"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 85396 comments on the Examiner.com story from Jan 22, 2012, titled "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think". In it, Examiner.com reports that:

It is fascinating to note that atheists boast that most scientists are atheists.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#7537 Jun 1, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
That's incorrect. You cannot be 100% certain of anything in the universe. You cannot test and disprove imagined beings, for example. You cannot prove that the computer you are typing on exists. It could simply be a recreated experience for you.
You can be 100 % absolutely certain that something exists in the universe. You may not be 100 % what exactly that something is, but you absolutely know that something exists.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#7538 Jun 1, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
:)
By "relatively bounded gene pools," I mean that a species is better thought of as the gene pool that produces the phenotypes that reproduce viable offspring but that can be invaded by outside genes.
What "bounds" the gene pool is the compatibility in behavior, sperm-egg combination, and reproductive viability of individuals in populations.
But genomes (and hence, gene pools) can be infiltrated by without-group sources of genes. Most gene flow comes from similarly related populations, and less related populations. Cousin species can sometimes interbreed and this contributes to gene flow. Other sources include viral insertions and bacterial transposons. And transposons can actually introduce nonbacterial sources of DNA! So transposons can potentially introduce, say, reptile DNA to a mammal, however unlikely that scenario is.
And then, of course, mutation.
So species are more of a visual category than one that captures the entirety of what goes on at the genetic level, which is what you said :)
Did that make sense?
Yes in some ways it does ... but I had to read it about 4 times to understand you premise.

You're basically talking about what Lazarus Long (aka Robert Heinlein) said -- "A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes."

Would you consider the platypus an example of transposons?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#7539 Jun 1, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it's your terminology that's throwing me off. A clock cycle is just that. A timing element. It is not the same as an instruction cycle. Nor do I get you relating clock cycle to data size.
Also I do not understand your use of the word 'sort' here. Sort is generally taken to mean ordered by collating sequence. A software routine.
Without breaking every process down and separating all the hardware from its instruction codes and functions , can't we just say that the clock cycle is greater than the actual Instruction cycle or CPI.
How well it does that , regardless of hardware or software
is measured in it's benchmarks. The whole point was that
a clock cycle does not equal a computers effective ability to
execute the data. Which is dependent on so many things
I wouldn't want to get into. How well a computer benchmarks
at a task means more than the CPUs advertised clock rate.

Since: Apr 12

United States

#7540 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, falsification of the nested hierarchy (history) hypothesis. Not falsification of the hypothesis of speciation, the common ancestry concept, mutation etc. etc.
Nested hierarchy is the evidence for common ancestry. How can you say that falsifying nested hierarchy will not falsify common ancestry? And universal common descent is a key concept in the theory of evolution, and falsifying it can falsify toe.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#7541 Jun 1, 2012
rpk58 wrote:
A vertebrate mammal like rabbit appearing in the fossil record before any land animals, or even vertebrates have appeared, clearly violates the common ancestry, and because of that it threatens the theory of evolution. Do you agree or not?
I agree for the part that it falsifies the thought history of common ancestry. It does not falsify the hypothesis of the concept of common ancestry.

The consensus has already been reached here that the theory of evolution can even be hypothetically falsified with a natural Cambrian Flying-Spaghetti-Monster. This brings the whole idea of falsification to the reasonability level of any possible god-definiition. Scientific falsification is as reasonable as let's say the definition of Thor.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#7542 Jun 1, 2012
rpk58 wrote:
Nested hierarchy is the evidence for common ancestry. How can you say that falsifying nested hierarchy will not falsify common ancestry? And universal common descent is a key concept in the theory of evolution, and falsifying it can falsify toe.
In the hypothetical case of finding the Cambrian rabbit the best explanation for its existence is developing through the evolutionary process. Thus even the Cambrian rabbit then probably has ancestors which it may share with some other species which still remain unknown.

The options are that the Cambrian rabbit has ancestors or it popped into existence without any biological parent. There is no evidence that the latter could happen in this scale.

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

#7543 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have come to the conclusion that the existence of the universe is a natural absolute.

Nontheist wrote:
The only conclusion I've come to is this; based upon your previous actions, I think we're getting ready to see an entirely different, yet eerily similar in result set of questions and assertions from you that end up meaning nothing because you will not understand what you ask, nor what you hear when answered.
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think it is possible that ABSOLUTELY nothing exists?
or
Are you ABSOLUTELY certain that something exists in the universe?
Do you understand these questions?
See?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#7544 Jun 1, 2012
Nontheist wrote:
See?
Perfectly logical questions. Do you understand the questions? Are you able to answer the questions?

They are extremely simple questions. I predict that you will not be able to give a clear and specific answer to those questions.

Let's see what you do.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#7545 Jun 1, 2012
I'll go first.

1. it is not possible that absolutely nothing exists, at least thoughts exist
2. therefore it is absolutely certain that something exists

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#7546 Jun 1, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Without breaking every process down and separating all the hardware from its instruction codes and functions, can't we just say that the clock cycle is greater than the actual Instruction cycle or CPI.
I still have problems with your terminology. If you mean the *number* of clock cycles is greater than an instruction cycle, I would agree. In fact, CPI is exactly that.
Aura Mytha wrote:
How well it does that, regardless of hardware or software is measured in it's benchmarks. The whole point was that a clock cycle does not equal a computers effective ability to execute the data.
Not directly, sure. But it is certainly related.
Aura Mytha wrote:
Which is dependent on so many things I wouldn't want to get into.
As you wish.
Aura Mytha wrote:
How well a computer benchmarks at a task means more than the CPUs advertised clock rate.
Of course.

Since: Apr 12

United States

#7547 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop with the straw man already. As said, the Cambrian rabbit might be a totally different animal, more like a crocodile perhaps. Just the skeletal structure is very similar to today's rabbits. A crocodile with two sharp teeth and a rabbit style :) let's call it rabbidile.
Why would you think that the Rabbidile did not come to exist by the currently explained evolutionary means?
We started with a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian era rocks. Now you want to change it to a different animal?

No matter - the "rabbidile" would still falsify common ancestry because no land animals, and no animals with skeleton existed in the Cambrian. All the arguments for rabbit solution for rabbidile too.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Rio Rancho, NM

#7548 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
What questions are those?
Are you able to answer these questions:
Do you think it is possible that ABSOLUTELY nothing exists?
or
Are you ABSOLUTELY certain that something exists in the universe?
<quoted text>
Absolute Truth is simply defined as Truth that is not falsifiable. The above questions reveal the nature of absolute Truth in the natural universe. Those questions show that absolute Truth exists in the natural.
I'm absolutely certain absolutely nothing exists.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Rio Rancho, NM

#7549 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
I'll go first.
1. it is not possible that absolutely nothing exists, at least thoughts exist
2. therefore it is absolutely certain that something exists
Therefore, bullshít exists.

Therefore, bulls exists.

Therefore, cows exists.

Therefore, milk exists.

Therefore, tits exist.

Therefore, boobs exist.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#7550 Jun 1, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I still have problems with your terminology. If you mean the *number* of clock cycles is greater than an instruction cycle, I would agree. In fact, CPI is exactly that.
<quoted text>
Not directly, sure. But it is certainly related.
<quoted text>
As you wish.
<quoted text>
Of course.
Are you quibbling over terms. Meh, more interesting than humbro's bullcrap. However I should remind you that most computer terms are less than 30 years old. It may be a simple lack of keeping up on his part, I couldn't even keep up, that's why I stuck with software personally. LOL

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#7551 Jun 1, 2012
rpk58 wrote:
<quoted text>
We started with a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian era rocks. Now you want to change it to a different animal?
No matter - the "rabbidile" would still falsify common ancestry because no land animals, and no animals with skeleton existed in the Cambrian. All the arguments for rabbit solution for rabbidile too.
Let it go man. He has proven himself to be a troll. Don't feed the troll and eventually he'll go away.

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

#7552 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Perfectly logical questions. Do you understand the questions? Are you able to answer the questions?
They are extremely simple questions. I predict that you will not be able to give a clear and specific answer to those questions.
Let's see what you do.
You're doing just what I said.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7553 Jun 1, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
Do you want to know why people know you are lying when you state such foolishness?

Aside from the fact that you do not seem to comprehend logic, or reason, you are also entering the point of irrationality, which are inherently required to utilize logic and reason with any amount of skill.

Your quick Google definitions of matters that people tend to study for long periods of time before attempting to explain them also betrays a complete lack of study in any field of science.

A truly logical and rational mind does not care about being right, and will not belabor a point to the level of absurd repetition that you have exceeded numerous times. That is only be beginning of your flaws, there are many more. You are a Poe atheist.
humble brother wrote:
I'm sorry that you are this childish. You can believe whatever you wish to believe. You are free to do that. To me your beliefs matter not.
Nothing that anybody else says matters to you. You have not learned anything, or modified your effluvia one iota after hundreds of excellent and helpful comments. You are not interested in learning or the truth, and you are not without beliefs. In fact, you are interested in no other ideas apart form your beliefs. You're not even smart enough to wonder first why nobody agrees with you, and then, why so many find you offensive.

Remember, if one or two people dislike you, it's may be them. When the world despises you, well, as I told your buddy ARGUING with IDIOTS when he wrote, "If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.(John 15:18 NKJV)"

IANS said: You don't need Nostradamus to tell you that if your behavior is despicable, that you will be despised. Here's how you figure things like this out: if one or two people hate you, it could be them. If the world hates you, it's you.

The disdain for you is palpable here. And it's not because you're wrong. You've wrong from jump street. It's because of your detestable habits of thought. You just keep repeating yourself while ignoring what you've been told. Your selfishness and disdain for the exchange of ideas is contemptible, and have many people disgusted.

"To me your beliefs matter not."

We know. That's apparent. And now, yours don't either.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7554 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh its not dead and its form is quite like bacteria. A tough thingie that one.
So you dig it out from a Cambrian sediment and it flies away by natural means, and evolution is falsified. Hypothetically speaking of course.
Well, certainly the existence of such a living thing would show our current theory is wrong. And?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7555 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
In that case so is a perfectly natural Cambrian Flying-Spaghetti-Monster which has a bacteria like form.
Well, a *bacteria-like form* would be consistent with our current ideas of evolution since bacteria are known to exist previous to the cambrian. A living thing with eyes and noodly appendages would not be consistent with our current ideas. Do you see the difference?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7556 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
In the hypothetical case of finding the Cambrian rabbit the best explanation for its existence is developing through the evolutionary process. Thus even the Cambrian rabbit then probably has ancestors which it may share with some other species which still remain unknown.
Except that those ancestors are incredible unlikely to exist given what we already know about the fossil record. To be consistent with common descent, a cambrian rabbit would imply the existence of *many* more animals in the cambraina nd pre-cambrian than what we have actually seen. Given the *current* state of our knowledge (as opposed to what it was 300 years ago), that would be a contradiction to observation and hence a falsification of the overall theory.
The options are that the Cambrian rabbit has ancestors or it popped into existence without any biological parent. There is no evidence that the latter could happen in this scale.
And there is also no evidence of the former. THAT is the issue.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 12 min superwilly 4,742
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 5 hr dollarsbill 5,145
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 16 hr Dogen 33,127
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) 19 hr superwilly 111
News Egypt's parliament takes serious actions to com... Sun emperorjohn 1
News Egyptian Parliament considers outlawing atheism Sun emperorjohn 1
News Egyptian parliament moves to make atheism a crime Sun emperorjohn 1
More from around the web