Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, November 30, 2023

No one ever said the religious and a scientist would be easy but at last a scientist has looked into the experience and found that the sociological aspects of the scientific community are all too human and that it can be bigoted towards anyone who's not an atheist.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"students I spoke with described a culture that assumed everyone in a lab or classroom was atheist and permitted comments that were openly hostile toward religion or religious people"

#1 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-29 12:32 AM | Reply

I've never noticed any religious discrimination at the research lab I work at. But then again, I just may have lucked out and found the one where everyone gets along. We're a good crew.

#2 | Posted by keystone at 2023-11-29 04:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

As a chemist working in a pharmaceutical lab environment for over 25 years I can tell you most scientists don't talk or think about religion much at all during the course of a regular work day. It is generally not a subject of much interest to the people I have worked with over the years.

#3 | Posted by schmanch at 2023-11-29 07:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

At most jobs your religious beliefs are not a welcome topic in the office. No one wants to hear that crap.

#4 | Posted by qcp at 2023-11-29 08:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I've never worked with an atheist who made it a point of letting others know about it. The same cannot be said for religious people.

I have no problem with tolerating religious displays but also who the ---- cares please shut up and get out of my face.

I like the Sikhs because you can tell they are Sikh by how they dress. They don't need to tell you, and they don't tell you.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-11-29 09:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Most people I know in science aren't believers. But they're not really atheists either. Their view is more a simple "meh."

Seems to be a side effect of the level of intellectual curiosity it takes to be a scientist.

Funny enough, one of the few Christian's I've known who actually walks the walk is an MD/PhD I went to grad school with.

#6 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-29 10:11 AM | Reply

Angela evidence is nice but the research shows that atheism is assumed and if any other religious belief is mentioned it is treated with hostility.

#7 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-29 10:36 AM | Reply

Angelina LOL that should read anecdotal.

#8 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-29 10:36 AM | Reply

"the research shows that atheism is assumed and if any other religious belief is mentioned it is treated with hostility"

Yeah well religious belief thinking is not compatible with science belief thinking.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-11-29 10:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

John Lennox: How Math and Science Point to God 238k views

m.youtube.com

PhD Mathematics from Cambridge University. He retired from professorship where he specialised in group theory.

"He is Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and an Emeritus Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, Oxford University."

A linguist by nature, he considers math to be the language of the universe.

If you are short on time, you could skip to 6 mins in. Also there's multiple videos on ytube.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2023-11-29 11:03 AM | Reply

"he considers math to be the language of the universe."

Everybody in science thinks that.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-11-29 11:11 AM | Reply

Oh look at that even here some people are trying to justify bigotry and discrimination.

#12 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-29 11:24 AM | Reply

Pray for them. But do it quietly and somewhere else, like it's offensive behavior.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-11-29 11:26 AM | Reply

Had you read the article you would know it's clear the religious scientists did not practice their god-given right to practice religion while engaging in scientific research.... although for some scientific research is in itself following christ.

#14 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-29 11:33 AM | Reply

"the religious scientists did not practice their god-given right to practice religion"

The anti-science thinking just bleeds off this post like a Roman soldier hung it from a cross and stabbed it in the side.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-11-29 11:35 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

You could try reading the article but I don't think you will too much fear of religion and science.

#16 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-29 11:45 AM | Reply

11

So then... Mathematics is the only language we know of that created itself out of nothing?

Huh.

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2023-11-29 11:49 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"So then... Mathematics is the only language we know of that created itself out of nothing?"

Whether math is created or discovered is one of those questions with no great answers.

Pythagoras discovered something about right triangles, but he didn't create it.

Did Leibniz and Newton invent calculus? Or did they just see something that was always there but nobody noticed it before?

Nobody would argue Newton invented gravity, but he did describe it mathematically.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-11-29 12:07 PM | Reply

- no great answers.

I happen to agree with the one in the video.

He expounds upon it much more thoroughly in a 15 minute video before his peers of all persuasions at the Oxford Forum.

Think I'll save that one for a couple of weeks.

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2023-11-29 12:18 PM | Reply

And of course cork&paste has to show up to turn this into a 'bad science proves sky daddy' thread.

Why can't y'all learn the meaning of the word faith and just stick with it?

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-29 12:48 PM | Reply

Oh look at that even here some people are trying to justify bigotry and discrimination.

#12 | POSTED BY TOR

Christians are such whiny -----.

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-29 12:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So then... Mathematics is the only language we know of that created itself out of nothing?
Huh.

#17 | POSTED BY CORKY

FF

I hope you stretch before trying this hard.

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-29 12:50 PM | Reply

And LOL at a Kirk Cameron video.

Go ahead. Whine about slaughtering the source when I'm sure with the slightest push you'll gush about him being a professor at Oxford.

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-29 12:53 PM | Reply

Science finds that scientists can be bigoted even in Laboratory settings.

#24 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-29 12:59 PM | Reply

Scientists find Chreestians are fragile, self-absorbed whiners who demand respect for absurd ideas and Bronze Age goat herder myths that have been the root of untold misery and death.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-29 01:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Science finds no such thing.

The 2000s are over and the rhetoric no longer gets the response it did.

#26 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-29 01:09 PM | Reply

Science doesn't have to find it (I said scientists, BTW).

That's simple history and reality.

Bronze Age goat herder myths? Reality.

Chreestians always whining about being "persecuted" or "mistreated"? Reality.

Chreestians overwhelming exercising levers of power in the US at federal, state and local levels? Reality.

Chreestians still whine? Reality.

Chreestians so self-absorbed they have to demand public prayer and practice of their particular flavor of Bronze Age goat herder myth? Reality.

None of that, absolutely not of it, is deniable.

#27 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-29 01:20 PM | Reply

It would be nice if scientists didn't have the flaws commonly found in all humans but we don't live in that reality we live in one where scientists are human and are flawed.

And every time we hear someone in science shrieking about Bronze Age mythology we are provided with more evidence.

#28 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-29 01:30 PM | Reply

Yawn.

Nobody claimed scientists aren't flawed. That's your strawman.

And I'm sorry reality stings. But that's your problem to work through, not mine.

(Shrieking LOL the hysterics are hysterical)

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-29 01:34 PM | Reply

Well it's good to know that we agree scientists sometimes engage in bigoted behavior and that it's not appropriate in the workplace.

#30 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-29 01:42 PM | Reply

It's not bigoted to accurately describe reality.

Why are chreestians such snowflakes?

#31 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-29 01:42 PM | Reply

You don't get to discriminate against other people at your workplace.

#32 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-29 01:54 PM | Reply

I already said it never comes up in the workplace.

Because myself and the people I work with don't ever feel the need to discuss it. It's "meh" and we spend our time on more important discussions.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-29 01:56 PM | Reply

The research shows it does come up. Maybe not for you but for other people.

#34 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-29 01:58 PM | Reply

I know. I read the article.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-29 02:07 PM | Reply

Best ex-girlfriend I have is an atheist. We actually had a cute moment where she assumed I was an atheist and for some reason I thought she was a Quaker but hadkept it to myself.

Theological differences barely made us blink.

#36 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-29 02:36 PM | Reply

JPwhipped, sans any argument yet again, gets all defensive with lots of ad homenim and descriptions, but no arguments at all to what the Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Oxford has to say about the thread subject of science and religion.

Shocked. I'm shocked I tells ya!

My post, btw, was in direct Retort to Snoof Dog's #9 about the compatibility of types of thinking: that one cannot coexist with the other.

Obviously, it can and does.

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2023-11-29 03:31 PM | Reply

but no arguments at all to what the Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Oxford

Appeal to authority fallacy. Your favorite fallacy other than sky daddy.

Obviously, it can and does.

#37 | Posted by Corky

Wait. You mean people will search to find things to justify their life long, uncritically held beliefs? Get outta here! No way!

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-29 03:37 PM | Reply

38

Like I said, no arguments, just whining.

Someone of his stature doesn't get where they are by holding uncritical beliefs.

And you obviously either don't understand that fallacy, or you don't deem him expert in mathematics.

"This sort of reasoning is only fallacious when the person in question has no legitimate authority in the field of knowledge under discussion."

www.scribbr.com

Of course, you haven't given 5 mins to what he has to say about Mathematics, so how could you.

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2023-11-29 03:49 PM | Reply

I think it was Jay Gould who talked about just how many religious people had contributed to Humanities scientific advancements and how it was juvenile to think of people as being mentally inferior simply because they were religious.

#40 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-29 05:04 PM | Reply

It really depends on how you cast "simply because they were religious."
For example: I've only ever heard religious people whine about a War on Christmas. Anyone who thinks there's a War on Christmas is mentally inferior.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-11-29 05:13 PM | Reply

As far as I'm concerned the most egregious examples of a war on Christmas come from corporations hell bent on extracting as much money as they can from people and in doing so promote materialism over everything the holiday is supposed to be about.

Even Dr Seuss hated them.

#42 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-29 05:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Like I said, no arguments, just whining.

Lol one of the most desperate Christians I've ever met who basically thinks a bunch of arguments from authority make his beliefs "true" whines about whining. Sorry, sport, but there's no whine in my posts.

Someone of his stature doesn't get where they are by holding uncritical beliefs.

You have zero idea how powerful bias can be. Absolutely nothing about him being a mathematician suggests he's objectively assessed his religious beliefs.

And you obviously either don't understand that fallacy, or you don't deem him expert in mathematics.

Cool non sequitur.

Of course, you haven't given 5 mins to what he has to say about Mathematics, so how could you.

I couldn't give two ----- what he says about math.

One could easily try to use math to say any one of the thousands of religions ever to exist are "true."

Doesn't make it true then, either.

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-29 07:39 PM | Reply

The familial aspect the research has uncovered is completely new to me. I had known that career scientists especially women were usually hindered by their entirely understandable desire to have children but I didn't know there was any overlap with religion.

#44 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-29 07:46 PM | Reply

Did Leibniz and Newton invent calculus?

Yes

Or did they just see something that was always there but nobody noticed it before?

This is the definition of "invention".

A new device, method, or process developed from study and experimentation.

#45 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-11-29 07:51 PM | Reply

43

You're embarrassing yourself... were that possible.

"This sort of reasoning is only fallacious when the person in question has no legitimate authority in the field of knowledge under discussion."
www.scribbr.com

You had no clue about how the authority fallacy werks.

And the fact that he's been advanced to Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Oxford, where most of his colleagues are not religious, can mean something to someone not as biased as yourself.

That you don't care what he says about math is understandable, as you don't know what he says about math.

Ignorance being bliss, and all.

All you ever do on this subject is remind people why the fundamentalist New Atheists became passe so quickly...

even other atheists and agnostics couldn't stand their fundie know it all attitudes and the vitriol they spewed when anyone dared question them.

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2023-11-29 07:56 PM | Reply

Nobody would argue Newton invented gravity, but he did describe it mathematically.

There were many attempts to describe it "mathematically".

Newton "invented" the separation of mass from weight.

With that idea Newtons universal law of gravity could be properly formed, and from that could derive Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

#47 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-11-29 08:00 PM | Reply

46 I'm not an atheist.

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-29 08:31 PM | Reply

New atheism started to die the day Obama got nominated.

It was morbidly funny to watch pathetic new atheism activists proclaimed that Obama had to be one of them he was too intelligent to be anything else.

#49 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-29 08:35 PM | Reply

Many Christians tend to feel oppressed as soon as you don't reaffirm their belief.

#50 | Posted by memyselfini at 2023-11-30 09:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Scientists find Chreestians are fragile, self-absorbed whiners who demand respect for absurd ideas and Bronze Age goat herder myths that have been the root of untold misery and death.

#25 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2023-11-29 01:08 PM | FLAG:

Okay.. but have you seen the weapons Scientists have given us? Super modern untold misery and death on a global scale.

#52 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-11-30 10:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Science has given us individuals with some of the scariest duality in human history. Fieser synthesized vitamin K and his work lead to the development of cortisone. He invented napalm, for military use, which killed 100,000 in a single night in Tokyo.

One of the chemist fathers of modern agriculture is also the father of chemical warfare.

#53 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-11-30 10:30 AM | Reply

Fieser's work killed as many people in 1 attack as a nuclear weapon attack.

#54 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-11-30 10:32 AM | Reply

"Many Christians tend to feel oppressed as soon as you don't reaffirm their belief."

Oh so they're all lying right? Real classy.

#55 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-30 10:41 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

research shows that atheism is assumed and if any other religious belief is mentioned it is treated with hostility.

#7 | POSTED BY TOR

I don't know about science labs, but as an atheist I've certainly experienced the opposite. I've been in some pretty hostile work environments, after they found out I was a non-believer.

And even worse... One year, I let my kids go to a religious summer camp because I thought exposure to different ideas was important. When one of the teachers there started questioning their beliefs, and the beliefs of their parents, my kids told them we didn't go to church or practice any faith. This teacher immediately told my children that their parents were going to hell, and that they would as well if they didn't start coming to church. Needless to say, we immediately yanked the kids out of the camp and reported this teacher to the pastor, who actually happened to be a friend. This teacher was banned from the camp, and soon left that church.

There are an awful lot of people out there speaking for a God that they can't even prove exists. This world would be FAR better off without its fake deity's.

#56 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2023-11-30 11:07 AM | Reply

Personal anecdotes do not so much as diminish let alone adjudicate the research at hand.

#57 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-30 11:26 AM | Reply

"I like the Sikhs because you can tell they are Sikh by how they dress. They don't need to tell you, and they don't tell you."

That's because they got tired of the Get Well Soon jokes.

#58 | Posted by sentinel at 2023-11-30 11:34 AM | Reply

Oh so they're all lying right? Real classy.

#55 | POSTED BY TOR

You've already been clued in on this topic.

They're self-absorbed whiners.

#59 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-30 11:44 AM | Reply

Personal anecdotes do not so much as diminish let alone adjudicate the research at hand.

#57 | POSTED BY TOR

via GIPHY

#60 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-30 11:50 AM | Reply

"Oh look at that even here some people are trying to justify bigotry and discrimination.

#12 | POSTED BY TOR AT 2023-11-29 11:24 AM |"

Well, several people on here that work in science just explained that they have never heard of any discrimination toward folks that practice any religion. I lived in a city with a big university and have many friends that are scientist and not one of them ever said anything remotely bigoted towards religious folks or their peers. I myself could do less with of those that believe in sky fairies or some dude that took his time to marry little girls and killed have of the known world at the time with a sword. Half the worlds problems are because of two or three religious groups that seem bent upon ruining the planet for the rest of us just because their book of sky faries and other BS tells them they are the chosen ones....read: Middle East, parts of Asia and women's rights.

#61 | Posted by Wildman62 at 2023-11-30 12:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I know of one.

#62 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-30 12:45 PM | Reply

Just another boo hoo, woe is us piece. Science and religion have been pretty well just fine working together for thousands of years. Atheist and agnostic scientists don't have a problem with anyone being religious, as long as they're a decent person.

Remind me again, which side believes everyone else is going to Hell?

#63 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2023-11-30 01:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I have yet to see anyone criticize the research.

And many of the responses only make his conclusions more credible.

Go on now, prove him even more right.

#64 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-30 01:15 PM | Reply

Scientists, who self identify first and foremost as scientists, almost uniformly are skeptical about the existence of God. They demand verifiable, reliable and repeatable proof that can be tested in a controlled environment. And, no matter what your beliefs, that is something which Judeo-Christianity can NOT provide. It all comes down to "faith", which is a non-starter for individuals who think foremostly in a scientific manner.

#65 | Posted by moder8 at 2023-11-30 01:54 PM | Reply

but I didn't know there was any overlap with religion.

#44 | POSTED BY TOR AT 2023-11-29 07:46 PM | FLAG:

The desert religions all include elements to promote hierarchal structures, social harmony (like savage punishments for adultery), and breeding. That's why they're the basis for so much government regulation throughout the world.

#66 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-11-30 02:19 PM | Reply

permitted comments that were openly hostile toward religion or religious people"

#1 | POSTED BY TOR

Oh the poor dears! Someone said something openly hostile towards a religion! The Religulous have been openly hostile to others to the point of actually burning atheists and blasphemers at the stake.

And now they are trying to rule Congress by following biblical tenets.

If your religion can't take a little verbal abuse or hard questioning then it's not the atheist or nonbeliever that is the problem. It's your religion.

And if religulous did not wear their religion on their sleeves and try to force their religion onto others then they would not face so much hostility from others.

"But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-Thomas Jefferson

#67 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-11-30 02:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Donner we're adults and we've all had a boss who look the other way when bad things were being done.

Bigotry in the work place is illegal though.

#68 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-30 02:46 PM | Reply

"Donner we're adults and we've all had a boss who look the other way when bad things were being done."

Yes we know. Glass houses and stones don't mix.

And now it seems your rights all depend on what state you live in now. Gender discrimination is just as hostile as bigotry yet now that is ok in some states. And being gay makes Jesus cry. Then there is the whole abortion issue and woman's health care discrimination which is religulously based discrimination.

But it's the poor misunderstood Christian's that are the victims.

You stand up for the victims of Christian's then I would stand up for the Christians.

But Christians don't need my help. It's the victims of Christian soldiers that need my help.

#69 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-11-30 03:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We're both in California where religious discrimination is illegal same as racial.

#70 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-30 03:42 PM | Reply

Oh the poor dears! Someone said something openly hostile towards a religion!

#67 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

I know. This just reeks of faux victimhood. Poor babies.

#71 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2023-11-30 04:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Victim blaming is common among cowards on the right.

#72 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-30 04:32 PM | Reply

And, no matter what your beliefs, that is something which Judeo-Christianity can NOT provide. It all comes down to "faith", which is a non-starter for individuals who think foremostly in a scientific manner.

Personally, I don't have a problem with faith. The person I mentioned in #6 (the MD/PhD) would often answer along the lines of "I don't know what to tell you, that's just what I believe" when we'd discuss these things.

What I can't stand is when people try to "prove" their faith is valid with bad attempts at science ect.

Just admit it's faith and move on.

#73 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-30 04:46 PM | Reply

" Just admit it's faith and move on.

#73 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2023-11-30 04:46 PM | FLAG: "

Religion IS faith. Faith can be a good thing. It can also be twisted.

#74 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-11-30 05:07 PM | Reply

Isn't there some science fiction story about a scientist that discovers proof of God and God responds by saying "congratulations" and promptly rewrites existence so that the evidence no longer exists?

#75 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-30 05:13 PM | Reply

Isn't there some science fiction story about a scientist that discovers proof of God and God responds by saying "congratulations" and promptly rewrites existence so that the evidence no longer exists?

POSTED BY TOR AT 2023-11-30 05:13 PM | REPLY

Huh??

#76 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2023-11-30 05:15 PM | Reply

Religion IS faith.

Not when you're constantly trying to force science and math to make it more than faith.

Just f&^%ing believe it and be done with it. Stop desperately trying to validate it. (not directed at you, directed in general)

#77 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-30 06:09 PM | Reply

www.azquotes.com

#78 | Posted by Corky at 2023-11-30 06:39 PM | Reply

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such.

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.

We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

- Max Planck
(founder of the quantum theory and one of the most important physicists of the twentieth century

More

www.simpletoremember.com

#79 | Posted by Corky at 2023-11-30 06:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Who cares.

None of it means anything more than you're desperate to validate your beliefs.

#80 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-30 08:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Huh??"

It my have been an Isaac Asimov story.

#81 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-30 09:42 PM | Reply

80

Science Denier!

Argument-free science denier.

#82 | Posted by Corky at 2023-11-30 11:47 PM | Reply

"The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."

- Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist)
Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry

I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28

"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life"almost contrived"you might say a put-up job'."

- Dr. Paul Davies (noted author and Professor of Theoretical Physics at Adelaide University)

"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say supernatural') plan."

- Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.

"It has occurred to me lately"I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities"that both questions [the origin of consciousness in humans and of life from non-living matter] might be brought into some degree of congruence.

This is with the assumption that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality"that stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff.

It is mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create: science-, art-, and technology-making animals. In them the universe begins to know itself."

- George Wald, (Noble laureate and professor of biology at Harvard University) wrote this in an article entitled "Life and Mind in the Universe"

Just a few of many quotes at the link in #79

#83 | Posted by Corky at 2023-11-30 11:56 PM | Reply

Not that long ago Nel Degrass Tyson said that went man went to the moon for the first time we were able to see the planet as it was MEANT to be seen.

A curious statement for a scientist I thought said he was an atheist.

#84 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 12:08 AM | Reply

John Lennox: How Math and Science Point to God 238k views

#10 | POSTED BY CORKY

Which god?

#85 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2023-12-01 12:09 AM | Reply

Which one ya got?

(best Marlon Brando impression)

Some say the one that spoke the universe into being using the language of the universe, Mathematics.

It's why you hear so much about the Logos, in the Bible.

I think I read that the longest such words exist in human genomes.

#86 | Posted by Corky at 2023-12-01 12:32 AM | Reply

This article appears to suffer from serious confirmation bias. It is focusing on the answers provided by those who identify as religious.
Example: around two-thirds of the students who identified as very religious or moderately religious agreed with the statement that "people in my discipline have a negative attitude toward religion,"

Curious the non-religious respond to that question.

Here's the problem with that question.
If a colleague comes up to me and starts talking about their fantasy mumblety-peg team my response (after I process the fact that thing I thought I just maid up is actually a thing) I'm going to change the topic or exit the conversation because I have zero interest in mumblety-peg, much less a fantasy sport based on it. I might even say something like "Don't care. Going to lunch." and then walk away.
Is it possible that my colleague may view my indifference as evidence I have a negative view towards the thing they are really into?

#87 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2023-12-01 01:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."

No it's not. It's close to zero, but it's most definitely NOT zero.

His concept suggests if you put enough balls in the hopper, NONE come out when you pick one. Fact is, you could put in a quadrillion to the quadrillionth power, and one ball would still beat the odds.

His theory fails. .

#88 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-12-01 02:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Gag...I see Tor is on a 'holy mission' again...

I'll wait in the lobby whilst he proselytizes about how
great is non-visible, non-appearing, (likely) non-existent God is.

#89 | Posted by earthmuse at 2023-12-01 06:42 AM | Reply

Jesus wept.

(After scanning this thread)

#90 | Posted by Angrydad at 2023-12-01 07:39 AM | Reply

Some say the one that spoke the universe into being using the language of the universe, Mathematics.

#86 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2023-12-01 12:32 AM | FLAG:

Some say...

List of creation myths

#91 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-12-01 08:32 AM | Reply

Statistical probabilities have error bars on them.

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 08:33 AM | Reply

"Some say the one that spoke the universe into being"

What do they say about who spoke that being into being? Or is it turtles all the way down.

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 08:34 AM | Reply

Science Denier!
Argument-free science denier.
#82 | POSTED BY CORKY

Smart people saying they believe in God isn't an argument that supports God's existence, sport.

#94 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-01 08:44 AM | Reply

Just a few of many quotes at the link in #79
#83 | POSTED BY CORKY

Again, who cares.

You're throwing handfuls of argument from authority at the wall hoping something sticks.

#95 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-01 08:45 AM | Reply

Not that long ago Nel Degrass Tyson said that went man went to the moon for the first time we were able to see the planet as it was MEANT to be seen.
A curious statement for a scientist I thought said he was an atheist.

#84 | POSTED BY TOR

That statement has literally nothing to do with religion. Have you bothered listening to the reasoning behind that thinking expressed by the astronauts themselves?

While most were religious men, their comments to that effect were about the smallness and fragility of Earth and, in that context, the futility of the squabbling of the era (and likely in general).

#96 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-01 08:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

His theory fails. .

#88 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

No to mention it's a common presupposition of things being "perfect" conditions/factors/whatever for life, no to life.

For life supposes no other way possible, to life more accurately supposes life finds a way to work with what it's go and does so quite well.

#97 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-01 08:54 AM | Reply

What do they say about who spoke that being into being? Or is it turtles all the way down.

#93 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You're talking to a guy who posted an article claiming the Genesis creation myth accurately describes scientific information we have about early Earth and life's start on it.

Even though the article itself was a whole lot of "well...maybe not quiiiiittte in this case buuuutttttt..." as it desperately tried to force its laughable point.

#98 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-01 08:56 AM | Reply

94

No Sport, and it's obviously not meant to be.

It's an argument against those who say that only stupid people do

95.

Again, an argument using expert opinion is only a fallacy if the authority isn't expert on the subject.

- his argument fails

Tough choice.

The father of quantum physics or the guy who likes to talk about, "sky daddies".

#99 | Posted by Corky at 2023-12-01 09:13 AM | Reply

98

You mean this one?

www.huffpost.com

Interesting coincidences.

#100 | Posted by Corky at 2023-12-01 09:15 AM | Reply

I went to a creationist museum in Dallas. The Institute of Creation Science or something like that. Clearly it is well funded, it looks like Injen from Jurassic Park's headquarters. Inside, they use everything except facts to try and overturn both geology and archeology. Wild stuff.

#101 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-12-01 09:20 AM | Reply

Again, an argument using expert opinion is only a fallacy if the authority isn't expert on the subject.

Except an expert in chemistry or math or physics isn't an expert in the existence of God. Their expertise in science is irrelevant to the conversation.

Keep flailing, champ. You're really convincing us of the strength of your beliefs.

Tough choice.
The father of quantum physics or the guy who likes to talk about, "sky daddies".

#99 | POSTED BY CORKY

More appeal to authority. Weak.

Interesting coincidences.

#100 | POSTED BY CORKY

Yes, that garbage.

No, not very interesting anything. Just rank desperation.

#102 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-01 09:21 AM | Reply

102

Still doesn't understand when appeal to authority is a fallacy and when it is not.

#103 | Posted by Corky at 2023-12-01 09:27 AM | Reply

- that argument

Is better than the non-arguments you respond with.

You making declarative statements isn't an argument.

#104 | Posted by Corky at 2023-12-01 09:29 AM | Reply

And probably the most famous nuclear physicists talking about the origins of the universe is expert opinion.

#105 | Posted by Corky at 2023-12-01 09:32 AM | Reply

Re 100

Genesis: (First day) -- 15 billion to 4.5 billion years ago
"In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth."

Yeah genesis does not say "15 billion to 4.5 billion" years ago. Also many religious creation stories are just as "accurate " in saying in the beginning some power created the universe.

Also the "heavens" already existed long before the earth was formed.

Close but no cookies.

In addition science does not say definitively that the universe came from "nothing"

Science has numerous theories regarding the creation of a universe or universes.

The thing about using God as the explanation for everything is that it is not useful for any scientific advances. And has actually impeded our progress as a people. Whereas the scientific method has advanced civilization exponentially. Especially notable in the last 100 years.

#106 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 09:35 AM | Reply

And probably the most famous nuclear physicists talking about the origins of the universe is expert opinion.

#105 | POSTED BY CORKY

Ummm ok. One opinion. There are probably at least 100 to 1 who think very differently.

What bothers me most about Christianity today is that their attempts at preserving Christian values they have decided to do away with Christian values.

#107 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 09:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Still doesn't understand when appeal to authority is a fallacy and when it is not.

#103 | POSTED BY CORKY

Thinks he's found an out to allow his weak ass "thinking" to continue.

#108 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-01 10:03 AM | Reply

Is better than the non-arguments you respond with.
You making declarative statements isn't an argument.
#104 | POSTED BY CORKY

Because declarative statements is all that's needed in this case.

You're trying to say subjective opinion is a substantive argument that can't be argued against with subjective opinion.

Because no, I'm not under any obligation to "disprove" the unfalsifiable nonsense you cork&paste into these types of threads.

#109 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-01 10:07 AM | Reply

And probably the most famous nuclear physicists talking about the origins of the universe is expert opinion.

#105 | POSTED BY CORKY

If they're talking about physics, yes, but not when the evidence free sky daddy comes into the conversation.

But even when it comes to physics, their positions as authorities doesn't mean complete agreement without question.

Just stop, dude. Your pseudointellectualism isn't as hard hitting as you think it is.

#110 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-01 10:09 AM | Reply

The thing about using God as the explanation for everything is that it is not useful for any scientific advances. And has actually impeded our progress as a people. Whereas the scientific method has advanced civilization exponentially. Especially notable in the last 100 years.
#106 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

The other thing about God is that the God of the Gaps argument is constantly covering a smaller and smaller proportion of our knowledge and ideas. It's found to be garbage time and time again.

Yet here we are, "debating" a glorified God of the Gaps argument on a thread that has been hijacked by cork&paste.

#111 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-01 10:11 AM | Reply

106

The point is the near identical sequence of events.

108

Still not an argument.

109

The well recognized and mostly accepted fine tuning of the universe isn't an opinion, it's a basic theory.

Let's do this... every time some physicists or mathematicians talk about fine tuning and or the workings of the universe appearing to have been created rather than magically self created ...

... you just think "Aliens!" rather than God.

You won't have a problem with that, and you'll be much happier.

#112 | Posted by Corky at 2023-12-01 10:21 AM | Reply

- Your pseudointellectualism

Lol.. puts me in pretty good company with all those Nobel Prize winners, Lab Boy.

#113 | Posted by Corky at 2023-12-01 10:25 AM | Reply

That's a bandwagon fallacy, and they gave a Nobel Peace Prize to the guy also called the Father of Modern Terrorism.

#114 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-12-01 10:32 AM | Reply

The point is the near identical sequence of events.

LOL they're nowhere near "near identical."

Still not an argument.

Yes, it is. It's an argument in favor of the pseudointellectual nature of your posts on this topic.

The well recognized and mostly accepted fine tuning of the universe isn't an opinion, it's a basic theory.

LOL no. Just no. It's BS pushed by people desperate to make their religious beliefs more solid.

And you clearly don't know what the word theory means in a scientific context because that BS is most definitely not theory.

You won't have a problem with that, and you'll be much happier.

#112 | POSTED BY CORKY

Yeah, I would. Inserting different entities with the same level of zero supporting evidence doesn't change the fact that there's zero supporting evidence.

- Your pseudointellectualism
Lol.. puts me in pretty good company with all those Nobel Prize winners, Lab Boy.
#113 | POSTED BY CORKY

Which is all you need to placate the desire to feel intelligent.

A method that's as useful as claiming God did it.

#115 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-01 10:51 AM | Reply

That's a bandwagon fallacy, and they gave a Nobel Peace Prize to the guy also called the Father of Modern Terrorism.

#114 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Not to mention they were given Nobel Prizes for actual scientific work, not anything related to Sky Daddy.

#116 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-01 10:51 AM | Reply

Has anyone actually read the article?

#117 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 11:03 AM | Reply

"The point is the near identical sequence of events."

Near identical. And I would give the man who thought this thought originally some credit. For being very logical and thoughtful. But not identical with science and not very accurate.

Like I said. Close. But no cookies. And by the way science has forced Christianity to be more "scientific". Much against the will of the church but they had no choice if they still wanted to be relevant in a scientifically enlightened world.

Yes. There are some questions we have no answers to yet. Like how the universe began. And how life itself began. But like JPW points out the Gaps have been narrowed down to the Big questions like these. Only because they are very difficult to prove. But the answers up to this point have been given science. Not any religious dogma. But it is interesting how physics and philosophy have collided on these Big questions.

But there is no reason to believe we won't find those answers someday. With science. If we don't destroy ourselves first. Then God will lose his last gaps to hide in. But hey no worries. You can still "believe" if you want to. That is your right. Just leave the rest of us out of it.

#118 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 11:04 AM | Reply

"the church".

Can we stop calling the Catholic Church that already?

#119 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 11:08 AM | Reply

Can we stop calling the Catholic Church that already?

#119 | POSTED BY TOR

How about The Groomers?

Would that be more appropriate?

#120 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 11:16 AM | Reply

"religious people do face challenges when working in science. These challenges have little to do with internal struggles over stereotypical issues like the origins of human life. Instead, religious scientists more often report navigating hostility from their peers and a professional culture that poses challenges for other life goals, such as building a family."

#121 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 11:19 AM | Reply

"religious people do face challenges when working in science."

They would not face these challenges if they kept their religion to themselves at work. You can have religulous values without even mentioning your religion.

FTA: Many religious graduate students in science say they keep quiet about that aspect of their identity.

As it should be.

If you wear your religion on your sleeves and shove it into your coworkers face then you have opened the door to a response you may not like.

But if your religion cannot stand up to earthy encounters or challenges then you need to reevaluate your religion. Not the person who responds to it negatively.

#122 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 11:29 AM | Reply

Has anyone actually read the article?

#117 | POSTED BY TOR

Yes. Have you? Because if you have then you should recognize that the flaws in the methodology he describes are so extreme that the analysis presented in this article should not be taken seriously which is why you find this published by a general journalism publication, not a scientific journal.
Notice how this article doesn't even mention, much less attempt to address, any criticisms that may have been received in any peer-reviewed publications the research has published. The Conversation claims to apply "academic rigor" to their articles but that has not occurred here. I give this no more credence than I would to the typical "letters to the editors" published in my community newspaper.

#123 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2023-12-01 11:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

A quick look at the rest of that site should tell you all you need to know about anything published by them. Current headline article: "Santos expelled from House not because of what he said but how he said it"

The article makes no mentions that Santos is under indictment or that the House ethics committee found him to have violated a long list of ethics rules and campaign finance laws.

#124 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2023-12-01 11:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If you wear your religion on your sleeves and shove it into your coworkers face then you have opened the door to a response you may not like.

#122 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2023-12-01 11:29 AM | FLAG:

Conversely, if somebody wears their religion on their sleeve, and you can't resist being a ---- to them about it, you have no place in a corporate environment.

#125 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-12-01 12:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

There's a comedy bit in here somewhere. A lot of people wear their religion on their head.

#126 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-12-01 12:16 PM | Reply

Corky,

Do you feel that the existence of a supreme being is falsifiable?

#127 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 12:27 PM | Reply

Conversely, if somebody wears their religion on their sleeve, and you can't resist being a ---- to them about it, you have no place in a corporate environment.

#125 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Actually neither of them belong there if they both can't at least be respectful of each other. Regardless of their "beliefs".

#128 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 01:01 PM | Reply

127

That's an old Andrew Flew argument, originating in the 1930's with Karl Popper.

Proponents of multiverses in physics have had to do a work around involving the multitude of theories involved in falsification to make their case.

The atheist Andrew Flew dismissed it when he abruptly converted, to the dismay of atheists everywhere.

I "feel" the same.

String Theory, for example, is falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.

#129 | Posted by Corky at 2023-12-01 01:26 PM | Reply

'Actually neither of them belong there if they both can't at least be respectful of each other. Regardless of their "beliefs".'

I've worked with people were neither of us liked the other but we had work to do.

Our co-workers had no idea because we didn't ever speak ill of each other.

It's called being civilized.

#130 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 01:39 PM | Reply

#129 | POSTED BY CORKY

Karl Popper?

Bah! Give me Lakatos or give me death!

#131 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-12-01 01:39 PM | Reply

It's called being civilized.

#130 | POSTED BY TOR

Also called being a professional.

#132 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 02:21 PM | Reply

This brings us to the topic of world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking, who made headlines for claiming in his book with Leonard Mlodinow that "[b]ecause there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

"And that to my mind is utterly illogical at three simultaneous levels, which is something I've never met before," Lennox told me.

"Because there is a law of gravity, the universe will create itself from nothing?

But a law of gravity's not nothing, and a law of gravity would be meaningless if gravity didn't exist, because you can't have laws unless you've a universe. What are the laws?"

Furthermore, Lennox pointed out that while laws ("our codifications " often in mathematical form " of repeated, repeatable eventualities") describe things, they don't actually create or cause anything.

The laws of mathematics do not create extra money in your bank account.

As an example, Lennox offered, "Newton has a law of motion which is very famous and you can deduce from it (and it's something one loves doing " it's beautiful mathematics) that the planets move around the sun in elliptical orbits.

"But Newton's law of motion never caused anything to move in the history of the universe.

Newton's law will describe, roughly speaking, what happens to a billiard ball if you hit it for the first bounce or two ... but it will never start the ball moving.

Far less will it create the ball and the table.

"And Hawking seems to " and this is what staggers me, that as a scientist he will give these examples of laws and then say because there is a law of gravity, the universe will create itself' " and to say the universe will create itself, incidentally, is logical nonsense.

"If x creates y means you presuppose x in order to explain the existence of y, x creates x means you're presupposing the existence of x to explain x, which is nonsense.

"Which simply shows " as I said in my book [God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design is it Anyway?] " that nonsense remains nonsense even if a scientist says it."

chab123.wordpress.com

More at the link.

This was right before his debate with Hawking, which I think is still on YT.

#133 | Posted by Corky at 2023-12-01 02:22 PM | Reply

String Theory, for example, is falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.

#129 | POSTED BY CORKY

Yet. Same with M theory.

Relativity could also not be proved or falsified when first proposed as a theory.

Einstein developed general relativity between 1907 and 1915.

The first supporting proof did not come until 1919.

You will never be able to prove or disprove the theory of God until you die. Not a great option.

#134 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 02:28 PM | Reply

Corky,
Do you feel that the existence of a supreme being is falsifiable?

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 02:49 PM | Reply

"Relativity could also not be proved or falsified when first proposed as a theory."

Same for neutrino, gravitron, one of the quarks...

#136 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 02:50 PM | Reply

"The laws of mathematics do not create extra money in your bank account."

As opposed to what, The Prosperity Gospel? LOL

#137 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 02:57 PM | Reply

"If x creates y means you presuppose x in order to explain the existence of y, x creates x means you're presupposing the existence of x to explain x, which is nonsense."

The universe somehow creating itself out of nothing is blind faith indeed.

Can't Find My Way Home

m.youtube.com

#138 | Posted by Corky at 2023-12-01 03:47 PM | Reply

None of Corky's links or quotes ever support his actual position. Neither he nor any other Christian believes in the god those people are suggesting. Some unknowable power that exist beyond the universe and imagination with no agenda wouldn't upset any atheist in the slightest. That god doesn't care if you believe or not and more importantly it doesn't change anything on the ground here in physical world we all inhabit. All our problems would be exactly the same whether everyone believed in that god or no one believed. It's the Christians and Muslims that would set their hair on fire in protest if that god was proven to everyone's satisfaction or proclaimed as fact.

Corky's god is a god that was born of a virgin, was resurrected, intervenes in human affairs, cares who you sleep with, sends you to heaven...and so on. That is never the god suggested in any of his links or quotes. We can all accept his links to the Math-God or force-that-holds-atoms-together-God or whatever. But when it comes to the evidential claims of his God, the God of the Bible, he'll remain exactly as he is now, holding an empty sack.

#139 | Posted by BluSky at 2023-12-01 03:52 PM | Reply

"The universe somehow creating itself out of nothing is blind faith indeed."

Science does not assert that the universe created itself out of nothing.

#140 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 04:02 PM | Reply

chaos doesn't produce order.

#141 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 04:20 PM | Reply

-It's the Christians and Muslims that would set their hair on fire in protest if that god was proven to everyone's satisfaction or proclaimed as fact.

Your homogenization of all religion is laughable.

It doesn't fit the facts. Many theists are Scientists. Like the Nobel winners I quoted.

It's like saying that all atheists are like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

And not everyone accepts the creator of the universe God by a long shot.

Morals and ethics aren't confined to religion, thank God.

And miracles?

"Miracles can't happen, and anyone who says they can are false reporters because miracles can't happen, and anyone who says they can are false reporters because miracles can't happen.... rinse, repeat ad nauseum.

Which is known as circular logic.

Sorry to hear about your sack, btw... perhaps a good urologist could help?

#142 | Posted by Corky at 2023-12-01 04:21 PM | Reply

140

Huh.... wrong again. This is getting to be a habit.

Physicists Debate Hawking's Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

June 6, 2019

A recent challenge to Stephen Hawking's biggest idea " about how the universe might have come from nothing " has cosmologists choosing sides.

www.quantamagazine.org

#143 | Posted by Corky at 2023-12-01 04:25 PM | Reply

Physics does not even attempt to address the question of what came before the universe.

Physics does not attempt to address the question of why the universe is here in the first place.

Physics merely attempts to describe its behavior.

#144 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 04:37 PM | Reply

Define a miracle.

Good luck.

#145 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 04:38 PM | Reply

"chaos doesn't produce order."

That's not really a scientific statement.

#146 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 04:39 PM | Reply

chaos doesn't produce order.

#141 | POSTED BY TOR

Define order.

Because actually it does.

A sun is just matter (hydrogen) that has been formed by gravity that sucked in matter from the primordial void to create an entire solar system with planets like Jupiter and Earth. We know that planets like earth can be formed from chaos because we are living on one. Suns and entire solar systems are formed from the "chaos" of the primordial void right before our eyes. Well before our telescope/satellite's "eyes".

A sun is "order" out of chaos and you and I come from the dust from exploding stars.

Therefore you were created from chaos.

#147 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 04:54 PM | Reply

Is a micelle "order?"

#148 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 04:55 PM | Reply

Martin Gaskell

#149 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 05:07 PM | Reply

That's the name of a scientist who faced discrimination because he's christian.

#150 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 05:17 PM | Reply

Re 147

I probably shouldn't have use the word "create" or "created" because that's a trigger word for Christians. I could have also said you evolved or emerged or grew. As nothing actually "created" you or me. We were not created or placed here bt somebody from somewhere else outside the universe ... we are from here and we grew emerged or evolved from here. Here being Mother Earth. And Mother Earth evolved grew or emerged from the primordial void.

#151 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 05:22 PM | Reply

That's the name of a scientist who faced discrimination because he's christian.
#150 | POSTED BY TOR

"Gaskell, on the other hand, is not keen to become a creationist poster boy. Interviewed after the case was settled, he said he wanted to counter the perceived incompatibility between religion and science, describing it as an "illusion"."

I agree with Gaskell. Science describes the natural world. It says nothing about the supernatural world. The two things will never intersect.

#152 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 05:32 PM | Reply

Gaskell was denied a promotion because he's a Christian and that he believes in theistic evolution wasn't enough.

#153 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 05:33 PM | Reply

It wasn't a promotion it was a new job.

He settled for $125K because what the (non-)employer did was wrong.

But you keep crying for him, okay?

#154 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 05:36 PM | Reply

Your homogenization of all religion is laughable.
I did no such thing. The funny part is you pretending a link between two very similar Abrahamic religions is me making a claim about "all religions". So easily you dismiss all the non-christian gods. You're almost exactly as atheist as I am. I type "christian and muslim" and you read "all religion". Pull your skirt down, your bias is showing.
You know as well as I do proving a deist God-of-Math that doesn't listen to prayers or care about humans in any way would upset the vast majority of religious people, yourself among them. That sort of god bears no relation at all to the god of the bible. You know this.

Many theists are Scientists
No one is disputing that. Does a Hindu scientist change the validity of Vishnu in anyway? Does it make Brahma more or less likely? If their are more Jewish scientists than christian scientists will you convert? Is your faith that flimsily? The religion or non-religion of any particular scientist or any collective of scientists doesn't move the argument one inch.

It's like saying that all atheists are like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
Irony flag.
You do this constantly. You just did it. The atheism of those three were "not alike" but you lump them all together (again) as if they were.

"Miracles can't happen, and anyone who says they can are false reporters because miracles can't happen, and anyone who says they can are false reporters because miracles can't happen.... rinse, repeat ad nauseum.
Who are you quoting? Or did you make that up to shadow box an imagined position?
No -good- scientist, theists or otherwise speaks this way. All belief is a measure of probability, everything has a non-0 chance, even things that have never happened. Occam's razor simply slices through the miracles you claim have occurred without witnessing firsthand. It doesn't say they could not have occurred, they are simply highly unlikely and without any supporting evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

#155 | Posted by BluSky at 2023-12-01 05:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

He settled for $125K because what the (non-)employer did was wrong.

But you keep crying for him, okay?

#154 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Probably had a Christian lawyer provided by the church.

He actually got a settlement?

Yeah I feel so bad for him.

#156 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 05:43 PM | Reply

Translation: yes Christians in science get discriminated against and yes it's illegal and immoral.

#157 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 05:43 PM | Reply

"Christians in science get discriminated against"

It's not because he's Christian.
It's because he rejects Evolution.
Sheesh.

#158 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 05:45 PM | Reply

"Who are you quoting? Or did you make that up to shadow box an imagined position?"

O nicely done. And I am stealing that.

#159 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 05:46 PM | Reply

Theistic Evolution isn't rejecting evolution

#160 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 05:48 PM | Reply

Yes it is.

#161 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 05:49 PM | Reply

Darwin said there was no conflict between belief in God and belief in evolution Wallace was actually a proponent of it.

#162 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 05:50 PM | Reply

"So easily you dismiss all the non-christian gods."

Who's the bigot now lol

#163 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 05:50 PM | Reply

"Darwin said there was no conflict between belief in God and belief in evolution"

I say the same thing.

Theistic evolution is a way to manufacture that conflict.

#164 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 05:52 PM | Reply

Theistic evolution describes the number of beliefs but the concept itself is not necessarily in conflict with science.

#165 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 05:54 PM | Reply

LMFAO dude you know nothing about evolution and what might conflict with it.

#166 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 06:07 PM | Reply

Evolution can be summarized as life finding a way forerunners to Charles Darwin in the school of thought included Erasmus Darwin John Wesley Aristotle Thomas Jefferson multiple Muslim scientists

#167 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 06:09 PM | Reply

Can you tell me what body Parts presense likely directly preceded the evolution of the eye?

#168 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 06:11 PM | Reply

His personal beliefs shouldn't have disqualified him.

How many times do you think you need to die on his $125,000 hill?

#169 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 06:12 PM | Reply

Translation: yes Christians in science get discriminated against and yes it's illegal and immoral.

#157 | POSTED BY TOR

I did not see anything about this case of "discrimination" that you are referring to in the article of this thread so I really have no opinion about it. But there is usually more to story and you are only telling one side. Obviously.

If we are bringing in outside cases to prove discrimination let's talk about Hobby Lobby and their imposing of religious beliefs on their employees.

#170 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 06:14 PM | Reply

Can you tell me what body Parts presense likely directly preceded the evolution of the eye?

#168 | POSTED BY TOR

Ahh the old creationist watchmakers theory. A watch requires a maker. And the eye is too complicated to have just have evolved. So it must have been created. I also love the one about how the origin of life is like a windstorm creating a 747 from a pile of misc parts in a junk yard.

What preceded the eye was light sensitive cells. Patches of proteins or areas of the skin of a worm that was sensitive to Light. Any improvement on this became an evolutionary advantage.

#171 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 06:21 PM | Reply

I was thinking of body parts we currently have.

#172 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 06:22 PM | Reply

Theistic Evolution is when you want to have your supernatural cake and eat it too.

"G-d set evolution in motion" is just an excuse to add your favorite superhero to somebody else's story. G-d isn't necessary to wholly describe evolution.

#173 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 06:24 PM | Reply

That doesn't adjudicate the fact that one can be a world class scientist support evolution and still be religious.

#174 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 06:24 PM | Reply

I was thinking...

#172 | POSTED BY TOR

No you weren't you were believing.

#175 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-12-01 06:25 PM | Reply

Someone doesn't like original thoughts.

#176 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 06:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Have faith.

#177 | Posted by ClownShack at 2023-12-01 06:26 PM | Reply

Does the existence of god require good and evil to exist?

Does god have anything to do with morality?

#178 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-12-01 06:26 PM | Reply

"one can be a world class scientist support evolution and still be religious."

It's a free country.

#179 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 06:27 PM | Reply

Someone doesn't like original thoughts.

#176 | POSTED BY TOR

You
Don't
Have
Any

You regurgitate the scribblings of men who used communal brushes to wipe their asses after --------.

en.wikipedia.org)%20fixed%20at%20one%20end.

#180 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-12-01 06:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Is a miracle "order?"
Exactly. A miracle is a suspension of order. A suspension in your favor and one you happen to agree with. While it might be possible, without any evidence it would be impossible to tell if it really happened or if you were under a misapprehension. IOW, useless and in no way helpful to the chaos speeding across the universe when the Andromeda galaxy crashes into our own. We can't depend on miracles to save us from the sun when she exhausts the lighter elements, swells up and explodes. On the timescale of the universe chaos will be here tomorrow. Worrying about the hurt feelings of one particular primate for whom "faith" is not enough --you must believe it too-- is worse than navel gazing.

#181 | Posted by BluSky at 2023-12-01 06:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Someone doesn't like original thoughts.

#176 | POSTED BY TOR

I would love to see one of those! None of the thoughts I saw today are "original".

This debate has been going on for thousands of years. You really think any of this is new? To me it's like Groundhog Day.

#182 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 06:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It is truly beyond me to conclude that people who weren't even aware of things like viruses, electricity, ---- even the ability to read for most people could identify with accuracy the origins of the universe and morality.

#183 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-12-01 06:31 PM | Reply

Theistic evolution is obviously not something you've ever considered.

#184 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 06:32 PM | Reply

Have faith.

#177 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

lol

It was Gods will that he got a "settlement". And it would have been Gods will if he hadn't.

Interesting how that works.

#185 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 06:33 PM | Reply

144

The thread where we learn that Hawking wasn't a physicist, and didn't address the origin of the Universe.

Nice.

Only on the old DR.

#186 | Posted by Corky at 2023-12-01 06:34 PM | Reply

The settlement proves that he was discriminated against.

#187 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 06:36 PM | Reply

I was thinking of body parts we currently have.

#172 | POSTED BY TOR

If we evolved from chimps then we got new and improved evolved chimp eyes. And chimps got their eyes from platyrrhines (also known as New World monkeys) and catarrhines (a group containing Old World monkeys and apes) 25-40 million years ago. Etc etc.

You know this stuff is all on the internets now, right?

#188 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 06:37 PM | Reply

Hawking can address the origin of the universe all he wants.

Physics can't tell you what happened before Planck time.

#189 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 06:37 PM | Reply

The settlement proves that he was discriminated against.

#187 | POSTED BY TOR

Again. Don't know the case. Got no dog in that hunt. You sure seem to. Have you been personally discriminated against?

#190 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 06:39 PM | Reply

Seriously donner you can't figure out what body part we currently have that clearly directly proceeded the evolution of the eye in all life forms that have eyes?

I guess my thinking is more original than I thought.

#191 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 06:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Re 190

Because of your religious beliefs?

#192 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 06:41 PM | Reply

- proving a deist God-of-Math that doesn't listen to prayers or care about humans

No went there but you.

Walking and chewing gum at the same time isn't especially amazing.

- highly unlikely and without any supporting evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

When did your indepth study of the resurrection begin?

Others have come up with quite a bit of evidence, changed their minds, and written numerous books.

Somehow I doubt your research on the subject exists.

#193 | Posted by Corky at 2023-12-01 06:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I guess my thinking is more original than I thought.

#191 | POSTED BY TOR

You will have to be more specific. I told you where our eyes came from. I also told how eyes originally started.

Again. All this stuff is on the internet if you know how to ask the correct question and verify your sources.

#194 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-01 06:44 PM | Reply

Twoofy

www.eoht.info

#195 | Posted by Corky at 2023-12-01 06:45 PM | Reply

Seriously donner you can't figure out what body part we currently have that clearly directly proceeded the evolution of the eye in all life forms that have eyes?

I guess my thinking is more original than I thought.

#191 | POSTED BY TOR A

People who play the game you are playing are boring --------

You're not interesting by acting like you have some hidden and unique knowledge

People play that game when they have weak arguments

#196 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-12-01 06:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We still have this body part. And it's not going anywhere LOL

#197 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 06:47 PM | Reply

So much garbage is being thrown in the comment section rather than people reading the article and dealing with the reality that yes some scientists can and do engage in discrimination against people that are religious. Did you really think this never happened?

#199 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 07:08 PM | Reply

directly preceded the evolution of the eye
The evolution of the eye probably started with a light sensitive molecule. Over time more molecules. Once arranged in a cup they could track direction. The cup curves in on itself over millions of years to detect distance and shadow. Now it's closer to a pinhole camera. Next a lens, the lens improves its' shape. More millions of years and tiny variations......

Why did god design our eyes to be inferior to so many others eyes in the natural world? Why did he build it upside down and backwards? Why are the light sensitive cells behind the nerves?
We can see eye evolution happening in real time. Some bottom dwelling fish with already functional eyes are re-evolving a new set on the top of their heads to increase their field of vision. There are salamanders who evolved eyes, moved into permanently dark environments then un-evolved them.
The eye is the worst example you could bring up. If you knew anything about evolution you would know why it is such a bad example.

#200 | Posted by BluSky at 2023-12-01 07:13 PM | Reply

You just demonstrated why Christians in science get picked on by their co-workers.

#201 | Posted by BluSky at 2023-12-01 07:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Oh right victim blaming as a knee jerk reaction when bigotry is called out.

Where oh where has this been seen before?

#202 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 07:31 PM | Reply

When did your indepth study of the resurrection begin?
In church, like your own I'm sure. Like Tor's eye example it's the worst possible example you could use to verify the 'truth' of the Bible.
There are five different versions. None of them agree or can be reconciled with each other.
Was the tomb open or closed when the women arrived?
What message did the angles give?
How many angles were there?
The earliest stories were simple and changed to be more complex. By the time you get to the book of John all sorts of unverifiable outlandish events took place. All the graves were emptied and the dead walked the streets.
The evolution of the resurrection story is exactly what you would expect in the development of any legend. Starts simple and more details are added over time the further away you get from the actual event.

#203 | Posted by BluSky at 2023-12-01 07:32 PM | Reply

victim blaming
Always the victim...
Dude, you brought it up. Well, not really you, the complexity of the eye is a common meme among young earth creationists. I'm sure they inspired your 'question'. The belief that the eye is a -good- counterpoint to evolution proves how little you know about the eye and evolution. And if a Christian scientists were to point to the eye as evidence of intelligent design in front of an evolutionary biologist she wouldn't be able to hold her laughter. Nor should she, it's an incredibly stupid argument and I gave you a better explanation than you deserve.

#204 | Posted by BluSky at 2023-12-01 07:43 PM | Reply

What we have here, imnsho, is a, "fail-ure to communicate".

Oddly enough, it seems that most people who dislike religion, specifically Christianity, got what they think they know about it from fundie evangelicals on TV.

Which is a very good reason not to like it.

But the misconceptions and poor perspectives in each group are very similar.

Neither have read Issac Newton on the subject; he wrote much more on Christianity than he ever did on science.

None have read Neiber or studied CS Lewis (his sci-fi books were also considered pretty good for their time).

Both have no clue that the Torah (the first 5 books of the OT) contains descriptions of a populated and civilized pre-Genesis earth.

Or that in the story, ADM and EV are told to "replenish" the earth rather than the available word for creating new life.

Not to the mention that it had been destroyed before.

They don't know that Moses and Abraham weren't Jews, much less Israelites.

They don't know that Jesus and John the Baptist were cousins. That John was 6 months older, and his date of birth is known.

They may know that Roman Crucification was even more thoroughly deadly than Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition.

They don't know that the burial tomb belonged Joseph of Arimathea, Yeshua's uncle, a Roman citizen who ministered the mining trade with Britannia.

Or that the tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers who, because the Pharisees were working with Rome to quell the insurrection there, gave top priority to one very dead and safe in the tomb Messiah.

The don't know the internal proofs of the texts... no one creating a lie would have two women be the first to find the tomb empty and see him: women at that time couldn't testify in Court or be reliable witnesses to anything.

No one making up the story would have the Messiah on the cross in his las moments say, "Abba, Abba (Father,Father) why have you forsaken me?".

Unless so Mick Jagger could sing about his moment of doubt and pain.

Most Christians and hardly anyone else knows that, according to accepted extra biblical sources, the Disciplines obviously believed their story as most of them traveled alone to India and Asia and the surrounding countries... and all died horrible deaths; crucified upside down, flayed alive, speared and stoned to death, and drug to death behind a chariot.

When, were they liars, they could have just, "Hey, wait! Just kidding. We made that story up! I'll just being going now."

No, they believed. And those few details are just an example of what scholars of any ancient texts call internal proofs.

So, fundie evangelicals and fundie atheists have a lot more in common than one might presume

But most of us here aren't fundies, I don't think, but just people interested in what is real.... and what is an illusion:

Breathe deep the gathering gloom
Watch lights fade from every room
Bedsitter people look back and lament
Another day's useless energy is spent
Impassioned lovers wrestle as one
Lonely man cries for love and has none
New mother picks up and suckles her son
Senior citizens wish they were young

Cold-hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colors from our sight
Red is grey and yellow-white
But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion

#205 | Posted by Corky at 2023-12-01 07:47 PM | Reply

Looks like the problem is wide spread with real life archie bunkers.

news.rice.edu

#206 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 07:48 PM | Reply

@#199 ... yes some scientists can and do engage in discrimination against people that are religious. Did you really think this never happened? ...

My first guess...

Because they bring religious arguments into scientific discussions, as you do so frequently here.

I am not saying that those religious arguments are not valid in the world of religion, indeed, quite the opposite.

But religion seemed to have been created in an attempt to explain what could not be explained.

It was a belief system, not a scientific process.

#207 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-12-01 07:51 PM | Reply

Maybe you haven't noticed but this isn't the work place and people here argue.

Blame it on the aliens so many here have faith in.

#208 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 07:53 PM | Reply

What we have here, imnsho, is a, "fail-ure to communicate".

ITS NOT "A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE" IT'S "FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE"!!!

JEES

#209 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-12-01 08:13 PM | Reply

@#208 ... Maybe you haven't noticed but this isn't the work place and people here argue. ...

I'd prefer to discuss than argue.

That aside.

I do not know to which comment your #208 is directed.

If it was directed at my #207. ...

Yeah, I mentioned your comments more as something to show religious arguments may not be scientific. If you prefer, I'll restate my comment without that assertion...

#207 restated...

Because they bring religious arguments into scientific discussions.

I am not saying that those religious arguments are not valid in the world of religion, indeed, quite the opposite.

But religion seemed to have been created in an attempt to explain what could not be explained.

It was a belief system, not a scientific process.


I have been in meetings with religious people who were, I'll say, strong on their religious views

They questioned the science facts presented to them because they those facts ran counter to their religious beliefs. Not just questioned, vehemently questioned. Pounding the table questioned.

To the point the meeting was disrupted. And that disruption seemed to be their goal.

Now if you are trying to hold a meeting for scientific discussion of an event, would you want those table-pounding religious people in that meeting, knowing they will only disrupt the meeting because it runs counter to their religious beliefs?


Serious question.


#210 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-12-01 08:15 PM | Reply

www.youtube.com

#211 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-12-01 08:15 PM | Reply

Jesus' first miracle was turning water into wine which ironically enough was also an abuse of the alcoholics at the wedding

#212 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-12-01 08:39 PM | Reply

@#211

It's more than just a problem to communicate.

It is about religion seemingly unable to accept anything that runs counter to their belief system, and that science should abide by that belief.

Of course, then a question emerges for science, which religious belief systems should science ascribe to?

Or none.


So, is religion really discriminated against in science, as this thread asserts?




#213 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-12-01 08:47 PM | Reply

he wrote much more on Christianity than he ever did on science
He was also an alchemist and burned down his laboratory three times trying to create the Sorcerer's Stone.
Should we throw out the nonsense and only accept those stories that confirm our own bias?

the Disciplines obviously believed their story
Which ones? Simon/Peter..we can't even agree on what his name was but your "extra biblical" sources know what he thought when no one was looking?
How about Judas? Did he really believe? If he really did what they claimed he did wasn't he doing exactly what god required? Without Judas none of the rest of the story could not have happened. Yet he is a betrayer for doing the very thing god intended him to do all along. Did he hang himself or did his abdomen burst open?
There is no agreement or corroboration even among the people who were firsthand witnesses on any of the details.
Some versions claim only Peter, Paul and James were martyred. John lived to be an old man. Even an esteemed scholar like yourself contradicts basic details.
That's not meant as an insult, it is exactly what we should expect when humans build a legend over time of events they didn't witness.

#214 | Posted by BluSky at 2023-12-01 08:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

some scientists can and do engage in discrimination against people that are religious. Did you really think this never happened?
#199 | POSTED BY TOR

You seem to think we think this never happens.
We know it happens.
We people in the sciences know that people in the sciences are still people.
Especially with the sexism.

#215 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-01 09:48 PM | Reply

So why the downplaying denial doubt and whataboutism?

#216 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 10:14 PM | Reply

Just take the loss and move on.

#217 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-12-01 10:41 PM | Reply

Yeah that doesn't sound like a something an enabler would say. /s

#218 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 10:42 PM | Reply

You're not a scientist. You've never been in an environment with scientists. I doubt you understand what "discrimination" in the workplace is.

#219 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-12-01 11:06 PM | Reply

And that is relevant to what scientists are saying is happening to them how?

#220 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-01 11:08 PM | Reply

@#216 ... So why the downplaying denial doubt and whataboutism? ...

For starters, when you post a comment like that, ya really need to state what comment you are replyinh to.


Was it #215? or #214? or #213 or #212, etc?

I've not a clue, and your comment does not help.



#221 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-12-01 11:22 PM | Reply

fair enough.

I'm not so much surprised as disappointed by just how many people who claim to be fans of science refuse to believe scientists when they say they're experiencing discrimination.

#222 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-02 12:02 AM | Reply

@#222 ... refuse to believe scientists when they say they're experiencing discrimination. ...

My concern in this long thread is, why do those scientists think they are experiencing discrimination?

As I have noted in my @#210 response to your comment of "experiencing discrimination" is way too vague.

It is not a ~refusal to believe.~

In my experience it is more about behaving in a meeting and a willingness to discuss, instead of table-pounding "this is what I believe" actions.

That was the problem.


#223 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-12-02 12:34 AM | Reply

#129 | POSTED BY CORKY

Blah blah blah more name drops with little substance or answers.

You glom onto smart people like a wannabe intellectual.

#224 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-02 12:40 AM | Reply

and to say the universe will create itself, incidentally, is logical nonsense.
" that nonsense remains nonsense even if a scientist says it."

You mean like when people try to overlay sky daddy over science and math in order to justify their faith (goes against the definition of faith, of course)?

#225 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-02 12:43 AM | Reply

I can recall walking across campus years ago and a trio of idiots in back of me loudly saying the world would be a better place if all the klansmen and Christians would just die.

They were completely oblivious to their own bigotry and entirely comfortable advertising it.

#226 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-02 12:45 AM | Reply

To be clear I am responding to what Lamplighter wrote

#227 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-02 12:47 AM | Reply

The universe somehow creating itself out of nothing is blind faith indeed.
#138 | POSTED BY CORKY

Ahhhh yes. The old religitard tactic of conflating definitions.

That was a favorite of "creation scientists" in the evolution debate.

You see, the problem here is that your faith in sky daddy is very different than the faith in scientific findings.

As head scratching and seemingly implausible the big bang is, it still has actual empirical evidence supporting or pointing to it.

Not so with sky daddy.

#228 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-02 12:58 AM | Reply

chaos doesn't produce order.

#141 | POSTED BY TOR

No, but energy consuming closed systems do.

#229 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-02 01:00 AM | Reply

@#226 ... I can recall walking across campus years ago and a trio of idiots in back of me loudly saying the world would be a better place if all the klansmen and Christians would just die.

They were completely oblivious to their own bigotry and entirely comfortable advertising it. ...

Yeah, I will agree regarding their bigotry.

But what is your point?

That some people are bigots?

Is that a new discovery of yours?

@#227 ... To be clear I am responding to what Lamplighter wrote ...

In what comment?

I write many comments here on this most august site.

#230 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-12-02 01:01 AM | Reply

He asked "why do those scientists think they are experiencing discrimination?"

A downplayer would say I didn't experience it that day.

And yet if they had said it about any comparable group it would seem very obvious they were discriminating against every Christian in ear shot.

#231 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-02 01:04 AM | Reply

Can you tell me what body Parts presense likely directly preceded the evolution of the eye?

#168 | POSTED BY TOR

Oh FFS this canard?

I'll point out that various life forms have different levels of light sensing capabilities, some coupled with the ability to focus light for more specific sensory purposes. You'll point out some nitpicky BS about what an eye is or isn't.

www.scientificamerican.com

#232 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-02 01:08 AM | Reply

I was thinking of body parts we currently have.

#172 | POSTED BY TOR

Then you don't understand evolution.

#233 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-02 01:10 AM | Reply

Theistic Evolution is when you want to have your supernatural cake and eat it too.
"G-d set evolution in motion" is just an excuse to add your favorite superhero to somebody else's story. G-d isn't necessary to wholly describe evolution.

#173 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Theists most favorite way of crashing other people's party.

It's like when Trump elbowed his way into a group of state leaders to get camera time.

#234 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-02 01:11 AM | Reply

Someone doesn't like original thoughts.

#176 | POSTED BY TOR

Dude. Trust me. None of us here are likely to have an original thought on this topic.

If you think you can or will, you need to read more.

#235 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-02 01:12 AM | Reply

Ffs it's skin. It might be a crude description but our ability to sense Heat through our skin was a precursor to what evolved into sight. Even now supposedly parts of our ectodermal layer detect sunlight.

#236 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-02 01:14 AM | Reply

Seriously donner you can't figure out what body part we currently have that clearly directly proceeded the evolution of the eye in all life forms that have eyes?
I guess my thinking is more original than I thought.

#191 | POSTED BY TOR

Which part, Tor? The retina?

#237 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-02 01:16 AM | Reply

It might be a crude description but our ability to sense Heat through our skin was a precursor to what evolved into sight.

You are aware that if skin was the precursor to eyes, we'd see in infrared, right?

#238 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-02 01:17 AM | Reply

Apparently that wasn't critical to survival. Or did we see an infrared for a time?

#239 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-02 01:18 AM | Reply

Others have come up with quite a bit of evidence, changed their minds, and written numerous books.
Somehow I doubt your research on the subject exists.

#193 | POSTED BY CORKY

Oh FF. Cork&paste never ceases to disappoint.

#240 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-02 01:18 AM | Reply

You just demonstrated why Christians in science get picked on by their co-workers.

#201 | POSTED BY BLUSKY

Ahhhhhhhhhahahahahahahahahahahahaha slapped like a ------!

Love how he whines in the next post.

#241 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-02 01:22 AM | Reply

"The evolutionary connection between the eyes and the skin is indeed evident in the biological history of organisms. The basic light-sensitive cells that eventually gave rise to more complex eyes likely had their origins in the ancestral skin cells. Over evolutionary time, these light-sensitive cells became specialized and organized into structures that provided an advantage in detecting light and shapes in the environment, ultimately leading to the development of eyes as we know them."

#242 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-02 01:22 AM | Reply

How's that wine tasting now?

#243 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-02 01:25 AM | Reply

Apparently that wasn't critical to survival. Or did we see an infrared for a time?

#239 | POSTED BY TOR

To sense heat?

Yeah, it was. But as a method of regulating body temperature as reptiles do.

Something may have "seen" in infrared at some point, but they died out due to animals that see in the visible spectrum.

#244 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-02 01:29 AM | Reply

Over evolutionary time, these light-sensitive cells

You're reaching.

The determinant was light sensing.

If you want brownie points for it being a cell exposed on the surface of the animal, well, here's your gold star sticker.

#245 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-02 01:31 AM | Reply

How's that wine tasting now?

#243 | POSTED BY TOR

Wine? In a PBR can?

#246 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-02 01:31 AM | Reply

That John was 6 months older, and his date of birth is known.

Stupid Christians.

June 30. Duh.

#247 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-02 01:35 AM | Reply

@239 ... Apparently that wasn't critical to survival. ...

That's quite evolutional of you.

#248 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-12-02 01:41 AM | Reply

Figuring out the evolution of soft tissue organs can be tricky.

They don't leave great fossils.

#249 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-02 01:43 AM | Reply

* usually

#250 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-02 01:43 AM | Reply

light sensitive cells turned into light sensing ones doctor banjo.

#251 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-02 01:44 AM | Reply

light sensitive cells turned into light sensing ones doctor banjo.

#251 | POSTED BY TOR

Yes.

But if you're going to say light, do you mean the visible part of the spectrum? Or cells that sense any part of the EMS?

#252 | Posted by jpw at 2023-12-02 01:47 AM | Reply

Procol Harum - Pilgrim's Progress (1969)
www.youtube.com

Lyrics excerpt...

genius.com

...
I sat me down to write a simple story
Which maybe in the end became a song
In trying to find the words which might begin it
I found these were the thoughts I brought along

At first I took my weight to be an anchor
And gathered up my fears to guide me round
But then I clearly saw my own delusion
And found my struggles further bogged me down

In starting out I thought to go exploring
And set my foot upon the nearest road
In vain I looked to find the promised turning
But only saw how far I was from home

In searching I forsook the paths of learning
And sought instead to find some pirate's gold
In fighting I did hurt those dearest to me
And still no hidden truths could I unfold
...

#253 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-12-02 01:52 AM | Reply

@#253

Pretty substantial lyrics for a rock song from the ~hippie~ era.

Jus' sayin'

#254 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-12-02 01:55 AM | Reply

"A miracle is a suspension of order".

Not always. Some miracles are a re-ordering of reality. You might not be aware of it until years later, or never look for it and never aware at all.

#255 | Posted by Zed at 2023-12-02 09:59 AM | Reply

"A miracle is a suspension of order".

What's that mean? Give us an example of one of these miracles.

#256 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-02 10:33 AM | Reply

an example of one of these miracles
Well, I don't believe in miracles, that much should be clear. I don't believe in anything without evidence (except Liverpool Football Club).
If someone claims a miracle, like a one-way birth canal, that is not "order", it's the opposite of order. The people who claim to have witnessed a miracle are either suffering a delusion, lying or some mechanic of the natural ordered world has taken place they don't understand.
I was responding to Tor's claim that God created order which contradicts his belief that God is also responsible for miracles, a suspension of order. Theist can't be allowed to use order as evidence of God when it suits them and then use miracles as evidence of God when it suits them.

#257 | Posted by BluSky at 2023-12-02 02:23 PM | Reply

I assembled a chair once. I guess that means I can't have helped build a house that the chair's inside of.

#258 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-02 02:27 PM | Reply

I doubt you ever built anything

Just call me doubting Thomas or doubting truth if you will

#259 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-12-02 02:32 PM | Reply

Re 242.

None of that is an "original " thought and is pretty much exactly what I said.

Re 258

And no God was required in the entire process. What exactly is your point? Speak plainly!

You religulous can be so cryptic when you want to beat around the burning bushes.

#260 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-12-02 02:40 PM | Reply

Religious topics are typically eclectic and esoteric well beyond the grasp of most people. Bumper sticker philosophies and one liners don't do reality justice.

#261 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-02 02:43 PM | Reply

"Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to put science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist."

The National Academy of Sciences

#262 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-02 02:53 PM | Reply

Religious topics are typically eclectic and esoteric well beyond the grasp of most people. Bumper sticker philosophies and one liners don't do reality justice.

#261 | POSTED BY TOR AT

Or more accurately they are full of --------

#263 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-12-02 02:54 PM | Reply

#262 Explains why Theistic Evolution is not a Scientific exercise but rather a Theistic one.

I'm not hostile to it, but it's not science, it's an emotional support animal for the religious psyche in an intellect that believes in science.

I believe our resident Pakistani can tell us that Islam is compatible with evolution, for example. And I agree with that.

#264 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-12-02 03:06 PM | Reply

I've already mentioned there were some pre-darwinian theories of evolution and I think multiple Muslims thought of some of them.

#265 | Posted by Tor at 2023-12-02 03:37 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort