Are you an atheist?

[Frothingslosh]

Also, it's a well-known logical fallacy to assume that because there are two outcomes, there's a 50/50 chance of either outcome happening.

Let's take target shooting - either you hit the bullseye or you don't. If you use this "logic", then no one will ever have anything other than 50% chance of striking center, no matter how much you do or do not practice.

Other examples would be PATs in football, goals in hockey, and even Russian Roulette - either it happens or it doesn't, meaning that there is always a 50% chance of success, right? Right?

 

[Alc]

Glad so many other people on the 50/50 nonsense (and explained just why it's nonsense far more eloquently than I could manage).

This rubbish is the same sort of "science" used by climate change skeptics and anti-vaccination nuts. If I present some opinion, it has equal merit to all others, regardless of how little evidence supports it.

 

[Bladerunner]

Dude, you think I didn't think of that? I may not be your age, but I've still been around the block for a few decades.

Frothy...I believe I used 'A Stupid Question'......to qualify the last question.. I was trying to be helpful...

Blade

 

[The_Doc_Man]

With regard to "Irreducible Complexity" and the assumptions inherent in using that concept to try to debunk evolution: The late Alan Turing (he of the "Turing Test for Artificial Intelligence") was a mathematician first. He is credited with research and a theorem that provides an excellent explanation of why natural systems progress from simple to complex on their own (without outside interference).

It is a tragedy and a sad indication of someone being born at the wrong time, but Alan Turing committed suicide in the 1950s because someone "outed" him while the anti-gay climate was still virulent. It ruined his career and reputation so badly that he could not live with the hatred that surrounded him. Today, his genius would have been allowed to flourish a lot better than was possible in the WWII era. (I'm NOT saying that we have eradicated the stupidity of hating gays, but we HAVE reduced it.)

 

[The_Doc_Man]

With regard to the 50/50 argument:

It is perfectly possible for BOTH sides of an argument to wrong if the question is badly formulated, and it is also possible for BOTH sides of an argument to be RIGHT if the limiting conditions on the dichotomy are badly formulated (i.e. insufficiently exclusionary to the point of not being mutually incompatible).

Simple-minded example: Can black ever be white? Answer: YES - if your definition of "white" says "equal proportions of component colors red, green, and blue" - because that definition leaves out the key term "non-zero," and in that case, all shades of white, grey, and black would meet the definition. This is why you need to learn how to precisely define the question before you ask it.

Therefore, to argue that something is based on 50/50 probability is meaningless unless you carefully define your terms at all levels of the dichotomy. If "shades of gray" can enter the discussion, your 50/50 claim just flew out the window.

Physics is loaded with cases (also chemistry) in which some observation occurs that seems correct in one context but is also correct in what SHOULD be a contrary context. I personally discovered one such case in my own research when still actively working as a chemist. It was published in the Journal of Analytical Chemistry as a side comment in a more complex paper because it wasn't THAT profound as to bother folks very much.

It is because there is a "fuzz" factor in many observations in which the degree of abstraction implied by some formula hides differences between two different things because the probability curve is broad enough to contain them both. It can also be that a particular experiment is blind to the property in question.

OK, to keep folks from asking the question: I discovered that some literature from the French Metallurgical Institute was incorrect in describing the nature of transition-metal-ion polymerization in strong aqueous acid solutions during metal assays. I found this out by recognizing that the method the French team used for the measurement was not sensitive to the polymerization state in the chemicals that they were observing, but my method WAS sensitive to that state. My method, using more modern equipment and computer simulations, changed the nature of the question, hence my different finding. Were they wrong? No, if you were asking the same question they asked, you would probably get the same result. 'nuff said 'bout that, and it was literally 40+ years ago. But it is relevant to the point that before you say 50/50 shot at being wrong, don't forget to ask the right question first.

 

[mariner1969]

Wow guys!! I must admit that you have all given me food for thought.

I Must also admit, however, that I have been where some of you are...vehemently defending what I hold most dear to me. Science to me was, and is, a life saving field, physically, emotionally and developmentally.

I guess whet I am trying to get across is that some science has been proven wrong and that should leave us room for...not necessarily doubt, but allow for possibilities. I believe that when one shuts his/her eyes to a particular subject i.e music (because as a teen I listened to nothing but heavy metal, I missed out on most of the talent that was available to me) one discounts other possibilities.

The horrors that have been committed by religion have not escaped me either. Torquemada, the Salem witch trials, child exploitation, the current crisis in the middle east, predatory ministries,... ad nauseam. I also remember that humans are fallible and been the ones that brought on those horrors which we now look back and wonder how we ever could have.

Just like with science...I doubt that the scientists that explained for us the nuclear fusion/fission fields ever thought they would be used for war. Do we blame the science.

What percentage in confidence in being right would remove all doubt?

I look forward to learning from people that are much more educated than me.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Who said we are shutting our eyes?

There is no such thing as 'science being proven wrong' - what scientists and rationalists see as errors to be fixed are the things you claim 'disproves science'.

We once thought there were no masses smaller than atoms, and yet we discovered protons, neutrons, and electrons. Does this make chemistry disproved, and that we should stop researching?

We once thought Newtonian physics could be used to describe the entirety of physical interaction, but we have since learned that the entire structure doesn't match observations at the smallest level. Does this mean physics is disproved, and that we should just assume some invisible being is randomly moving everything around?

We once thought time was constant, but now we know its rate of passage is intimately tied to motion and change thereof. Instead of further investigating quantum theory, should we just assume time is 'disproved' and assume yet again that God just randomly warps time?

Can you see the point here? Just because scientists can be in error, that doesn't mean that 'science was wrong'. Science cannot be wrong, because science neither makes statements nor determinations, any more than music makes songs and guitar solos or chemistry makes bombs.

Science is a discipline, a set of guidelines for people who want to figure out what makes the world tick, and the overall collection of areas of study about how the universe and things within it work. Yes, these people are often wrong. but the scientific method takes that into account. It's not about making random proclamations about how the world works, but rather coming up with explanations of why certain observations and measurements came out the way they did, predicting the results of further observations and measurements based on those explanations, testing them, and then refining the explanations (either via adjustment, confirmation, or (occasionally) throwing them out and finding NEW explanations).

None of that means 'science is wrong', just that humanity is still learning about the universe. Scientists are attempting to determine how the universe works, not about spreading "The Truth". They are, in theory, perfectly willing to acknowledge a theory is in error if it can be proven so, although they are only human and some will never accept that THEY can make a mistake. Still, there is not a scientist out there who has the hubris to say "I know how the universe works, and therefore I need not prove it", and yet True Believers (tm) make that statement every time.

In a nutshell, science is simply about asking 'Why?'. How can "Why?" be disproved?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Science can ask the question of why a particular result occurred. In fact, as a specialist in so-call "chemical kinetics" (study of the dynamics of reaction mechanisms), I was always asking why we would get result X vs. result Y - or why we got 50% X, 33% Y, and 16% Z. But those were mechanistic questions that would also be askable as "How?" rather than "Why?"

The difference between science and religion is that when you ask "Why" in any of the Abrahamic religions, the answer is usually "God did it" - and that is the end of the discussion. If you ask why people do evil things, the answer is that "Satan guided them astray." If you ask why an earthquake occurred, someone will say "It was God's form of punishment for evil activity." (Ask Pat Robertson about the Indonesian tsunami, for example. It was punishment for being nice to gays.)

The scientific answer regarding the presence of what is commonly called "evil" is that people do what they do because they are hard-wired by evolution to be territorial, possessive, self-centered, and greedy - all of which are survival traits in reptilian brains. (Oddly enough, the OT God is possessive, authoritative, jealous, and narcissistic. Does that mean that God is a dinosaur?)

Of course, since Christianity tends to deny evolution, this evolutionary answer does them no good even though it is correct. Now if some religious folks would say that Adam and Eve were the first people to be able to break out of that reptilian ferocity, we might even have a discussion - but that would again entertain the idea of evolution being real and that is a religious no-no.

It is why I more closely respect at least parts of Buddhist philosophy. For the Theravada denomination of Buddhism, you don't need a supreme deity - or any deity at all. For mechanisms, "Why" is still a valid Buddhist question. However, you don't ask the question "Why" for philosophical issues - you ask "OK, this thing is here. So what do I need to do about it?" Looking for a reason for a universe to exist is valid if and only if you planned to do something constructive with the answer. (Or, sadly, something destructive - e.g. nuclear weapons.)

The question of "Why" at the philosophical level is often best answered by "I don't know. Let's think about an experiment that would answer that question." But many modern religions instead will insist "God did it and we cannot know the mind of God." The moment you answer a question with that phrase, you are saying "Man is too stupid to answer this question, now or ever in the future." If EVER there was a bit of arrogance, that is it.

 

[Bladerunner]

so much for that BIG LIE!!!!!!!

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/20...gaining-ice-says-NASA.-Is-global-warming-over

Hate to say I told you so!

Blade

 

[Brianwarnock]

Blade, did you read the article or just the headline?

Brian

 

[Libre]

so much for that BIG LIE!!!!!!!

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...l-warming-over

Hate to say I told you so!

Blade

Blade-
There is no lie.
There are observations and measurements.
Theories are formed to try to explain what is happening - always with the proviso that there are still unknowns, and no one theory will explain everything.

In Science, there are observations and measurements sometimes, that appear inconsistent with what is expected, based on previous observations. That new data is added to the mix to try to get an understanding of the bigger picture. In a truly open and honest system, such data would not be suppressed, even though it might cause some embarrassment or even a loss of credibility of some who didn't foresee this apparently inconsistent data.

I could not read the article here at work because it is blocked as a "religious advocacy" site - but from what I gather, the Christian Science Monitor (an bastion of free thought, with no agenda of its own, of course) reports that an increase of ice in Antarctica has been measured.

So where is the BIG LIE you are referring to?
Maybe you're talking about the crackpots out there, who willfully or ignorantly extrapolate from the actual data in order to misrepresent what the majority of climate scientists seem to believe today - that the Earth is warming. So some data in one area does not support this, it is reported in the media (and probably in a sensationalist, unscholarly way), and the crackpots (yes, the crackpots) all jump in the air gleefully, saying, SEE? The scientists are all LIARS!!!!

Or maybe the BIG LIE is how the Catholic Church and other organized religious groups have, throughout history, suppressed, repressed, and otherwise obfuscated knowledge and thought that was inconsistent with their little scheme of how the universe works.

Just one example: Galileo lived in the 1600's, and was prosecuted for believing the Copernican model of the solar system. The Vatican waited until the 1990's before they would even discuss the heliocentric model of the solar system, when the more enlightened of them finally agreed that yes, the Earth is NOT the center of the universe. I'm sure there are still some holdouts though - would you put yourself in that category Mr. Blade?

 

[Frothingslosh]

would you put yourself in that category Mr. Blade?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I have always agreed that we are going through climate change, but have not always agreed as to why. The Earth goes through many natural cycles with years, centuries, or millennia frequencies. Do you know why that Dark Ages eventually ended? Because the mini-Ice Age of that era ended. Did you know that we had a mini-Ice Age in the 1800s? It ended and we went into an accelerated Industrial Revolution.

I think we are seeing the high-temperature side of a natural cycle. I don't deny that it would be to our HEALTH advantage to reduce pollution, so don't shoot me for being a litterbug. Pollution is a known source of many ills of the body. I just focus on a different reason to be more careful about how and where the throw out the garbage. Cutting back or otherwise neutralizing industrial pollution is ALWAYS a good idea, Global Warming or not.

The CSM article isn't news to me. We've known for some time that the original description of Global Warming was a really (terribly) bad case of some environmental scientists doing their damnedest to find a hot-button topic to get more grant money and they didn't care who they scared in order to get it. The published Global Warming numbers have so frequently been suspect that the few really good bits of work get lost in the clutter. I wish I could say that scientists are above that sort of thing, but we are not. Heck, I left the field of chemistry for computer sciences years ago for money. Now I'm just a typical computer prostitute - I get intimate with your computer projects for money.

Back to the topic... Yes, our global climate IS changing. We can talk about whether it is good or bad, but in the final analysis, all we can REALLY say is "changing." But I have to also question whether climate change statistics are like ra** statistics - in that both are reported and recorded more often than used to be the case, and THAT is why both seem to be on the rise.

I don't see our climate as static, but rather as ALWAYS in a dynamic equilibrium. (Nature doesn't do "static" very well but THRIVES on dynamic equilibriums.) Therefore, I can't get worked up to learn that country X is warmer and country Y is colder than they have been in their recent histories.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Doc, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists - specifically, the much-trumpeted 97% figure - agree that not only is Earth warming, but that this warming is human-caused. The supporting data is absolutely overwhelming, between the massive increase of greenhouse gases and the atmospheric data available through the geological record. Hell, I recall about six or seven years back, one of the most strident climate-change deniers out there (I'd have to spend more time than I have this morning finding his name) finished a review of a MASSIVE amount of raw data and studies, and pulled a complete 180, declaring that he had been wrong, that not only is Climate Change real, but the current round is definitely, OBVIOUSLY human-caused.

Yes, the Earth has gone through heating and cooling cycles before, but NEVER at a speed matching modern day. We're seeing yearly changes that should be taking centuries (or longer). The problem isn't so much that it's happening, but rather, where it's going to stop and what it'll do to the biosphere. It's certainly not helping moderate the Holocene extinction, that's for sure.

As to the end of the Dark Ages (and sociologists DESPISE that term - I'm assuming you mean it in the oldest sense, the period between the fall of Rome and the Colonial era) had far more to do with the Black Plague (which led to a rise in the importance of laborers and the eventual end of the whole institution of serfdom), the rise of trade (and thus the advent of a prosperous middle class) in importance, and the Renaissance and the changes in outlook it brought about. Those had a far, far more drastic effect on European society than the planet getting a degree or two warmer over the course of a thousand years.

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade-
There is no lie.
There are observations and measurements.
Theories are formed to try to explain what is happening - always with the proviso that there are still unknowns, and no one theory will explain everything.

In Science, there are observations and measurements sometimes, that appear inconsistent with what is expected, based on previous observations. That new data is added to the mix to try to get an understanding of the bigger picture. In a truly open and honest system, such data would not be suppressed, even though it might cause some embarrassment or even a loss of credibility of some who didn't foresee this apparently inconsistent data.

I could not read the article here at work because it is blocked as a "religious advocacy" site - but from what I gather, the Christian Science Monitor (an bastion of free thought, with no agenda of its own, of course) reports that an increase of ice in Antarctica has been measured.

Hey Libre:
The problem here, unless it is a blog or letter to the editor type article and if it is scientific fact, then it does not matter where it is published. I dare say, that I could start looking the facts concerning this one article and find them readily. Most likely on another site that you have not banned based on your own personal bias.

So where is the BIG LIE you are referring to?
Maybe you're talking about the crackpots out there, who willfully or ignorantly extrapolate from the actual data in order to misrepresent what the majority of climate scientists seem to believe today - that the Earth is warming. So some data in one area does not support this, it is reported in the media (and probably in a sensationalist, unscholarly way), and the crackpots (yes, the crackpots) all jump in the air gleefully, saying, SEE? The scientists are all LIARS!!!!

It is a fact that the temperatures that were measured by NASA were falsified. Yes, the facts they published were debunked. Also the satalite data shows that since 1970(s), the temperature around the world has been about the same...( you can pul them up,,,,,,go ahead._) If you want the article, I would look it up for you but I think you don't really want to know the truth. Your Lose? in my opinion of course.

Not all scientist are liars, but some do have an Agenda and Global warming is simply away to spread the wealth around. Kinda of like what we are doing here in the US with all the subsidies.. I found a site where one mother was getting close to $80,000 collective from a number of subsidies available to her. Guess what, she does not work!@!!!!!Duh? There are many more out there like that all being paid for by my, yours (if you work)and every other US citizen (who works for a living) Taxes. Oh, by the way, the debt ceiling puts about $50,000 extra debt on each person here in the US.

Don't ya just love those LIBERALS............Oh my
.

Or maybe the BIG LIE is how the Catholic Church and other organized religious groups have, throughout history, suppressed, repressed, and otherwise obfuscated knowledge and thought that was inconsistent with their little scheme of how the universe works.
Just one example: Galileo lived in the 1600's, and was prosecuted for believing the Copernican model of the solar system. The Vatican waited until the 1990's before they would even discuss the heliocentric model of the solar system, when the more enlightened of them finally agreed that yes, the Earth is NOT the center of the universe. I'm sure there are still some holdouts though - would you put yourself in that category Mr. Blade]?

Libre:
I have never advocated for the Catholic Church. To me it is as close to the Antichrist as one can get.....Why? The Catholic Church today advocates a one world government but to realistically have a peaceful one world government, you would also have to have a one world religion in order to get rid of all the religious wars going on. I'll give you three guesses, on which church is betting they get to be that world religion.
People have died, are dying and will die for their beliefs. Take you and I. About as far apart as you can get. Me being (not religious) but for Jesus Christ and You......an atheist (for yourself). Which one of us (sitting side by side) would die first if ISIS had a sword to our necks. Which one of us would convert to Islam or would you die for believing in yourself. You do know they hate Atheist, LGBTs, Christians and other non-believers all the same.
You do know that they are not going away? I ask this because, In the coming days, years or decades if we are still alive, you will have to choose, one last time on whether you live or die. You will have to take the mark of the beast to stay alive or DIe Which will you take. Life or Death. Of, Course, in my case at that point, death from this mortal body would be welcomed.

Have a nice day!

Blade

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Blade on the catholic chuch

I have never advocated for the Catholic Church. To me it is as close to the Antichrist as one can get.....Why?

Blade on ISIS view of everyone else

they hate Atheist, LGBTs, Christians and other non-believers all the same.

hmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Alc]

Also the satalite data shows that since 1970(s), the temperature around the world has been about the same..

A mere 20 years after Darwin proposed his own theory?

Not all scientist are liars, but some do have an Agenda and Global warming is simply away to spread the wealth around. Kinda of like what we are doing here in the US with all the subsidies.. I found a site where one mother was getting close to $80,000 collective from a number of subsidies available to her. Guess what, she does not work!@!!!!!Duh? There are many more out there like that all being paid for by my, yours (if you work)and every other US citizen (who works for a living) Taxes. Oh, by the way, the debt ceiling puts about $50,000 extra debt on each person here in the US.

What has this little rant got to do with anything?

 

[Frothingslosh]

ALC, he's been going on long conspiracy theory rants here since I joined the thread. In fact, he's gotten quite a bit worse over the last year. Maybe a year and a half ago, he said he had no issue with the Catholic Church and considered them as Christian as any Protestant denomination, and now they're the Antichrist.

He'd rather go on a rant about how all Liberals (defined as anyone who disagrees with him) are part of some grand conspiracy headed by George Soros to throw the US down in ruin, hand the flaming wreckage over to ISIS, and slaughter all Christians, and that we have all knowingly and willingly sold our souls to Satan for the evulz. That's honestly one of the reasons I'm so down on him - I long ago grew sick and tired of being called a monster and a traitor because I don't slavishly follow his pronouncements.

Not to mention, he lies. Take, for example, his satellite claim. The actual evidence shows that out of the last 20 years, something like 17 have set new records for overall global temperature, but he'll never tell you that. Instead, he'll desperately provide link after link that don't say what he says they do in the vain hope that you'll just take his word for it.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

ALC, he's been going on long conspiracy theory rants here since I joined the thread. In fact, he's gotten quite a bit worse over the last year. Maybe a year and a half ago, he said he had no issue with the Catholic Church and considered them as Christian as any Protestant denomination, and now they're the Antichrist.

He'd rather go on a rant about how all Liberals (defined as anyone who disagrees with him) are part of some grand conspiracy headed by George Soros to throw the US down in ruin, hand the flaming wreckage over to ISIS, and slaughter all Christians, and that we have all knowingly and willingly sold our souls to Satan for the evulz. That's honestly one of the reasons I'm so down on him - I long ago grew sick and tired of being called a monster and a traitor because I don't slavishly follow his pronouncements.

Not to mention, he lies. Take, for example, his satellite claim. The actual evidence shows that out of the last 20 years, something like 17 have set new records for overall global temperature, but he'll never tell you that. Instead, he'll desperately provide link after link that don't say what he says they do in the vain hope that you'll just take his word for it.

The internet is full of such tripe unfortunately.

 

[Frothingslosh]

The internet is full of such tripe unfortunately.

There's even a name for it - the Gish Gallop.