People always like to point out how MORAL humans can be without God, and in fairness, there are some who are. But it’s interesting that scientists, most of whom profess to be agnostic or atheistic, lie through their teeth at every turn while defending junk “science” such as evolution and global warming. It’s not coincidence that some have been willing to abandon the absurd “primordial soup” theory ONLY AFTER another secular creation story has been advanced. SO..... we weren’t so goofy, dense and insecure after all; we were RIGHT!
45 comments
For every scientist that lies about research, there are hundreds of fundies that claim the moral high ground and then turn around and lie, lie, lie their asses off just to further their own agenda. Not to mention all the hate and bile directed at 99% of the world (ie, the people that aren't like themselves) and the incessant meddling in other people's affairs.
So - a scientist thinks that a hypothesis about origins is probably correct. Then evidence arises to the contrary, and he finds that the second hypothesis is probably much more likely. Why in the world would he change his mind BEFORE the evidence changed? What kind of accusation are you making here? "ONLY AFTER"? What? Of course it's only after! Effect comes after cause, not before! This is a new one.
People always like to point out how MORAL humans can be with God, and in fairness, there are some who are. But it’s interesting that creationists, most of whom profess to be christian, lie through their teeth at every turn while defending junk “science” such as creation science and intelligent design. It’s not coincidence that some have been willing to abandon the absurd "sky daddy" theory ONLY AFTER another religious creation story has been advanced. SO..... we weren’t so goofy, dense and insecure after all; we were RIGHT!
Fixed.
Is this retard talking about "intelligent design"? Is that other "secular" creation story? I hate to tell him that it too is pure garbage, pretty much like the story of creation in Genesis, and no self-respecting scientist espouses it.
Edit: Thanks for the link Tracer.
Right about *what* exactly and what freaking 'secular creation' story are you talking about? AND... AND... ugh. We will continue to study how we came to be on this planet so we can see where we're going. Saying *poof SKYDADDY* does absolutely nothing to help us. They aren't pushing and trying to figure out our origins to disprove silly mythological stories- they're doing it to try to understand, help and see where we're heading. If someone abandons a theory, hopefully they can go another direction- and I sure as hell hope it isn't "Sky daddy did it!" <-if so, we're doomed.
I'm moral, I'm not a scientist, I've nothing to do with global warming [other than being as responsible with my use of the Earth's resources as I can be without living as a hippy], I've no idea how we initially came into existence, I'm quite happy without a god and no... you aren't right. I can't prove you wrong... perhaps psychotic, but that doesn't make you right.
[edit] I just followed the link- thanks for shedding some light on what he/it/she was talking about.
Scientists don't need to loudly proclaim, "We we're RIGHT!"
They would sound goofy, dense and insecure.
I was going to point out that scientists are SUPPOSED to switch to a better theory whenever one is found, but campbunny beat me to it. Also, 40% of the NAS is theistic. So, "most" in a literal, more-than-50% sense, maybe, but there's lots of believers in science still. They just know not to let that interfere with their sanity, unlike you.
Wait a minute. Right about what? Goddidit? There is no "theory" of abiogenesis. Primordial soup isn't a theory and never has been; it's a hypothesis. Because they have now suggested that the hot vents may be better explanation of abiogenesis than primordial soup (and the hot vent hypothesis has been around for decades, BTW), how does that prove goddidit?
It's not a lie when they say something you don't believe is true, it's a lie when they say something they don't believe is true.
And Nick Lane's ideas are just that, his ideas , the "primordial soup" hypothesis is still in the running, along with Orgel's ice hypothesis and Cavalier-Smith's clays.
Oh, and Anthonie Muller suggested this at least 15 years ago, not long after the hydrothermal ecosystems were first described (Anthonie W.J. Muller, "Were the first organisms heat engines? A new model for biogenesis and the early evolution of biological energy conversion", Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology - 1995).
It’s not coincidence that some have been willing to abandon the absurd “primordial soup” theory ONLY AFTER another secular creation story has been advanced.
Er, that's how science works dummy. Old paradigms are eclipsed by newer paradigms as new information and new theories come to light!
And yes, you fundamentalist Christians are still dense, goofy and insecure - and immoral to boot.
You know what I miss from the old days of FSTDT?
The {quote}{/quote} markup. (Except with square brackets instead of the curly braces.)
It displayed everything inside the 2 tags inside an indented block. VERY useful for quoting sections of the Fundie saying, or even for quoting other comments by FSTDTers. Now, all {quote} does is add an extra blank line afterward. :-(
@ tracer
I either use {i} and bold my answer, or if quoting from a real source, I use {i}{color=blue}.
Yeah, I miss quotes too, but you work with what you've got. Not that I can really say anything, I don't know asp, so I don't know the language idiosyncrasies.
Just because they defend their science based world view, which might be wrong (on some positions) and doesn't fit to yours, doesn't make them liars or you right, asshat! If you show them evidence, they would change their minds.
But you on the other hand, you are just plain wrong about certain things and totally ignorant about it.
Nope. You were goofy, dense, insecure, and wrong. This event you're crowing over is a testament to the power of good science. Yeah, turns out the old primordial soup theory was wrong. So what? That just means we replace it with a new theory. When we discover we've made errors, we correct them, because the truth matters more to us than what we'd prefer to believe. But that's not your way. You've lathed onto a goofy, dense, insecure notion that you were magically poofed into existence by an imperceptible djinn and rejected any and all evidence that indicated otherwise. Ask yourself...of all the scientific breakthroughs made over the years, how many were made by assuming the Bible was correct, and how many were made by using the scientific method?
In summary...Science learns. Creationism stagnates.
Their biggest argument for the last decade is how science ratifies theories with new evidence. It's never an absolute or opposite theory, just a refining with new data.
The Tidepool concept still applies as does primordial soup, they just have limitations that may mean they're not the birthplace of the first organisms but still valid as the enviroments for the evolution of many creatures.
It's not like it hasn't been a long held scientific belief that the sea is the first place life arose. This new undersea vents theory may be as simple as heating up the primordial soup and could also apply to surface hot springs
Fundamentalist Christians always like to point out how IMMORAL humans can be without God, and in fairness, there are some who are. But it's interesting pastors, all of whom profess to be devout followers of christianity, lie through their teeth at every turn while lying about male prostitutes, homosexuality, and biblical history. It's not coincidence that some have been willing to abandom the absurd "creationist" theory ONLY AFTER another more plausible has been advanced. SO... we weren't so goofy, dense, and insexure after all; we were RIGHT!
/fixed>
"People always like to point out how MORAL humans can be without God, and in fairness, there are some who are. But it’s interesting that scientists, most of whom profess to be agnostic or atheistic, lie through their teeth at every turn"
"we were RIGHT!"
Atheists are 'immoral'? O RLY?
Jim Bakker (Adulterer)
All right-wing Fundamentalist Christian preachers.
...you were saying, alstewartfan? And Evolution = immorality? Non-sequitur, much?
The beauty of scientific community is that by using it's established methods lying is basicly impossible to get away with.
If a scientist fabricates or overlooks some crucial part in a research, there are usually hundreads of scientist around the world to point out the problems. Re-testable, empirical evidence is where it's at.
First, while the primordial soup theory presupposes abiotic carbon chemistry that is, to be kind, unlikely (large quantities of nucleotides, et cetera, are not formed readily and what happens instead is that substances known as tholins are formed), this was not known at the time, and it was plausible enough that experiments were carried out to determine its likelihood.
Edit: More specifically, insolation and electrical storm activity will produce tholins
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
