in science research even give a squat.

I know that youre convinced otherwise , but that doesnt make it so.
K?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I do not give a rat's ass what IDers or Creationists think...what I care about is the search for the truth.

In the question of "What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence"...anything that is eliminated (or included) based just on guesswork and faith...is counter scientific.

You do not know whether or not there is at least one god involved in the REALITY of existence, Farmerman...and if you arbitrarily decide to eliminate that possibility, you do as much injustice to science as the most hard core IDer.

Frankly, I do not think science will ever resolve the question of whether there is at least one god involved in REALITY or not...but there are other questions I have doubts about resolution also. That does not mean it is not interesting or relevant.

In any case, for atheists to "proclaim" that science, reason, and logic justifies in any way a position of "there are no gods" or "it is more likely there are no gods than that there are"...is complete (to use your word) bullshit.

That's what I am saying...and I'm sticking to it.

If you are suggesting I am wrong...that reason, logic and science does vindicate either or both of those two things...bring it on.

But I will blow the doors off any argument made in that direction.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I do not give a rat's ass what IDers or Creationists think...what I care about is the search for the truth

I only care about the search for FACTS and EVIDENCE-and these are, at best, approximations.
Truth sounds too absolute for me.

Youve convinced yourself that knowing whether a god exists or not rules science. That makes me smile. Next GSA conference (Its in Baltimore this year) , Ill have to let everybody know, weve been all wrong all this time. There was a time when clerical thinking ruled science. Weve outgrown that time because everyone found that using a worldview to drive discovery is silly and ultimately fruitless .

I really hve to stop reading your stuff because I dont think youre ever going to "get it"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
I do not give a rat's ass what IDers or Creationists think...what I care about is the search for the truth

I only care about the search for FACTS and EVIDENCE-and these are, at best, approximations.
Truth sounds too absolute for me.

Youve convinced yourself that knowing whether a god exists or not rules science.

That is beyond absurd. Light years beyond absurd.

Quote where I have suggested anything even approximating something like that.

(Hint: You will never find anything like that in anything I have written anywhere at any time.)

Quote:

That makes me smile. Next GSA conference (Its in Baltimore this year) , Ill have to let everybody know, weve been all wrong all this time.

If the GSA conference says that science, reason, and logic vindicate a position of "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that they are"...THEY HAVE BEEN WRONG.

I suspect that is not what they have been saying.

In the meantime, my challenge for you to show that reason, logic and science do vindicate either or both of those two things...is still on the table.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not give a rat's ass what IDers or Creationists think

That's probably not true. It is obvious however that you give all the rat asses in Jersey what non-theists think. And it seems as though you'd give your own ass if everyone would just think the same as you.

Quote:

In the question of "What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence"

The question is awfully cumbersome. I might wonder what is the nature of existence, or what is the nature of reality. Either way, I might be more inclined to relegate those questions to the field of philosophy.

1 Reply

@thack45,

thack45 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I do not give a rat's ass what IDers or Creationists think

That's probably not true.

It is very true in the context in which I wrote those words.

Science ought not to rule out anything that is not shown to be unlikely. There is no way science can show "there is at least one god" to be unlikely.

Try again.

Quote:

It is obvious however that you give all the rat asses in Jersey what non-theists think. And it seems as though you'd give your own ass if everyone would just think the same as you.

I think anyone who claims that science, logic, and reason lead them to say "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are"...is full of umpah. One cannot get to either of those things through science, reason, or logic.

Quote:

Quote:
In the question of "What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence"

The question is awfully cumbersome. I might wonder what is the nature of existence, or what is the nature of reality. Either way, I might be more inclined to relegate those questions to the field of philosophy.

I find what you would do with the question to be interesting...but hardly defining, Thank you for sharing, Thack.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

It goes back to your insult to science post, Frank. I don't follow the logic of either of you. But I think that's where this exchange started.

You don't find logic in asking the question: how is not knowing about the existence of god relevant to meteorology?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Whatever is going on between you and Frank defies understanding. I am unable to continue.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Whatever is going on between you and Frank defies understanding. I am unable to continue.

HA

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

dont feel bad, I think you are understood quite well. It a matter of making the issue sound more complex than it is.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank wrote:

]Existence is a mystery...and science solves mysteries.

But by your assertion science cannot solve the mystery of the existence of gods, so that's one mystery that is irrelevant to science.

Frank wrote:

Every discipline ultimately is involved. Blue is bothered by the fact that I am pointing out that atheists are full of poopology when they claim that their atheism is a result of logic, reason, and science.

One thing is what you assert that atheists claim; another thing is claiming that knowing that we do not know if there is a god or not is of extreme interest and relevance to science especially when you say that "the best that reason, logic and science can do is to show that we do not know if there are gods or not." If we can't know whether there are gods or not through science then the question of whether there are gods or not is irrelevant to science.

Frank wrote:

None of those disciplines can lead to any of the basics of theism or atheism. In my opinion, it leads anyone with an open mind to agnosticism.

Theism and atheism are relevant to religion. They're irrelevant to meteorology.

1 Reply

Is fish on /off consciousness the exact same as human on/ off consciousness. My answer is yes the fish consciousness is the exact same as human consciouness. The difference is only in the fact that a humans brain self reflects in consciousness. Giving rise to a conscience and with that conscience comes awareness of the implications of measuring quantity with respect to conscience and there for with respect to on/off consciouness its self.

1 Reply

gibberish.

1 Reply

@martinies,

I'll think of that the next time I eat a sardine.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Accept the that fact you're a fish. You'll learn to swim quiker that way.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Dont worry neo me you the fish and all else have the same instinguishably eternal consciousness. The fish went to heaven which is your consciousness.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Neo both you and the sardine you might be eating are part of a projected holagram. The fish and you aint real but the neutral consciousness that is projecting the fishy event is. Its about finding your real identity. Do you get that neamo ah sorry i mean neo. Reality is like a cartoon being protected you have a cartoon identity but the projecting consciousness is the singular real identity.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank wrote:
]Existence is a mystery...and science solves mysteries.

But by your assertion science cannot solve the mystery of the existence of gods, so that's one mystery that is irrelevant to science.

Science cannot solve the mystery of the existence of life on planets circling the nearest stars to our Sol...but that question sure as hell is not irrelevant to science. The fact that a mystery is difficult to solve does not make it irrelevant to science...it makes it more interesting...more compelling.

This argument of yours makes very little sense, Blue...whether you can see that it makes little sense or not.

Quote:

Frank wrote:
Every discipline ultimately is involved. Blue is bothered by the fact that I am pointing out that atheists are full of poopology when they claim that their atheism is a result of logic, reason, and science.

One thing is what you assert that atheists claim; another thing is claiming that knowing that we do not know if there is a god or not is of extreme interest and relevance to science especially when you say that "the best that reason, logic and science can do is to show that we do not know if there are gods or not." If we can't know whether there are gods or not through science then the question of whether there are gods or not is irrelevant to science.

I'm not trying to be difficult, Blue...but could you give that another shot in English?

And if you are actually trying to sell the idea that the question "what is the true nature of existence?" is irrelevant to science...think it out again before translating into English.

Quote:

Frank wrote:
None of those disciplines can lead to any of the basics of theism or atheism. In my opinion, it leads anyone with an open mind to agnosticism.

Theism and atheism are relevant to religion. They're irrelevant to meteorology.

Anyone who calls him/herself a scientist who is not interested in "what is the nature of existence"...and who considers the question to be irrelevant...

...ought to stop calling him/herself a scientist and choose something like hog farmer instead.

If you disagree...fine. I respect your right to disagree with me. But, respectfully as possible, I think you are all wet on this...and I see it as little more than a diversion from dealing with my original comment of:

Essentially I am saying that science, logic, and reason cannot get us to "there is at least one god", "there are no gods", "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are gods." The best that reason, logic, and science can do is to show that we do not know if there are gods or not.

If you disagree with any part of that...I'd be interested to hear it.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know