Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience

Quote from 377OHMS:

Oh, here I'll break it down for you.

First, I appreciate that you surveyed a physics course, all of that experience with theodelites, inclinometers, trigonometry and geodesy could come in handy if, say, you need to survey the Indian subcontinent.

If the premise is that we live in an entropic universe and that all resultant processes are thermodynamically entropic (no outside energy introduced, no "design", pure randomness) then we would not expect self-organizing systems to appear. The idea that self-organized organic processes appeared on Earth spontaneously is problematic. Energy was added and that energy appears to have been directed with intent.

It was perhaps not Jesus, the apostles or God as primitive man has conceived but certainly energy was added to the system and the energy was directed with intent.

Now freethinker and stu and others will follow with dozens of posts employing words like pseudo-science and other philosphical improvisations but little of what they say has any basis in hard science. They like to yammer about it and this is the forum for such blatherings so no worries. But don't tell me that a huge cauldron of boiling random inorganic compounds leads to cellular life because I know it is malarkey.

I personally believe in a multiverse with the power of infinity at work. There are an infinite number of universes and a fraction of infinity is...infinity. So if a fraction of universes possess life then and there are an infinite number of them. I find this comforting given that the expansion of our universe means a cold, dark end for anything living in the distant future. The stars fly away from one another and eventually burn up all of their fuel. Our universe ends at absolute zero temperature and completely dead.

The End.
You're not kidding The End.

First you come out with a piece of pseudoscience in the guise of a question , then close down your mind to everything but your own personal beliefs.
That is not a particularly intelligent thing to do.

If you're not careful, next you'll find yourself like another on this board, making crazy remarks and constantly linking back to them, as if in some other world , where that sort of bizarre ritual is considered a form of argument.

Quote from 377OHMS:

And, btw, I'm not anti-science. I believe that science is wonderful but just not qualified to deal with metaphysical issues.
Saying science is not qualified for metaphysics is like saying brain surgery is not qualified for first aid.
Philosophy is first aid. It is for metaphsics. Whether the philosophy being used is qualified or not is a different thing.
 
Quote from jem:

You are such a troll. Sure athiests "say a lot of things". From the troll playbook... chapter on sentences which may be used to qualify any previous garbage you fraudulently stated. (chapter 7 of the book... Stu's sentence which means virtually nothing. copyright Stu 2005-2011.)

But what does an atheist state which sets him apart... which defines him. What is the definition of Atheism.

An atheist states there is no God

Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

But lets ask you

So lets see it... as an atheist... do you have no belief in God
or do you state there is no God.

Now lets consider that statement in light of your impressive trolling on these boards.
Yes I've got the message. Everyone who doesn't go with your wacky nonsense is a troll. I'd expect no better from you.

First you insist marriam webster , a dictionary, in which words get constantly redefined and meanings expanded, definitively states what an atheist is.
Then having done that, you ask me what an atheist is.

As I don't recognize how mirriam webster is defining what I understand , why are you asking me what an atheist is?

How is one of your own chosen definitions "a disbelief in the existence of deity" anything to do with the specific denial you keep claiming atheists have? Then again I should know better than to ask you a reasonable question.

Seriously Jem, instead of attacking everything with your same old tired worn out bs, it's time you got a clue.
 
Quote from Hansel H:
Wiki: "The role of entropy in cosmology remains a controversial subject. Recent work has cast some doubt on the heat death hypothesis and the applicability of any simple thermodynamic model to the universe in general. Although entropy does increase in the model of an expanding universe, the maximum possible entropy rises much more rapidly, moving the universe further from the heat death with time, not closer. This results in an "entropy gap" pushing the system further away from the posited heat death equilibrium.[61] Other complicating factors, such as the energy density of the vacuum and macroscopic quantum effects, are difficult to reconcile with thermodynamical models, making any predictions of large-scale thermodynamics extremely difficult."

In other words your entropic universe is an out of date oversimplification.

So you're saying because all the multitudinous complex reactions present in the universe are not fully accounted for, and because there may be controversy over one scientific hypothesis in particular: that means entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, is hostile to big bang, galactic systems and to a planet teaming with life!?

Contention over how entropy can be quantified within a single hypothesis does not render the laws of physics void you know. That does not make the second law of thermodynamics some kind of disadvantage to the universe and life on earth in general .

Your suggestion that it does is the over simplification .

Quote from Hansel H:
Bertrand Russell was wrong about a lot of things and this generalization about philosophy is an example. The founding assumptions of science either come from ancient philosophy or from modern Philosophers of Science. For instance: The agreement among scientists on falsifiability, a concept presented by the Philosopher of Science Karl Popper, is an example of scientists themselves agreeing on a philosophical concept.

Well there you are, in your own words. Yes of course great philosophers are wrong about a lot of things. One of the greatest, Bertrand Russell ,was expressing that very thing. "science agrees some things - philosophers none"; philosophers get it wrong.
It is only with science can wrong philosophy be agreed upon as being proven wrong.

In regard to Karl Popper, again the only way scientists could have agreed about falsifiability, is if it was to be anything more than just a philosophical concept. Falsifiability would have to be practically demonstrable . It was. It is.

Karl Popper was articulating the scientific method..
 
Quote from Hansel H:

Wiki: "Other complicating factors, such as the energy density of the vacuum and macroscopic quantum effects, are DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE WITH THERMODYNAMICAL MODELS, making ANY PREDICTIONS of large-scale thermodynamics extremely difficult."

Also consider that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are only vaguely understood; since these are obviously major factors to be considered in any generalizations about the universe perhaps we should hold off on any definitive assertions such as 'The universe is entropic' pending a better understanding of the way matter and energy come into being in the universe and how the universe may be eventually described in terms of interacting sub-systems.

Looks like we're headed for yet another paradigm upset in cosmology.

Are you really trying to say the laws of physics don't apply in or to the universe. Are you being serious?

Dark Energy and Dark Matter , and macroscopic quantum effects are difficult to reconcile, not the laws of physics.

Why exactly would want you hold off deciding whether the universe is entropic when the laws of physics, specifically in form of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, prove exactly how the universe is entropic.

There is nothing known of in the universe violating that law.

I assume you've fallen for the creationists' famous tactic of trying to argue the cart before the horse.
 
Quote from 377OHMS:

...First, I appreciate that you surveyed a physics course, all of that experience with theodelites, inclinometers, trigonometry and geodesy could come in handy if, say, you need to survey the Indian subcontinent...

Unnecessary.
 
Quote from stu:

...Saying science is not qualified for metaphysics is like saying brain surgery is not qualified for first aid.

Actually, brain surgeons are not (necessarily) qualified to do first-aid.
 
Quote from stu:

Yes I've got the message. Everyone who doesn't go with your wacky nonsense is a troll. I'd expect no better from you.

First you insist marriam webster , a dictionary, in which words get constantly redefined and meanings expanded, definitively states what an atheist is.
Then having done that, you ask me what an atheist is.

As I don't recognize how mirriam webster is defining what I understand , why are you asking me what an atheist is?

How is one of your own chosen definitions "a disbelief in the existence of deity" anything to do with the specific denial you keep claiming atheists have? Then again I should know better than to ask you a reasonable question.

Seriously Jem, instead of attacking everything with your same old tired worn out bs, it's time you got a clue.

No surprise you reject major dictionaries.

I noticed you did not have the guts to define your own atheism. Even though you troll the shit out of these boards as the atheist who states there is no God. So lets try again... show some backbone......

Do you state there is no God?
 
Quote from jem:

No surprise you reject major dictionaries.

I noticed you did not have the guts to define your own atheism. Even though you troll the shit out of these boards as the atheist who states there is no God. So lets try again... show some backbone......

Do you state there is no God?

Atheism: No proof of god is atheism.
There's your definition, so now by defination we're all atheist.

Don't you also troll the shit out of the boards also.
 
Quote from jem:

No surprise you reject major dictionaries.

I noticed you did not have the guts to define your own atheism. Even though you troll the shit out of these boards as the atheist who states there is no God. So lets try again... show some backbone......

Do you state there is no God?
We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. Richard Dawkins
 
Quote from bigarrow:

Atheism: No proof of god is atheism.
There's your definition, so now by defination we're all atheist.

Don't you also troll the shit out of the boards also.

Who has called me a troll... only stu and sock puppets.
at least a dozen people have called stu a troll and disingenous.

How is your definition different from an agnostic?


: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
 
Back
Top