Quote from Eight:
I didn't miss much in science class. I'm a member of Mensa, I went to school all the time, I got good grades, I listened in class... I did my homework and all that good shit.. I worked as an Electrical Engineer...
People not on the religious side like to frame the debate as "science vs religion".. I'm saying that there is little science involved and cannot be. People that don't understand that opinions about origins are all speculation based on some assumptions are just half baked. In the case of the "science" side of the argument the speculation is backed up with what is really the trappings of science, not real science. Real scientific proof, as I pointed out in my first post, would have to be some observations by a competent observer of the event or somebody would have to create a universe and have his methods peer reviewed... Anybody with a working mind has to admit to the idea that his opinion with regard to origins is speculation... Trying to bring people to the point where they understand that is a lot of work since the debate for the argument is owned very muchly by the Universities and they are overwhelmingly not interested in learning that they have created a fantasyland and taught it to several generations.... they might lose their grant money, God forbid!!
Occam's razor is the idea that the conclusion that is based on the least assumptions is the better choice. The assumptions that "science" makes in speculation about origins are many, therefore their conclusions are a big yawner to me. I do like it when they present some data that I can mull over... People have to learn that there is data, there is information [somebody's interpretation of the data] and there is conclusion and opinion... to do one's own due diligence one needs to not mistake information for data because information is somebody's massaged version of the data. One should be aware of one's assumptions and one should go for the data itself whenever possible...
People just call us "anti science" and all sorts of things but clearly, I'm not confused or muddled in my thinking in this area. I like science. I believe in evolution for that matter, it's obvious that things evolve all over the place. They adapt to changes in their environment. That is called micro evolution and it's obvious and well documented... Macro evolution is the idea that species are formed by lots of micro evolution and I don't see any evidence for it.. just for one common example, people have bombarded fruit flies with radiation, poison, etc.. for generations [human generations, not fruit fly ones] and they have produced a lot of really messed up fruit flies but they have not produced a different specie for all that effort.. afaik there are very little if not absolutely no examples of a specie being produced anywhere at any time in human history...
Philosophy 101 will tell you that a good conclusion has to have two things: good assumptions and good logic. Universities have some weird things going on I'd say because I can take an argument that would get me an "F" in Philosophy 101, trot it down the hall to some "Earth Science" bullshit class and it will get me an "A"... In the Earth Science class I have to keep a straight face and say "we calibrate the strata by the geologic column and we calibrate the geologic column by the strata". That is circular reasoning, gets an "F" in Phil 101, but if I keep a straight face and talk some good bullshit it gets me an "A" in "Earth Science" and I can then go celebrate my "intellectual prowess" with my classmates..
I mean like, WTF? I'm supposed to apologize to you for being stupid or something? LOL
