Teach Me Science

[DavidLeon]

What is the scientific method and how is it different than the way we teach and learn ourselves? If I were the inventor of the airplane wouldn't I be employing the methodology of science just as if I were learning how to change a flat tire or make a website? How would they be similar and how would they differ?

[brunumb]

So much data that it's easy to get lost in. For me problematic when discussing the subject with scientific atheists because how could they possibly know all of that. So how much does one, such as myself, have to know to be certain? What is the evidence from the fossil record, direct observations on short lifetime species (fruit flies?), and genetics work? How likely is it that the assumption is made and so conclusions are drawn to support it when those conclusions could have some alternative interpretation?

You are concerned over having mountains of data from countless sources, but have no trouble accepting one book of ancient stories, mostly of unknown provenance and without any verification. Hmmmm.

[DavidLeon]

I don't see evolution as a result of the scientific method or the search for knowledge.

But that's exactly how the theory of evolution came about. Darwin and Wallace came to the same conclusions based on the evidence they had accumulated. Even before them, people observed nature and had the same inklings. In the 150+ years since 'On the origin of Species' was first published, more and more compelling evidence has confirmed the theory. It may be questioned by creationists, but it has never been refuted.

Let me ask you one question. Is Darwin's and Wallace's work accurate by today's standards or was evolution founded upon a faulty premise? If the evolution I was taught in school is laughable by today's standards how could you possibly conclude that today's isn't anything but laughable by tomorrow's standards - which means what you know now is laughable. It's just going to take you some time to come to that conclusion. And by the time that has happened they will have heaped more laughable musings on top of those.

The thing is with me, is that it really does seem that the Utopian scientific atheism is just a filler or crutch that militant atheists need to feel secure. Yes, very much like the apostate religious. They have to think they have a solid foundation in a world they perceive as concrete. To be unaware of the future, for some reason, scares them unmerciful. If I question or criticize a theist they may be bothered about it like any of us are when our beliefs are challenged, but eventually they move on more or less bemused.

Not a militant atheist. No way. They will perform amazing things when questioned or challenged. Almost like they're damaged in some way. It could be sociopolitical frustration or just ideological possession but goodness! They go crazy.

. . .

Ya' know it, brunumb?

You, uh, you ever noticed that on atheist forums? You ever notice that since about the mid 2000's the majority of people on Christian forums are militant atheists and a few believers that have strange Christian beliefs or are, like me, on the outside of organized Christendom? The Jehovah's Witnesses you see are not even supposed to be here.

[DavidLeon]

So much data that it's easy to get lost in. For me problematic when discussing the subject with scientific atheists because how could they possibly know all of that. So how much does one, such as myself, have to know to be certain? What is the evidence from the fossil record, direct observations on short lifetime species (fruit flies?), and genetics work? How likely is it that the assumption is made and so conclusions are drawn to support it when those conclusions could have some alternative interpretation?

You are concerned over having mountains of data from countless sources, but have no trouble accepting one book of ancient stories, mostly of unknown provenance and without any verification. Hmmmm.

Verification! [Laughs] Do you ever stop to listen to yourself? You think verification is any more infallible than the original supposition? You can verify anything you want. Know your opponent, brunumb, for it is you.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #32]

They have to think they have a solid foundation in a world they perceive as concrete. To be unaware of the future, for some reason, scares them unmerciful.

I don't consider myself a "militant atheist" because I've never tried to convince anyone to share my views on the existence of gods, or to change their own views on the subject. I don't care in the least what anyone else thinks on the issue, and have no problem with anyone practicing the religion of their choice as long as they don't try to force their beliefs down my throat. But as a nonmilitant atheist, I don't believe that gods exist (definition of an atheist) simply because I've never seen any convincing evidence that they do. It is as simple as that, and this position has no bearing on anything else in my life, or my plans for the future.

If one of these god beings made itself known in some concrete way I'd happily change my mind, but given the sheer number of gods humans have invented over the millennia and the fact that (so far) not even one of them has materialized, I seriously doubt that one of them is going to announce itself or appear in some way during my lifetime. So I'll continue to doubt their existence and carry on with the answer to the question of whether gods exist, or not, having no impact on my life plans in any way. I'm certainly not scared of being "unaware of the future" because I don't believe that a god of any kind could possibly control it or influence it.

[DavidLeon]

It would certainly take a very long time to plow through ALL of the documentation surrounding TOE, but there are lots of summaries and reviews, etc. like the two sites I gave in the earlier post from today (just two examples of no doubt many thousands). But to understand the basics it is not necessary to go through such a gigantic mountain of documentation. The basic idea is very simple ...

Certainly. I wasn't thinking. To be fair it is the same with theology and religion. I've studied the basics of all the major world religions but wouldn't delve into the complexities of Hindu and Buddhist doctrines. Even with Christianity I intentionally refrain from memorizing scripture or familiarizing myself with religious terminology.

changes in phenotype and/or genotype are driven by changes in the environment (used generically to mean geographic, weather, predator/prey mix, etc.), which prompt adaptation in order to survive and compete in the changed conditions.

The vampire bat comes to mind. Their diet changed out of necessity.

Darwin did not know how to describe these "transformations" (the common word in his day) at a molecular level, but his fundamental point was that the transformations were driven by the need to adapt to changed conditions, and over time a series of small transformations could lead to very large changes in phenotype and/or genotype, speciation, etc.. This is the basic premise of TOE by natural selection, and of course a great deal of refinement, and elucidation of mechanisms at the molecular level, have occurred since Darwin's time and the understanding of DNA and the genetic code. But these new understandings do not change the fundamental idea of TOE ... change in phenotype and/or genotype over time driven by the need to survive and compete in changed conditions.

The fact that we can and do practice artificial selection where we selectively breed plants and animals to create changed versions is proof that changes in phenotype and/or genotype can be created artificially. We can also change environmental conditions and see changes in phenotype/genotype occur without any selective breeding. Natural selection is just the same process but with nature imposing the new conditions. At the molecular level, the mechanisms are the same. So it isn't hard to accept that however the "forcing function" comes about (natural, or artificial), plants and animals adapt to new conditions in order to survive and compete, and that sometimes results in major changes over time such a speciation. This is the guts of TOE.

Are you familiar with the Biblical kind, that there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis "kinds?" This, I suppose, is where the disagreement begins.

[DavidLeon]

I don't consider myself a "militant atheist" because I've never tried to convince anyone to share my views on the existence of gods, or to change their own views on the subject. I don't care in the least what anyone else thinks on the issue, and have no problem with anyone practicing the religion of their choice as long as they don't try to force their beliefs down my throat. But as a nonmilitant atheist, I don't believe that gods exist (definition of an atheist) simply because I've never seen any convincing evidence that they do. It is as simple as that, and this position has no bearing on anything else in my life, or my plans for the future.

If one of these god beings made itself known in some concrete way I'd happily change my mind, but given the sheer number of gods humans have invented over the millennia and the fact that (so far) not even one of them has materialized, I seriously doubt that one of them is going to announce itself or appear in some way during my lifetime. So I'll continue to doubt their existence and carry on with the answer to the question of whether gods exist, or not, having no impact on my life plans in any way. I'm certainly not scared of being "unaware of the future" because I don't believe that a god of any kind could possibly control it or influence it.

I think most people wouldn't have a problem with your estimation of god because there seems to be so much confusion. I think we've had that discussion? I've proved to you that many gods do exist?

[brunumb]

What I mean by militant atheist is outspoken, active.

In other words, you don't like anyone questioning your beliefs or raising the spectre of doubt. Understandable.

Everyone I know is an atheist and not one of them would waste a moment of their time, discussing, debating, parading, buying bumper stickers, renting billboards, protesting or taking any active part in any of theists doings.

How do you feel about Christians doing all those things? Let's expand the activities to radio and TV channels devoted to broadcasting the dogma. Jesus camps and special school groups to indoctrinate the young. Christians actively ganging up to defeat legislation giving rights to gay people, or refusing to give them the service they freely give to everyone else. Aren't people entitled to be given both sides of the story?

They don't care that evolution is or isn't taught in school. They know most of what is taught in school is nonsense and in one ear out the other of the kids forced to listen to it.

Oh dear. Most of what is taught in school is nonsense in one ear and out the other ...... so that they don't learn anything and end up in a position with little or no understanding. That explains a lot.

They don't care if there is a nativity scene or 10 commandments at the courthouse because they know the courthouse is corrupt to the core.

Rather a sweeping generalisation there don't you think. Perhaps you are overstating your case because there is really nothing of substance behind it.

They don't care if there is prayer in the school, they would never post on a forum like this or an atheist forum. They don't care if the guy down the street believes in God or practices Buddhism.

For the most part I am with them. My activity here is just a minor diversion. It does not define me as much as you appear to believe.

[brunumb]

Verification! [Laughs] Do you ever stop to listen to yourself? You think verification is any more infallible than the original supposition? You can verify anything you want.

But not the Bible it seems. But wait, there is always....... faith.

[brunumb]

Not a militant atheist. No way. They will perform amazing things when questioned or challenged. Almost like they're damaged in some way. It could be sociopolitical frustration or just ideological possession but goodness! They go crazy.

When all else fails, go for the ad hominem.

[brunumb]

I think most people wouldn't have a problem with your estimation of god because there seems to be so much confusion. I think we've had that discussion? I've proved to you that many gods do exist?

Most of those were essentially irrelevancies based on selective meaning of the term god. Let's cut to the chase. What exactly is your position on the existence of Jehovah?