@ 2PM EST NASA will announce alien life has been discovered

[Panda]

Evidence that God doesn't exist is a taboo subject, so you won't find as many scientific paper on that.

But no evidence will ever convince a faithful fundamentalist.

Zwzsg, have you ever heard the story of how the theory of evolution was introduced? People used to think that the universe was neatly laid out by God exactly the way it was destined to be laid out. The stars were crystal spheres pushed around in the heavens by angels and people found it to be comforting to think of the universe as an ordered place. However, all of this changed when Darwin put forth his theory of evolution.

Darwin did not understand why his theory was thought of as anticlerical and shocking to so many people, but many scientists of the day thought that his theory was so heretical and offensive that it would poison the pure minds of the ladies and turn the world upside down. They were convinced that such a theory would boggle (as in confuse and turn people away from doing what was right) the minds of people everywhere and that it was a horrible thing to behold.

On June 30, 1860 the annual conference of the British Association for the Advancement of Science met in Oxford. They were there to debate DarwinÔÇÖs theory of natural selection. Unfortunately, Darwin was too ill to defend his theory in front of the counsel, so his friend, Huxley, defended it for him. Huxley was faced with an angry and super-critical crowd that threw insults at him throughout his well-organized presentation which described geological evidence and examples of specimens that showed that animals weren't always the same way they are now. Creatures had changed and that Darwin thought that this had occurred because of natural selection. During this distressing meeting a bishop called Bishop Samuel "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce asked Huxley, "On what side of you family are your ancestors apes?" Bishop Wilberforce was a wealthy and powerful member of the church which was very influential at the time, but in response to this extremely rude question, Huxley shocked the crowd by responding by saying that he would rather have an ape as a grandfather than be a man who uses his endowments, influence, and wealth, to bring ridicule into a grave scientific debate. His exact words were so outrageous to the people of the time that many of the ladies in the crowed fainted and it was widely reported in the popular magazines of the day, eventually leading to Darwin's theory becoming world famous and changing the face of the scientific community.

[zwzsg]

A cinema near me is currently playing a movie about how concerned was Darwin's wife about his soul salvation. (Or something like that, didn't see it).

And yeah, I know how much some people dislike being told humans are not the pinacle of the universe, dislike being told the earth is not at the center of the universe, dislike being told there isn't a super daddy in the sky always looking after them. I also know how some people can't grok the idea of morale without religion.

How is this relevant anyway? Ah yeah, the internet is drawn to endlessly debate evolution vs creationism. So there: Darwin theory application is eugenism, eugenism is the gazing of jews by Hitler. There, godwin reached, discussion ended.

[SinbadEV]

Hi, I'm a creationist-Christian who believes in Natural Selection to the extent that it aligns with Intelligent Design but also feel that, from a scientific perspective, trying to include theological discussion in Scientific education is both stupid and harmful. While I call into question any scientific theory that is based "entirely" on the assumption that God doesn't exist I feel that all theories are typically based on other assumptions anyways so one should be careful to only present theories that are useful. "God did it" is not useful "The universe is ordered by some underlying structure that causes things to work the way they do" is... and when brought down to basics this is what "Intelligent Design" is all about...

As far as the blemished history of the church when it comes to failing to accept scientific evidence and it's practice of taking assumptions that philosophers and theologians have come up with as dogmatic fact... I think those people were idiots too.

I would like to point out the logical fallacy in stating that something is untrue because it is believed to be true by idiots.

As far as Godwins law, I'm pretty sure it's not over until you compare someone or a group of people to Nazis, and as you have only, thus far, drawn parallel between the concept of "Survival of the Fittest" and the assumption that this means that one group of Humans is more "fit" then another group of humans, I'm pretty sure the discussion can continue. That is until someone calls someone a Nazi, which you haven't done yet.


Also, I'm sorry about this stuff. sadly they didn't do a terribly good job of Teaching me Apologetics at my Liberal Christian College in the time before I dropped out (stupid switching the CS program from C++ to Java).

[PicassoCT]

I hate it when those arsenic meddlers in the chip industry dont wash there hands returning from the toilett- and then they built some circuits into space probes, the probe is launched, and that "adapted to greyroom" bacteria becomes the big star. Wash your hands man, but not in innosence.

In fact, after realizing that you get nowhere with excellent points, you usually give it up, check everyone you meet for intelligence-is-mine, and if he/she, start talking about the peeping tom in the skys, put on your rubber-cell face and nod with a "Yes, Massa, sure, Massa." on the lips.

Bob Altemeyer - The Authorians, was recommended to me here, and i do recommend it again here, for anyone new.

[Noruas]

Augh, why talk about this stupid story, it just shows how screwed up and arrogant scientists are.

[TradeMark]

*Check-in for new religious ragethread*

[FireStorm_]

It think a relevant question is: "Am I going to put sensor A or sensor B on my space probe?"
These are very hard decisions, since space projects cost a lot of time and resources.

I see it like this:
Now a scientist points out life we hadn't imagined/noticed before, and then makes the claim that all this time we have been looking for the wrong things.
Kinda saying: "Why are we looking for liquid water and stuff? Why are we looking for life like us? We should look for life that is not like us. Chances to find something will be bigger. There could be all kind of forms of weird life."

But for now I think chances aren't bigger, because you can't equip your space probe with all kinds of weird sensors. Generally speaking one has to know what one is looking for to find it.

To me it seems a hype for personal glory, witch may lead to decisions not in the best interest of science.

But to put Zwzsg's mind at ease, I propose sending a probe with sensor to look for god, just to be sure .

Oh, before I forget: Don't trust scientists, Nazis employed scientists too.
(disclaimer: previous sentence for discussion closing purposes only)
(Although mentioning a Nazi was already enough to let Godwin apply)

[lurker]

http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/ ... nasas.html
http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2010 ... ed_dna.php

[zwzsg]

Lurker, you're an elist jerk. Science doesn't explain all, so let's not have facts and truthes prevent us from seeing the bigger picture: The NASA scientists are entitled to have their own opinion about whether or not life can be made of arsenic. It's as a valid belief as any other. I would go as far as saying that arsenic based life theory should get equal teaching time as phosphorus based life theory in biology classes. Not doing so would be discriminatory.

Tuesdays Children

http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=2447

Latecomer to the articlequue

[FireStorm_]

I seems strange to me you call some one 'elitist' and then link to an article witch sounds pretty elitist to me (although it has points that I tend to agree with, while skimming it over).

Also I made me think about this:
here you said:

She's smarter than you, just she's not used to computer.

I wonder what kind of person you imagine her to be.

I tend to agree with this:

To quote Feynman:
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the laymen when you're talking as a scientist. . . . I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, [an integrity] that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

It seems to me lurker is pointing out this bending over backward hasn't really been done or even tried.

[zwzsg]

I seems strange to me you call some one 'elitist' and then link to an article witch sounds pretty elitist to me.

The article PicassoCT linked me to has shown me the light. Before I used to believe in Science, but thanks to that article I realised Science is not relevant to worldly affair. So in my previous post I tried to counterbalance the cold Scientific rebukal of poor NASA aliens with my compassionate tolerance: Burn the intellectuals! They are a national threat to our constitutional right to believe in whichever fairy tale we choose!

I wonder what kind of person you imagine her to be.

I imagine you imagining me imagining her to be a good person.

It seems to me lurker is pointing out this bending over backward hasn't really been done or even tried.

The worth of a science research team is measured in term of publication, and mostly in term of number of citation of those publication. So by pushing an article with silly bold claims that everybody will discuss, you're sure to have the number of citation skyrocket, so mechanically the indicator about the team efficiency become very good, and future budget is secured. It's a choice between integrity and money.

I'd say the system should be updated so that citations in the context of disproving the original paper should count negatively.

[AF]

Nonsensical opinions toughted as fact! *gasps*

Believe in God all you want, believe in creation even, but don't declare it fact, its opinion, and can never be proven or disproven. Respect other people for having differing opinions, lament them not sharing yours, but don't pit opinion against something that has empirical proof when you don't, no matter how strong your belief is. Thats your business and yours alone as a privately helf belief.

And before you even dare to question evolution, at least realise that creation is a belief of how everything began. Evolution is a theory of how we got where we are today. The two are not the same. Evolution says nothing about who created life, if someone created life, or how it arose. It merely says that things change over time.

[zwzsg]

Believe in God all you want, but don't declare it fact, its opinion, and can never be proven or disproven.

Science has been wrong plentyfold times. On the other hand the bible was right from the start. So who's most proven, now?

[BrainDamage]

zwzsg, ok that most of these kind of threads have the same awful pattern, but that doesn't makes the "converted mid-thread" troll more fun the more you repeat it.

[FireStorm_]

I imagine you imagining me imagining her to be a good person.

But more seriously:
I see science as a specific way of looking at things an a handy tool. A tool that can be very beneficial in some cases.
I feel that some people misuse this tool sometimes, and that breaks the tool for others to use, witch some people feel as a loss. I think that is the core message of the article.

analogy:
You can teach people that a screwdriver (or a guitar) is a weapon, but I think you can't deny that that is not how it was intended. And then the intended, potential beneficial, application stays hidden.

(making the analogy sillier, but hopefully my point clearer)
"look I'm a carpenter, because I'm stabbing people with my tools."
"look I'm a musician, because I knocked someone out with my guitar."
Then I would say: No, wielding the tool as it was intended is far harder than initially thought, and with effort the result will be more interesting.

(going trough the looking-glass, but bare with me.)
What if you know guitars are used by people with the profession called 'musician', but you've never actually seen one in action because they are very rare. Then one day you see someone shouting he/she is a musician and hitting people with a thing you recognise as a guitar?
What will that make you think about musicians and guitars?

Also:

It merely says that things change over time.

yes, even religious dogma, although slowly.

[zwzsg]

Once I saw a musician* chainsaw through his keyboard. Was he a carpenter? He was welding the chainsaw tool as intented: to cut through things.

He also stabbed dead people with the chainsaw. Is cutting through guts the intented use of chainsaw?

Then another day I saw a musician** playing the driller. Drilling tools are intented to drill holes, not to produce music, so I guess he wasn't really a carpenter?

The musical saw is classified as a friction idiophone with direct friction (131.22) under the Hornbostel-Sachs system of musical instrument classification.

I am know really confused about that guy in another gig*** that I saw playing the saw. Is it possible to be both carpenter and musican?

* Arsch Dolls
** Einst├╝rzende Neubauten
*** Imogen Heap

bare with me

Science made you a depraved person.

[SinbadEV]

It merely says that things change over time.

You are confusing the issue in a typically Evolutionist way by bundling guesswork with scientific fact... thereby setting up creationists as strawmen who refuse to believe things that have been scientifically proven because they are counter to their beliefs.

If you want to break things down like this... All the intelligent design people are saying is that it couldn't have happened randomly and all of the creationists/anti-evolutionists are saying is that nothing can evolve into a different "kind" of animal... so humans didn't evolve from apes, lizards didn't evolve from fish, birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, and all live didn't erupt over the course of billions of years from single-celled organisms that erupted by random chance.

Personally I grant that there is a CHANCE that God's method of creating humans was to induce a big-bang which lead to the eruption of our universe and life which eventually evolved into humans and all other species on earth... and I'm pretty sure Darwin would have agreed with me.

[FireStorm_]

stuff

Science made you a depraved person.

He, don't be like that. I have morals...

Oh oops, .Good thing I already knew you know better...

I also know how some people can't grok the idea of morale without religion.

...guess its time for me to do some spelling training.

[zwzsg]

And what about chainsaw guitars?
She's dead, so no longer a musician, but I'm sure the intented use of such tool is to stab people.

[1v0ry_k1ng]

Personally I grant that there is a CHANCE that God's method of creating humans was to induce a big-bang which lead to the eruption of our universe and life which eventually evolved into humans and all other species on earth... and I'm pretty sure Darwin would have agreed with me.

I'm pretty sure darwin would've punched you in the eye for bringing god back into the equation... religion is a product of human egotism and denial. watching religions deform and contort to encompass all the discoveries which clearly disprove them is depressing

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF