Help with some science – thx.

Posted in the Atheism Forum

“Cave ab homine unius libri”

Since: Feb 07

Cape Town

#1 Mar 12, 2012
It has often been said that Young Earth Creationists along with those that believe in Intelligent design are hypocrites. They are entirely happy to use the fruits of the scientific revolution to make their lives easier and spread their message – and yet they are willing to discredit science around the next bend, using it as they go along.

I am looking for a couple of good examples that exposes this hierocracy.

One I am familiar with is the fact that antibiotics are being made stronger every couple of years to fight of the bacteria that have adapted to their use. TB, Drug resistant TB and Extreme Drug resistant TB are also examples if this.

I am looking for others, in a range of other fields.

Technologies and theories used in PCs, mobile phones, planes and other everyday devices that are also used to date the earth/universe or are that directly conflict with parts of YEC or ID doctrine would be very welcome.

I would be great to take someone’s phone because they say they don’t “believe” in science that makes it work.

“Cave ab homine unius libri”

Since: Feb 07

Cape Town

#2 Mar 15, 2012
No takers it seems........
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#3 Mar 15, 2012
Feanor wrote:
One I am familiar with is the fact that antibiotics are being made stronger every couple of years to fight of the bacteria that have adapted to their use. TB, Drug resistant TB and Extreme Drug resistant TB are also examples if this.
A couple of questions for you.

You probably know that the human body adapts its immune system to the hostile viruses and bacteria that enter into the body. Usually the adaptation to these hostile organisms is quite uncomfortable and is visible as a so called "sickness". Today's people are pampered to such an extent that they can not really tolerate anything beyond mild flu, so they are immediately at the doctor's office asking the doctor to prescribe "morphine" to quickly kill everything small that moves in the body. In essence they will not let their immune system to adapt and stay alert, all in favor of a quick fix that makes them feel good and fast. So their immune system is as good as dead.

Suppose the following scenario:
1. People take antibiotics etc. every year to quickly kill any possible even minor problem
2. People will not let their own immune system to develop/adapt because they don't want to feel uncomfortable
3. One day it so happens to be the case that antibiotics can no longer be made strong enough to kill the bacteria that have adapted long enough

The questions now in relation to the scenario explained above are these:
1. Do you honestly believe that mankind will never experience times such as the world wars or massive virus outbreaks etc.?
2. Who do you think will survive in the case of antibiotics becoming useless: those who have pampered themselves with them or those who haven't even touched them but have let their own immune systems to develop?

And they all live happily ever after without any major sicknesses...NOT.

“Cave ab homine unius libri”

Since: Feb 07

Cape Town

#4 Mar 15, 2012
What you are describing is referred to a the Hygiene hypothesis. The hypothesis also includes a section on the increased prevalence of autoimmune diseases in many first world countries.

I certainly think we may have a big war or two up our sleeve.

I also definitely fear the outbreak of a global pandemic. The worst would be one that has a high mortality rate, high transmission rate and long dormant (but contagious) period.

But the original point is that diseases have evolved due to our actions. As such, if you do not believe in evolution then you should not need newer, stronger antibiotics and you’d be happy with the old TB meds.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#5 Mar 15, 2012
Feanor wrote:
But the original point is that diseases have evolved due to our actions. As such, if you do not believe in evolution then you should not need newer, stronger antibiotics and you’d be happy with the old TB meds.
I don't really use much medication. Pain medication occasionally, quite rarely though. I take the struggles like a man and let my body adapt. I will not make myself dependent on medicine, they include too many unknown unknowns.

I believe some form of evolution/adaptation occurs. However, I know that the evolution theory is not real science. I consider science to be explaining phenomena that have actually been observed to occur. This leaves out fossils and hypothesizing a phenomenon of the living by observing the dead. That's not science, that's faith.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#6 Mar 15, 2012
Feanor wrote:
It has often been said that Young Earth Creationists along with those that believe in Intelligent design are hypocrites. They are entirely happy to use the fruits of the scientific revolution to make their lives easier and spread their message – and yet they are willing to discredit science around the next bend, using it as they go along.
I am looking for a couple of good examples that exposes this hierocracy.
One I am familiar with is the fact that antibiotics are being made stronger every couple of years to fight of the bacteria that have adapted to their use. TB, Drug resistant TB and Extreme Drug resistant TB are also examples if this.
I am looking for others, in a range of other fields.
Technologies and theories used in PCs, mobile phones, planes and other everyday devices that are also used to date the earth/universe or are that directly conflict with parts of YEC or ID doctrine would be very welcome.
I would be great to take someone’s phone because they say they don’t “believe” in science that makes it work.
Interesting.

Are you looking for arguments to convince the unscientific that science is valid?

OR

Are you looking for arguments concerning atheism?

The two are NOT the same thing. With or without any evidence for biological evolution, there is still no evidence for any god claim.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#7 Mar 15, 2012
You might get better--and faster--answers in the evolution forum or the science forum.

“Cave ab homine unius libri”

Since: Feb 07

Cape Town

#8 Mar 16, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.
Are you looking for arguments to convince the unscientific that science is valid?
OR
Are you looking for arguments concerning atheism?
The two are NOT the same thing. With or without any evidence for biological evolution, there is still no evidence for any god claim.
I am looking for any overlap between the science that is everyday, used and accepted and the results that are rejected by the creationists.

Is there (for example) any overlap between the science used to determine the distance of stars and the speed they move (using redshift and radio telescopes) and the optics theory used in screens, and the x-ray used in hospital?

What about radiometric dating (used for dinosaur bones) and some other practical applications?

The idea is to show that many of the scientific results they reject (evolution, age of the earth/universe etc) come from theories in active everyday use.

In other words, illustrate they already accept the science, they just did not know it.

“Cave ab homine unius libri”

Since: Feb 07

Cape Town

#9 Mar 16, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't really use much medication. Pain medication occasionally, quite rarely though. I take the struggles like a man and let my body adapt. I will not make myself dependent on medicine, they include too many unknown unknowns.
I believe some form of evolution/adaptation occurs. However, I know that the evolution theory is not real science. I consider science to be explaining phenomena that have actually been observed to occur. This leaves out fossils and hypothesizing a phenomenon of the living by observing the dead. That's not science, that's faith.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/557...
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#10 Mar 16, 2012
Feanor wrote:
You without any kind of critique swallow everything you read and like? You have faith?

Take a look at Kettlewell's research on the moths. All of these researchers have pretty much failed in every respect when it comes to real science.

The miserable failures in the moth studies are these:
1. A limited closed environment was created and it was observed that white moths died due to predation more often and produced less offspring -> NOT A NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, it was created in the favor of dark moths. That is selection by man not by nature. Failure.

2. In an unlimited forest environment it was observed that the probability of released marked moths coming out from a polluted forest was higher for dark moths than light colored moths. This experiment falls short, natural selection is about passing on genes not about death of individuals. They had no statistics on how much the moths may have reproduced in the forest or if they actually stayed there and hid somewhere because of predators. Failure.

3. No one has been able to show that moths wouldn't actually change their color due to the polluted diets of the caterpillars. It has simply been the case that it is assumed. Granted it is a very difficult task to find out which particular diluted pollutant might need to be introduced first into the soil and through the plants into the diets of the caterpillars.

So you see, what they have is a truck load of assumptions. Nothing that could actually be counted as science. Real science can not be based on beliefs and assumptions. Real science needs real observations and proper verification.

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 45 min Just Think 232,912
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr woodtick57 2,288
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 4 hr Mikko 2
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 4 hr Mikko 2
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 5 hr Thinking 3
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 12 hr _Bad Company 143
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) Sat polymath257 23,199
More from around the web