Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 70165

But that's just the point, see. Science isn't based on personal experience. That's where your reasoning is at fault.

So the theory of macro-evolution wasn't based on the personal experiences of Charles Darwin (combined with a rigged publish/peer review process)?

The reason science will never get past seeing THIS [miracles] as personal experience is because it doesn't have the tools to study, replicate, corroborate it. That isn't my fault or any fault in my reasoning. It is a shortcoming of science.

If there is good evidence for the supernatural, science will gladly investigate, but it will not investigate simply because of mere stories.

Science HAS investigated it. The point is that science cannot, and will not, meet "pseudoscience" on a level playing field just yet. Even if it wanted to, stumbling blocks exist in the form of a rigged publication/peer review system and the almighty dollar. The upshot is that atheists gleefully slip through the toll gates without paying a penny. Yeah, that does annoy me, especially when they rub salt into the wound with arrogant condescending behaviour, trying to learn those silly theists a lesson. But I take pleasure in this, that every time I talk to an atheist it really does feel like I'm talking to a dead man walking. It's just a matter of time. Did I say that out loud?

catholicguy, FRDB 41 Comments [2/8/2010 9:57:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 56
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Doubting Thomas

Yeah, that peer review process is "rigged" because they don't allow unscientific nonsense to pass through unchallenged.

And science and pseudoscience can never meet on a level playing field because pseudoscience does not play by the rules. In fact, there are no rules in pseudoscientific ideas because it's pretty much "anything goes." If you can think up a wacko theory, it stands unchallenged along with other wacko theories. But when held up to the light of science they're seen for the ridiculous ideas they are.

And nice how you take pleasure in thinking that other people are going to burn for eternity. Just another example of Christian love.


2/8/2010 10:02:26 AM

Zimmer

Peer review and evidence testing is possibly the best system ever created for determining who is right and who is wrong.

The first sign that someone is wrong is that they assume there is a conspiracy by their opponents to silence them, because they speak the 'truth'.

And here I thought Catholics has no problem with evolution.


Also, forgive my childishness, but

FIRST!!

EDIT: Doubting Thomas got in AS I WAS EDITING THIS TO SAY FIRST.

2/8/2010 10:04:14 AM

I Read About The Afterlife

And this is why I am really glad I am no theist.

2/8/2010 10:08:21 AM

I Read About The Afterlife

Damn double posts.

2/8/2010 10:08:39 AM

JohnTheAtheist

Damn...the catholics have been appearing to be the most enlightened of the people with imaginary friends...now this.

2/8/2010 10:23:34 AM



That's because pseudoscience uses techniques that can't pin down anything. I mean, take ghost hunting for example. While the chances of crap happening to your picture because of a damaged camera or mishandling the film has gone down because of digital cameras, digital cameras have their own unique set of flaws that can create ghostly images. Looking for electromagnetic fields? They occur naturally. Sudden chills? Possibly a draft. I personally feel that it's possible for ghosts to exist, but there just isn't enough evidence in any one case to definitively say "this is a ghost and nothing else."

And by the way, most theists have long since accepted science. It's not evil. It doesn't hate left-field theories either; there have been some animals recognized by science that were just cryptozoological theories for years. Like the coelacanth and the giant and colossal squids.

2/8/2010 10:25:40 AM

gaijinlaw

But that's just the point, see. Science isn't based on personal experience. That's where your reasoning is at fault.

So the theory of macro-evolution wasn't based on the personal experiences of Charles Darwin (combined with a rigged publish/peer review process)?

The reason science will never get past seeing THIS [miracles] as personal experience is because it doesn't have the tools to study, replicate, corroborate it. That isn't my fault or any fault in my reasoning. It is a shortcoming of science.


Hey! Where did the goalposts go? They were just here a second ago.

2/8/2010 10:29:19 AM

caustic gnostic

Good no-bullshit science = "You goin' to Hell, atheist!!!"

2/8/2010 10:30:47 AM

Berny

Science cannot meet pseudoscience on a level playing field, as you put it, for the same reason a chess champion won't take on a man who only plays checkers. Are you even aware of the meaning of the words you are using? Pseudo means fake and any study of the supernatural is exactly that, fake.
As to your last sentence, we are all dead men walking, it's only a matter of time. Some of you are labouring under the misconception they will have eternal life after it, though.

2/8/2010 10:53:59 AM

David B.

"So the theory of macro-evolution wasn't based on the personal experiences of Charles Darwin (combined with a rigged publish/peer review process)?"

No, it's based on a huge mountain of observation and inference that is; detailed in full in leading scientific journals, displayed in public in museums around the world, spectacularly successful in predicting the age and location of expected transitional forms.

And Darwin's personal experiences are irrelevent as the term wasn't coined until nearly 50 years after his death (n.b. by biologists, not creationists).

"The point is that science cannot, and will not, meet "pseudoscience" on a level playing field just yet."

The scientific playing field is based on verifiable facts and reproducible experiments, it's only not level because pseudoscientific and supernatural beliefs have a glaring lack of both.

"every time I talk to an atheist it really does feel like I'm talking to a dead man walking"

Everything dies, even stars and planets. I'm not the one who has to talk to an imaginary friend to cope with this fact.

2/8/2010 10:55:20 AM



'But I take pleasure in this, that every time I talk to an atheist it really does feel like I'm talking to a dead man walking. It's just a matter of time. Did I say that out loud?'

And so, it turns out that your faith is just a pathetic revenge fantasy after all.

Whodathunkit?

2/8/2010 10:55:55 AM

jroyals

Do they mean rigged or rigid?

2/8/2010 10:56:36 AM

John

Scientists are not concerned with the supernatural any more than a plumber is concerned with your electrical wiring. The job of science is to find natural explanations. Evolution is a natural explanation that has yet to be proved wrong. It doesn't mean that life couldn't have been created by supernatural means. It simply means we have a logical alternative that doesn't involve God performing magic.

As for scientists trying to teach those "silly theists" a lesson- first, science doesn't conflict with belief in God. It only conflicts with a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, something which isn't a problem for the majority of Christians. Second, the "silly theists" bring scorn on themselves when they come out with stupid stuff like "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?"

2/8/2010 11:24:30 AM

Sisyphus

I remember hearing a rant along these lines from a doctor I used to work for. He'd written a"paper" he was hoping to have published about the importance of spiritual healing with regards to physical health. He had no hypothesis. His "experiment?" consisted of asking 25 various faith healers if they thought spiritual healing was important and why (no control group, no voices for the opposition) and was incensed that his "paper" was rejected by every journal he submitted it to.

He yelled and screamed for hours about the "rigged peer review process" and was apoplectic by the time he got around to how he was being discriminated against.


I wish I'd had a camera. :-S

2/8/2010 11:30:25 AM

aaa

Kid, we didn't get this far by believing in stupid shit.

2/8/2010 11:55:09 AM

Tyler

I thought Catholics were the most level-headed and rational of the Christian sects. At least they understand science makes the world a better place and that it shouldn't be put down just because it creates a powerful surge of cognitive dissonance in lesser minds. But this guy.....

2/8/2010 12:00:45 PM

Old Viking

Darwin did see a dinosaur once, but he was at a Christmas party and standing suspiciously close to the punch bowl.

2/8/2010 12:09:15 PM

GodotIsWaiting4U

Not at all. The theory of evolution by natural selection was based on Charles Darwin's observations in the Galapagos islands, which he carefully documented in a way that can be examined by other scientists. They can look at his claims and evidence and see if he's right.

Hint: he is.

2/8/2010 12:44:52 PM

toothache

Paranoid much?

2/8/2010 1:02:10 PM

Reckoner

The reason science will never get past seeing THIS [miracles] as personal experience is because it doesn't have the tools to study, replicate, corroborate it. That isn't my fault or any fault in my reasoning. It is a shortcoming of science.

No, science does a great job of doing that stuff. The problem is that every time one of your claims gets tested it fails miserably. You can blame the tools or you can start looking at your beliefs critically. A good craftsman never blames his tools.

2/8/2010 1:31:13 PM

Zoo

"personal experiences of Charles Darwin"

If by "personal experiences" you mean "lots of observations that other people can replicate", then yes, Darwin's ideas are based on personal experience. If by "personal experience" you mean "something only one person is privy to that can't be replicated", then no, they aren't. That's not a shortcoming of science.

"The point is that science cannot, and will not, meet "pseudoscience" on a level playing field just yet"

What now? They aren't (and can't be) on a level playing field because pseudoscience has no basis in reality. Much like this argument you're trying to make.

2/8/2010 1:55:04 PM

pete

Let's try this again.

1. Every objectively recorded person, place, thing, and event has been determined to have a natural origin.

2. Conversely. No supernatural person, place, thing, or event has ever been objectively recorded.

It really is that simple. Science has the entire physical universe as it's evidence. Religion has no evidence. Many scientists have sought evidence for the supernatural and every last one of them has failed to find anything that can be measured and recorded. Period!

2/8/2010 3:47:07 PM

SpacemanSpiff

I don't understand why so many idiots think all scientists have a massive stake in making sure evolution is unchallenged, and will rig the peer review process to keep it that way.

The first scientist who managed to prove that creation is scientifically possible would receive instant worldwide fame and would probably have his research well funded for the rest of his natural life.

2/8/2010 3:56:09 PM

moose

Teacher: Ok children. Can anybody give me an example of today's reading lesson of blatant hypocrisy?

Students in unison: I can , I can, I can!!!!

Teacher: Ok, you, what part of today's reading is a perfect example of blatant hypocrisy?

Child: "Yeah, that does annoy me, especially when they rub salt into the wound with arrogant condescending behaviour, trying to learn those silly theist a lesson. But I take pleasure in this, that every time I talk to an atheist it really does fell like I'm talking to a dead man walking."

2/8/2010 7:13:42 PM

Antichrist

Science HAS investigated it. The point is that science cannot, and will not, meet "pseudoscience" on a level playing field just yet.


2/8/2010 7:15:54 PM
1 2