"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 85629 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

#7517 Jun 1, 2012
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.
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?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#7518 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you cling to fallacies. If you say that there is a small logical possibility that a Cambrian rabbit could be found then this is the working fact you must operate on.
Then you have a logical hypothetical case where a Cambrian rabbit has been found.
NOW HOW DID THE CAMBRIAN RABBIT COME TO EXIST???
That is the question you must answer. Stop babbling about 3-boned middle ears...
If you have no explanation for the existence of the Cambrian rabbit other than evolutionary means then you have no falsification. Period.
No, there is an infinitesimal probability, for reasons already explained, if evolution is true. That is why it is a valid falsification test.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#7519 Jun 1, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
No, there is an infinitesimal probability, for reasons already explained, if evolution is true. That is why it is a valid falsification test.
In that case so is a perfectly natural Cambrian Flying-Spaghetti-Monster which has a bacteria like form.

You should use this example as falsification instead, it's more distinctive. There's no question about falsification, it really falsifies the theory.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#7520 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.
You should use this example as falsification instead, it's more distinctive. There's no question about falsification, it really falsifies the theory.
Ok.

We can imagine an infinite number of falsifications for evolution. None of them have ever occurred - evolution has never been disproved, not once.

What would disprove, say, Vishnu? What would disprove, say, Odin?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#7521 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is only one explanation and no replacement then that one explanation will remain the best explanation even if shown to be not perfectly accurate.
No. Wrong. If the explanation is falsified, it falls. Period.

If the theories on lightning were shown to be totally wrong, would you revert to Thor?
humble brother wrote:
There is no natural replacement for the theory of evolution.
No shit. Thanks for the tip, Mr Obvious.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#7522 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I can assert all sorts of things. But only when I fully explain them they can be rationally analyzed.
Any falsification of the theory of evolution would need an rational explanation.
I haven't seen any rational explanation for why the Cambrian rabbit could not have come to exist by evolutionary means. It has only been asserted.
Well, continue on with your mental masturbation then.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#7523 Jun 1, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Humbro has a peculiar approach to working with logic. Apparently anything that would falsify the theory of evolution is a logical possibility so the theory is not falsifiable and therefore not a valid theory.
He never has been much at figuring things out.
Noted. He's still having a hard time getting his mind around the concept of evidence.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#7524 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
How is this falsifiability issue not a flaw?
In what?
Truth is not falsifiable so it is by definition denied by science.
What is truth?
The whole notion of no-absolutes does not work.
Why not?
It is flawed already to begin with, if one can not be absolutely 100 % certain that something exists in the universe then one can not give any reasonable certainty for anything. That kind of science will fall apart when you get close to the Truth.
I don't follow you here. Could you explain?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#7525 Jun 1, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Ok.
We can imagine an infinite number of falsifications for evolution. None of them have ever occurred - evolution has never been disproved, not once.
What would disprove, say, Vishnu? What would disprove, say, Odin?
Hey, I'm with you dude. The theory of evolution is the best natural explanation for the colorful range of life on Earth. There isn't even any other natural explanation currently available.

I'm not familiar with the hypotheses of these two additional things you mention.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#7526 Jun 1, 2012
MikeF wrote:
If the theories on lightning were shown to be totally wrong, would you revert to Thor?
Is that an hypothesis of the natural?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#7527 Jun 1, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL A clock cycle will read and execute the command by sorting data and sending them out to the correct destination. It is a three to four fold loop + as it cycles the data between the processor data buss, ram , device , program ans cache. The loop is a endless cycle as the processor decides the correct destination of each bit between buss, ram , device , program , cache. Bits that haven't been sorted get recycled back into the loop . This is how some computer viruses
work by causing a insurmountable loop in the data impossible to sort and send to destination. But this is the whole job of the CPU
is to sort data and send to destination. This is referred to as a clock cycle.
The clock cycle does not actually present a picture of how much data is sorted and sent to it's correct destination, just the CPU's ability to cycle the data in the loop.
That the main thing I was saying if the CPU were to send out every bit correctly without recycling data , they would be 10- 100 times faster than they are in reality ,as the data is looped many times
before sorted correctly ans sent to destination.
Here is a diagram of a Prescott, bear in mind these processors are getting more complicated as time goes on and the cycle is larger the more advanced the computer and graphics engines are, especially with the new Sandy bridge , Ivy bridge , and AMD, A line with graphics on chip designs. But the data loop is illustrated here.:)
http://www.ixbt.com/cpu/intel/prescott/presco...
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.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#7528 Jun 1, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
I don't follow you here. Could you explain?
If you're unsure in the most simplistic case that at least something exists in the universe then you are quite incapable of reasoning.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#7529 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that an hypothesis of the natural?
It was.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#7530 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're unsure in the most simplistic case that at least something exists in the universe then you are quite incapable of reasoning.
I take it you're unable to answer the questions I posed to you - that you are required to answer to engage in the kind of discussion you seem to want to have.

If you cannot define what you mean by absolute truth, then you cannot talk about it.

If you have to resort to insults when asked to clarify what you mean, then you have nothing interesting to say.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#7531 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, I'm with you dude. The theory of evolution is the best natural explanation for the colorful range of life on Earth. There isn't even any other natural explanation currently available.
I'm not familiar with the hypotheses of these two additional things you mention.
If I were to answer questions like you did above, then I'd insult you now.

I was asking you how we would disprove the idea of a deity. What disproves God? What disproves any other deity?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#7532 Jun 1, 2012
MikeF wrote:
It was.
Well in that case if it was the only explanation it would then by default be the best explanation. It would have to do until a better explanation surfaces.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#7533 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're unsure in the most simplistic case that at least something exists in the universe then you are quite incapable of reasoning.
This is what you wrote "It is flawed already to begin with, if one can not be absolutely 100 % certain that something exists in the universe then one can not give any reasonable certainty for anything. That kind of science will fall apart when you get close to the Truth."

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.

But the likelihood that the computer doesn't exist and you are being fed experiences is vanishingly small - it might as well be zero. But it's not quite zero, since we cannot rule out other possibilities as they simply cannot be tested.

In my opinion, the above is simply an argument of philosophy - and a somewhat meaningless one. My life is important, the things I feel and experience, important, real. Everything feels utterly real to me and, I suspect, to others.

If we treat the objects around us as real, we'll do ok. If we treat them as possible illusions, it would make life difficult. So we're better off treating them as real.

Since: Apr 12

United States

#7534 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't want to come up with a hypothesis of the natural which is unfalsifiable then you can not prove my claim to be wrong. Asserting that my claim is wrong gets you nowhere. The only claims that are not falsifiable are of the things that can not be observed by science.
I can easily create an hypothesis about an invisible unicorn which is totally undetectable. An unfalsifiable claim needs the premise that it is outside the reach of the scientific method. You absolutely need that premise in your unfalsifiable claim.
Every single separate claim that deals just with the natural is absolutely always falsifiable. Always. Therefore, it logically follows that the falsifiability requirement of NATURAL science is redundant.
No, I don't have to come up with a hypothesis of the natural which is unfalsifiable because I am not contesting that. Didnít I explain that in my last post?
rpk58 wrote:
I am not trying to prove that there are unfalsifiable scientific hypothesises..
Did you read it? Do you understand what my statement means?
It means that I agree with you. There may be no valid unfalsifiable hypothesis in nature. That means that I also understand that the requirement for falsifiability may be redundant.

Then what am I trying to prove? I explained clearly in the last post:
rpk58 wrote:
I am trying to prove the usefulness and practical applications of explicitly stating the falsifiability requirement, and the conditions for falsifying..
I said "I am trying to prove the usefulness and practical applications of explicitly stating the falsifiability requirement, and the conditions for falsifying."

I also note that you dropped the "falsifiablitilty requirement is non-sense" claim Ė now you are only saying it is redundant. The claim of yours that I am proving wrong is the claim that the falsifiability requirement is "non-sense", and not needed at all.

Donít think that I donít notice your subtle shifts in wordings; I fully agree that the requirement may be redundant, but it is not non-sense. It is a very important requirement, and conditions for falsifiability need to be explicitly stated.

As I mentioned in my last post, it is very well possible to make an un-falsifiable hypothesis and claim that it is scientific. That is what the Intelligent Design hypothesis does. We know it is not valid because we apply the falsifiability requirement to it, and it doesnít pass.

Do you now understand how I proved you wrong?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#7535 Jun 1, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
I take it you're unable to answer the questions I posed to you - that you are required to answer to engage in the kind of discussion you seem to want to have.
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?
Hidingfromyou wrote:
If you cannot define what you mean by absolute truth, then you cannot talk about it.
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.

Since: Apr 12

United States

#7536 Jun 1, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a problem:
There may still be common ancestry, but the thought order may just be wrong...
Falsifying the order does not falsify common ancestry, it only falsifies the order. And as mentioned, several evolutionary hierarchies is a solid possibility. These several hierarchies ultimately must also share some common ancestor, that ancestor may the some primitive slime or some biological organism.
HB, I donít have a problem; you just like to start a post that way.

First of all, I think that you are admitting that common ancestry is a fundamental concept of the theory of evolution, and that you missed that when you defined it earlier. I assume so because you didnít contest this point in your post.

Secondly, you are subtly changing the discussion from common ancestry to order within the ancestry. Even then, I have said before that as new data comes in, some changes in the order may happen:
rpk58 wrote:
When new data comes in, we sometimes find that some species have been put in the wrong place in the hierarchy.
So where is my problem, HB? Or is it just your style of debate that you have to start by putting your adversary into a defensive mode? Whatever it was, it is not me, but you who is having a problem admitting that you may have been mistaken.

A parallel evolutionary hierarchy is a possibility, but it will share a common ancestor with the main branch at some point Ė in the case of the Cambrian rabbit, it has to be before the Cambrian era.. But a parallel hierarchy that duplicates the main hierarchy close enough to produce a rabbit fossil identical to the modern rabbit Ė virtually impossible. And that too by speeding up the molecular clock millions of times so that the parallel hierarchy produces a mammal where the main hierarchy is yet to produce vertebrates Ė this notion is too ridiculous Ė not at all solid as you say.

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?

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Global warming roars on: Past four years have b... 3 hr Karma et all eh 2
News First Las Cruces Space Festival planned in April 11 hr SAM 2
News Wortham: Unicorns are alive, well and working t... (Oct '09) 11 hr ROAD FART 2
News Inside Clear Lake: (Aug '09) 13 hr FART NATION 2
News Real Estate Agents: Single-Family Homes a Hot R... (Jun '12) 19 hr has 259
News Real-Life Thor's Hammer and 3 More Weird Invent... Sat Pardon Pard 1
action replay codes for the new super mario bros. (Jan '08) Jan 18 Hacker 929
More from around the web