What has more unintentional humor than creationist 'science'?

[ck4829]

The 'science' they use to explain the holes in the science to say that the universe is only 5000 years old!

Problem: If the universe is only 5000 years old, then where does the light that took more than 5000 years to get here come from?

Creationists have an answer for that. God created the light "in-transit", which means that God created the light at a distance which would reach us and make it look like there are stars and supernovas. So, according to creationists, the whole night sky is a giant lie! But it's because God is testing our faith.

Problem: How to explain away evolution.

Creationists have an answer for that. Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that all closed systems get more disordered over time. So, I guess that giant ball of heat and light affects the planet in no way, right?

Bananas are proof of intelligent design, did you know that? They were shaped for the human hand, their colors show you when to eat them, etc. The intelligent design is called domestication. Wild bananas are full of seeds and are inedible.

This would all actually be very funny... If these people weren't trying to control our schools and government.

[customerserviceguy]

1. Well, for starters

this whole goofy ass resurrection thing.

[LooseWilly]

2. ooh ooh ooh... religion itself?

John 6:57 "... he who eats me shall live ..." -Jesus. Should've made it into Pulp Fiction...

Heh, luckily, 'non-creationist' science will never be accused of being funny, intentionally or otherwise...

[walldude]

3. Bananas are proof of intelligent design

Yeah I heard that.. When I asked the guy what the Pineapple was proof of he just looked at me like I slapped Jesus.

[LeftyMom]

5. Good thing you didn't ask him about cucumbers.

:evilgrin:

[geardaddy]

81. lol

:thumbsup:

[instantkarma]

17. And peanut butter disproves evolution

according to Chuck Missler

[TlalocW]

20. Actually, bananas are proof of evolution

The banana that Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are so fascinated with didn't exist until 1836, when they an evolutionary mutation produced them on a plantain farm.

TlalocW

[AsahinaKimi]

43. I once visited a Banana farm near Santa Barbara

I used to think all Bananas were Yellow, but no. There are many kinds of bananas. Some are cooked just like a potato. Some are tiny, some are brown, and have differnt shades of green. There are many variety of Bananas, not just the Yellow ones.

If I hadn't gone, I probably would still believe all Bananas were Yellow.

[TlalocW]

69. Right, the banana Ray and Kirk are talking about

Is also the one I'm talking about - developed in the 1800s in Jamaica. Other bananas and members of the plantain family need to be cooked or are not as easy to eat due to rock-hard seeds in them, etc.

TlalocW

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

27. Actually, it is. Bananas were intelligently designed by HUMANS. -nt

[Tailormyst]

4. They would deny that the light takes that long or travels that far.

[Fumesucker]

7. You can measure the speed of light with a bar of chocolate, a microwave and a ruler..

http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science/item/measure_speed_light_microwave_chocolate

Mid Morning Experiment: Speed of Light

By Mark Steer

Einstein realised that the speed of light was one of the defining measures of the Universe. Remember E=mc2, the beautiful little formula that wrapped up the theory of relativity? Well ‘c’ is the speed of light. And you can measure it. All you need is a microwave, a ruler and a bar of chocolate (and maybe a calculator).

[Tailormyst]

23. But that is science

These types consider it all theories, unproven. They believe the earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs and man lived side by side.

[Fumesucker]

24. Oh, they believe in science when the rubber meets the road..

Just try and keep them away from the latest advances in medicine when they are sick..

Medicine that is based totally on science that is underpinned by the theory of evolution.

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. I heard one of the most stupid reasons the other day listening to "Christian" radio

The stupid dumbfuck was talking about how it takes energy to keep a system in check, and extra energy to make a system into greater order.

And - this is no lie - this is exactly the line of reasoning the piece of shit used.

1. The entity that puts energy into our system is the sun (here he was correct, and, I thought, 'thank God, finally, one of these fucking evil assholes is admitting that the sun keeps pumping energy into the system and thus is willing to give up the thermodynamic reason')

unfortunately, that's not where he went:

2. Too much sunlight turns plants brown and dead

3. Therefore, the sun is not giving the extra energy needed to drive evolution, because life hasn't been extinguished.

4. therefore, evolution is a lie and, once again, creation science has been proven.


No fucking shit - that was the asshole's argument.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

8. just curious why you were listening to start with

[charlie]

52. Nothing beats Kent Hovind's argument for Biblical dinosaurs

1. Reptiles continue growing for the entire span of their lives.

2. In the days of Methuselah, everything lived much, much longer.

3. Therefore, if you'd lived in OT times, your pet horned toad would grow to the size of a city bus... OMG, BRACHIOSAURUS!

[geardaddy]

79. He can't even tell the difference between a reptile and an amphibian?

lol

[WCGreen]

9. You do know that the world is resting on really big turtle and it slowly

moves around this really, really, really big room where the stars and what not are hanging from a ceiling that god painted black so he could trip out when he listened to Pink Floyd, man...

that's the kind of shit I heard from burnouts when I was doing bongs with them back in the '70's...

I think that has more validity than whatever it is the reality deniers are talking about.

[postulater]

10. Well, I know for sure that the light from stars is over 5000 years old.

It was on Star Trek.

And I believe everthing that happens on Star Trek is true.

End of story.

[XemaSab]

11. Fossils and geology and shit

were put there to screw with us.

The Grand Canyon was both deposited AND eroded during the flood.

It proves itself! Series!

[Walk away]

12. We have a big children's parade every year on the 4th of July.

We encourage all different groups to join and even create floats. Girl Scouts, 4-H, Dance classes and school bands all do something and everyone in our small town shows up.

Last year a Sunday school group from out of town applied to do a float and performance. It was lucky that the person in charge of reviewing content realized that a dinosaur float with kids dressed as christians from 6,000 years ago was not going to reflect the community and had nothing to do with the July 4th holiday.

Dinosaurs and christians on Earth at the same time! Geeze! We just couldn't believe they were trying to sneak their kookiness into or little celebration.

[madinmaryland]

13. Huh? You never saw the Flintstones??

They were also proud Americans!!

:D

[Zynx]

14. Christians 6,000 years ago? That's a neat trick too.

[obxhead]

99. That was my thought too

:hurts:

[Vinnie From Indy]

15. These folks think The Flintstones was a documentary

n/t

[madmom]

16. I just tell my mother-in-law science isn't afraid to say "I don't know", It seems

creationist can't admit to not knowing everything there is to know about everything, thus the fairy tales.

[cayanne]

18. I just watched a documentary on this subject

It is called Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. Excellent documentary. I took 4 pages of notes and it really shows how evolution has advanced our societies today. If you get Netflix, add it to your queue, you won't be sorry.

[wickerwoman]

47. It's on youtube too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohxDRhji0C0

Great stuff. Exposes the absurdity of ID on a whole new level.

:hi:

[david13]

19. Faith and superstition are the same thing. Imaginary things in

gullible, feeble minds.
As I look around this country and the world, and see stupidity as the dominant theme, it does not surprise me.
dc

[salguine]

21. If "bananas are proof of intelligent design" because "they were shaped for the human hand", then

what asshat designed the watermelon? Ever tried to eat one of those with one hand? It doesn't work. I rest my case.

[Walk away]

29. What's the matter with you???? They are shaped like a Fundamentalist's.....

ass. I dare you to think about that for too long!

[Homer Wells]

30. Well, if they are shaped for the human hand

it is also true that they are shaped for the hands of all the primates, therefore evolution has to be true,and man did evolve from the lower primates.
That should provide a bit of exploding brain matter!

:evilgrin:

[MajorChode]

22. It's funny until you realize there are states where the fundies make teachers teach this shit

It's scary to think about, but there really are those who are at least two standard deviations to the left on the bell curve that have the power to influence what is being taught to children.

[RagAss]

36. ....and parents that allow it to happen.

[MajorChode]

37. Part of the problem is they have school board elections on days when nobody shows up

...except for old people.

[RagAss]

97. Yup...you nailed it !

[tama]

25. materialist fundamentalists have

"Wilson also criticized scientific types with overly rigid belief systems, equating them with religious fundamentalists in their fanaticism. In a 1988 interview, when asked about his newly-published book The New Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism and the Citadel of Science, Wilson commented: "I coined the term irrational rationalism because those people claim to be rationalists, but they're governed by such a heavy body of taboos. They're so fearful, and so hostile, and so narrow, and frightened, and uptight and dogmatic... I wrote this book because I got tired satirizing fundamentalist Christianity... I decided to satirize fundamentalist materialism for a change, because the two are equally comical... The materialist fundamentalists are funnier than the Christian fundamentalists, because they think they're rational! ...They're never skeptical about anything except the things they have a prejudice against. None of them ever says anything skeptical about the AMA, or about anything in establishment science or any entrenched dogma. They're only skeptical about new ideas that frighten them. They're actually dogmatically committed to what they were taught when they were in college..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Anton_Wilson

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. Ah, yes. The "I know you are but what am I" school of debate.

:eyes:

[tama]

32. I don't know what that means

http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-are-modern-scientists-so-dull.html

[sudopod]

42. P. Z. Meyers making fun of the "journal" called "Medical Hypotheses"

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/genosprituality_srsly.php

It's compiled entirely by one guy. That isn't exactly peer review at its finest, lol.

[tama]

44. Making fun?

A quote from the link: "too much serious work to do right now"

Where's the fun in that, sounds awfully dull. Mocking ideas that are at least not dull, is not fun. It's dullness of a dull person who hates his serious job in service of serious business, his seriously dull life that reduces into misanthropic bitterness and envious attempt to make everybody else feel just as miserably dull and serious as himself.

Having fun there? ;)

[sudopod]

45. Well, you know, science, it's a living.

It's clear you didn't bother to actually read anything on PZ's site, because he loves the hell out of his job. It mostly involves studying exotic sealife and flying around the world on the man's dime to give presentations on his work. I guess it's better than making shit up millenia after the fact to justify stories written by desert nomads about their angrygod. Stories which were added to by a subsect of the same centuries later (then backdated), then compiled into One Big Important Book because the Emperor of Rome tripped balls before a battle that he managed to win.

By the way, has anyone consulted the Bhuddists and the Hindus about how they think science works? We wouldn't want to be unbalanced while we are mauling science, after all.

As far as boring goes, I'll enjoy having guilt-free sex and drinking to excess while sleeping in on Sundays. Have fun getting up at 7 am during the weekend, lol.

[tama]

46. Is it?

I thought living is, kinda, living. And keeping on living is, like, umm, hunting, fishing, gathering, planting seeds and harvesting, stuff like that.

And then there's fucking priests, scientists, bureucrats and politicians that expect others to feed them etc. because they make stuff like money and rules. Which are funny stuff as you can't eat them but you can believe in them and if fucked up enough, force others to believe in them so you can live in eternal fear that some moment, any moment, those that feed you would stop believing and feeding you. Fucking priests, scientists, bureucrats and politicians who invent and fly airplains around the fucking globe burning fossile fuels and causing climate change and deforestation and erosion making it harder and harder for the feeding subclass to feed anyone, including themselves. Go fuck yourself, guilt-free, on every sunday and every other day, happy masturbating! :)

Yeah, and what I bother to read and what not seems to be just as clear to you as quoting Robert Anton Wilson ("model agnostic" of not just religious dogmas but every fucking thing) is proof that the quoter is a Xian Creationist who goes to Church on Sunday morning. Amazing deductive power! It couldn't have anything to do with the "logic" that if he ain't on our side merrily bashing the fucking stupid Xian creationist but dares to have doubts about non-intelligent Big Bang creationism etc., he must be on the other side. Where did I hear that last time, "with us or against us"?

[sudopod]

48. You been drinking?

or is English not your first language? :P

[tama]

57. English not my native language

mee a stoopeed fooreeegnuuurrrr

[sudopod]

49. You say scientists are dull and science is wrong.

And you do so in a subthread making fun of creationsists. What did you think was going to happen?

If you have a beef with any given scientific idea, feel free to say something about it. If you can make a good argument, or even better, DO something in real life (and carefully document it!) to show that peoples' current understanding is wrong, then awesome, go do it. I'll be the first to give you a fist-bump. Until then, you're just being a contrary jackass.

"OOOH, the universe was made by unicorns. PROVE ME WRONG!"

[tama]

60. No, you say so

Scientists who believe mind=brain (reduction of mental phenomena to classical mechanics) are wrong. That hypothesis is not logically sound and it is empirically falsified (by e.g placebo effect).

There are also scientists who don't believe in that falsified hypothesis. Categorical statements "scientists" and "science" is this or that should be avoided. "SOME scientists..." sounds much better way to start a sentence.

[sudopod]

66. O RLY

color me skeptical. :3

[tama]

70. Yup

I color you skeptical of anything and all but your dogmatic world view of mind=brain. Also hypocritical in regards to scientific method which clearly falsifies that hypothesis.

Real skeptics call your ilk pseudoskeptic fundamentalists. :)

[sudopod]

71. It must be great to be smarter than every brain scientist in the world.

Such a tragedy that supergenius of your caliber is ignored.

[tama]

74. Being smart

is not great as such and nothing to be proud of. There are many people smarter and wiser than me, I cannot claim that I have many original ideas. But I like to listen and keep my mind open.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. I will say this. If consciousness is a non-localized, emergent phenomena

it might explain why so many different "people" on this board oddly spout nearly-identical lines of gibberish.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Robert A. Wilson, bless his departed soul, would whizz in your Mr Coffee for defending creationists.

He was enthusiastically scientific about his approach to everything. How the hell do you get "dogmatic materialist fundamentalism" from modern physics or the current state of scientific cosmology? Those fields are full of people wholly unafraid to ask hard questions, and the answers (and further questions) theories and reality maps they are constantly updating -via, again, rigid scientific method- are WAY weirder than anything some what-the-bleep goober's 6,000 year old "spirit guide" Ramtha might have dreamed up on a mushroom trip.

The one thing genuine scientists refuse to do is give equal weight to unsubstantiated gibberish- like, say, "intelligent design"- as they give to hypothesis backed up by verifiable evidence.

[tama]

59. RAW

is on neither side of the BORING, stupid and destructive American debate between christian fundies and materialist fundies but against both sides of stupidity. I'm not American but we do get to suffer from that debate also elsewhere.

Science is fascinating and far out wierd but "irrational rationalists" as RAW calls materialist fundies who claim to speak for science are not.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. That "both sides" false equivalence is bullshit. And it's a classic tactic.

It's like, "oh, you're both wedded to your dogma- those of you who claim that the fossil evidence proves evolution (it does, as does our DNA), and those of you who claim that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark."

There is no "both sides" and your fantasies of "irrational rationalists" are just that. This idea that there are mean gangs of materialist dogmatists persecuting scientific-minded creationists who just want legitimate inquiry is beyond fucking absurd.

Like I said, Wilson took a decidedly scientific, skeptical approach to everything. That some people have taken his writing as an open endorsement of every slice of woo under the sun (just as some have mis-read his stuff as implying there really are conspiracies behind every corner) isn't the dude's fault.

[tama]

78. Irrational rationalist

is not my fantasy but a quote from RAW. Read again from above.

Wilson was a pyrrhonian sceptic, which is very sound philosophy and not in conflict with discordianism, buddhism and taoism, that RAW also subscribed to.

You may be aware that there are differences between science as an ideal, scientific community, creative edge science (geniouses and loonies, often impossible to tell the difference and often social misfits who don't survive the social reality of academic rivalry), mainstream science (those of political talent who know best how lick ass and climb up in the academic hierarchy to be another pompous ass) and dogmatic pseudosceptic groups pretending to speak for Science and respond to every original idea and phenomenon that does not fit their belief system with "kook" and "woo woo" and denial.

Creationism is creationism, whether one claims "God created it" or "Big Bang created it". It's perfectly OK to remain VERY sceptical of both versions of the creation myth (Aristotelian version: Immovable Mover made it move), that is founded on psychological notion of time and objectyfying being and happening as "it", a substantive (why not verb?), and think openly also other possibilities, geometric time, quantum jumps constantly rewriting both history and future and what not.

I'm now reading this article: http://consc.net/papers/matrix.html

[Warren DeMontague]

83. "Creationism is creationism, whether one claims "God created it" or "Big Bang created it".- WRONG.

There is scientific, qualitative and quantitative physical evidence for the big bang, in the form of 3 degrees of microwave background radiation.

You're ascribing ideas, dogma, and assorted shit to people ---like, the ones who comprise your mythically dogmatic "mainstream science"- that no one except you has floated in this thread.


Again, the false equivalence is bullshit, if you've got another scientific explanation for that 3 degrees of microwave background radiation, wonderful-- but to assert that somehow modern cosmology is just as much a fairy tale as the book of Genesis.. that's not just fucking ridiculous, it's intellectual laziness to boot.

[tama]

88. In conclusion, 'reality' is a concept borrowed from the theologians

You are still fighting that game which I'm not participating in. By all means, declare you side the winner of your intrafight.

One thought experiment I like to entertain is the anthropic principle (also the quantum version). Let's see how it goes this time:

Observation events like these keep happening, including self-consciouss observation events of observers like us - sentient beings with ability to imagine many kinds of forms, including mathematics. Each observation event rewrites a timeline (which we can call a "quantum jump") the whole timeline, both history and future and all the required math and physics. Codependently the history needs to allow observer events like us emerging. It appears as such as we observe because we observe it as observers as such.

I also often find myself thinking that the Earth is a mental asylum where humans are the patients.

Or some wierd social experiment of bored extraterrestrials of "superior" intellect.

Or that there never was a Big Bang in terms of naive realism, we are just mental images inside a consciouss but very lonely Singularity.

Or that Singularity is a holographic quantum computer we made in the future that became consciouss.

Weirdly enough, none of these thoughts exclude each other. :)

[Warren DeMontague]

92. You're wrong in two areas: One, that there is some conspiracy of "dogmatic materialists" w/an agenda

of keeping you from speculating on whatever you want..


And two, that any of this has jack diddly shit with the utter lack of legitimacy of creationist arguments. Earth as a social experiment of bored extraterrestrials is rather like Earth as a moral testing ground for a sex-obsessed bearded old man in the sky, except that the scientific process by which the universe would produce bored extraterrestrials (if not the physics of relatively speedy interstellar travel) is a fairly legitimate and logically consistent thought experiment.

The bottom line, is, all this speculation is wonderful, I've been known to do it myself- but none of it becomes science until it is verifiable and backed up by evidence and logical theory. Modern cosmology has such a basis, as does the evolution (or "emergence", if you will) of life on Earth. "Creationism"- not the bullshit peddled by the Discovery Institute, not any of it- does NOT.

[tama]

100. First

I'm not suggesting any conspiracy, just normal tribalism of shared ideology and a good enemy to keep the ranks united.

(and I'm not against tribalism, I just prefer tribalism based on ideology of mutual support and compassion and good enemy of "us against them" structures)

>>>verifiable and backed up by evidence and logical theory.<<<

I have nothing against these criteria. But I do like to think and remind that these same criteria can support a great variety of theories simultaneously. As we know from great variety of empirically equivalent but mathematically different quantum theories and even greater number of interpretations of the mathematical descriptions. Funny thing about quantum states are that there is no real need to consider these theories and interpretations rivals, except when fighting for funds and glory.


I do have an axe to grind with the hypothesis that mental phenomena reduce classical mechanics, for multitude of reasons.
1) it's not a scientific theory in the sense of fully developed description of mathematical physics, just an assumption and working hypothesis that for some peculiar reason many people choose to believe dogmatically
2) it's not a sound hypothesis but a falsified one because it does not hold up to empirical evidence - such as mental causation of the placebo anomaly.

I could go on but 2) alone is enough to conclude that hypothesis that causality goes only one way from classical mechanics to mental phenomena is not a scientific hypothesis. But hey, as long as Big Pharmaceuticals make Big Money based on that belief, selling placebo anti-depressant pills, I guess it's OK. Though I think it would be cheaper and more effective to give severely depressed at least a window with a tree to watch, as there is at least real empirical evidence supporting such treatment. Not to mention humane behaviour and common decency, that science does not have perfect record of respecting.

So, instead of making ontological/metaphysical assumptions of mind reducing to classical matter or classical matter reducing to mind, its safer and sounder to think that they are just aspectual differences of an undivided whole, like two sides of a coin.

[Warren DeMontague]

106. I guess I missed the part of this thread that was about asserting that "mental phenemona reduce

(to?) classic mechanics".

I never said that, I don't think anyone else here said that, and most importantly, that's not what the thread is about. I will say that anyone who thinks that we are made up of little newtonian billiard balls, or that the interior of the atom looks like a little solar system, hasn't been paying attention.

That said, you've got a gimungo mishmash of things going on here, and if you have your own axe to grind with "big pharma" and antidepressants, maybe you should start with the prescribing entity, and not, say, cosmologists.

Returning to the topic at hand, there is nothing in quantum mechanics, or 'simultaneous quantum states', that says the Discovery Institute and Darwinian evolution via natural selection can both be right. That's simply incorrect, in all states.

[tama]

107. Yup

Well, the connection RAW's criticism against "irrational rationalists", it seems to refer largery to the phenomenon of so fundamentalistic belief in the brain reduction that the believers respond to all and any other scientific hypothesis with "pseudoscientism", "kook", "woo woo", "best candidate for book burning" and "herecy", etc., as well as believing simultaneously that their fundamentalism is scepticism and rationalism at best. It is a strange phenomenon, but well attested and surprisingly wide. In my experience there is connection between this fundamentalist belief and organized scepticism (CSICOP etc.), not universal connection but a strong correlation. You have never observed this phenomenon?

Discovery Institute is not something I'm familiar with so I can't say anything about it - and obviously haven't. From your tone I understand they are not anything but worth getting familiar with. Or should I?

[Warren DeMontague]

109. The Discovery Institute is basically a creationist "think" tank. With think in quotes.

Their operational M.O. is the exact opposite of the way science works; they start with the pre-determined conclusion that they "know"; i.e. something created life on Earth... (in the interest of maintaing a veneer of 'science' and/or shoehorning their crap into textbooks, they try real hard to bite their tongues and refrain from telling us what that 'something' is, but it's a good bet he has a big white beard, and doesn't want people fucking before marriage) ...then, they go around scrambling for data that supports the pre-conceived conclusion, ignoring everything else.

Let me add this about science: last night I caught a little bit of a Nat'l Geographic special about the Florensis fossils; you know, the "hobbits" carbon-dated to about 18,000 yrs. ago. I was struck by the excitement everyone involved had, and their determination to get real answers regarding this find, without regard to where those answers led, whose apple carts they overturned. This is science- this is how real science is- and believe me, no one is more interested than real scientists in finding out new things about our world. The idea that there is some kind of conspiracy in science to delegitimize certain ideas; it's not there, and if the ideas are legitimate, it won't matter anyway, because sooner or later, science will be all over them.

Now, as for 'fundamentalistic belief in brain reduction' --- again, that's not what the thread is about, and I haven't heard anyone here mention anything of the sort, except you; so what it appears to me--- correct me, if I'm wrong--- is that you took this thread as an opportunity to wage a pre-emptive attack on a point of view that you (or, maybe, one of your 'friends';)?) have had arguments with before, in the past. Not my problem, but still.

Lastly, since you want to make this point about "big pharma", antidepressants and brain function-- I have trouble honestly believing that anyone quoting Robert Anton Wilson would dispute the idea that chemicals can influence the brain (!!!) ... so, really, with regard to big pharma and antidepressants, wouldn't you think that it's not so much a question of a 'deterministic, reductionist belief in brain function' as it is an issue about which chemicals do what, and when are they a good idea? :shrug:

[struggle4progress]

26. The creationists are wackos. But your theory of the banana is wrong:

there's no way to domesticate a seedless plant; the current commercial banana cultures are vegetatively propagated from accidentally discovered wild seedless mutants; and because they are seedless, there is no way to breed them to become resistant to various diseases that threaten the plantations

[Johonny]

31. my fav is the fossil gap explanation

There are no "transition" fossils. The fossil record is filled with gaps. So every time scientists find a new fossil. They find two new gaps in the record that have to be filled. The more we learn the less we know.

[tama]

33. Of course

it can be mentioned that there are Big Problems also with the notion of unintelligent design/emergence. Such as:

- Biogenesis
- Emergence of intelligence

Both slap the second law in face (more order from less order). And the reductionistic principle 'ex nihilo nihil'.

- Theory of evolution and reductionism to classical physics are by definition both (at least semi)intelligent design. But neither can explain (or recognize?) intelligence.

"I Know My intelligence, which I Know is just epiphenom classical mechanics, is superior to any and all unintelligence blathering about quantum mind mysticism and other panpsychotic woo woo. And unitelligent Big Band - oops sorry for the freudian - BanG Singularity determines me to claim so!" :)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Ah, yes, the famous Creationist second law of thermodynamics argument.

Tell me, Tama, can you recite the second law of thermodynamics without looking it up?

[tama]

38. Isn't

"reciting" a religious word for believers???!!!

PS: "closed system" is a subjective notion, thusly in a mind subjectively closed inside a skull confusion increases. ;)

[LeftyMom]

51. Please tell me you're high.

That twaddle can't possibly make sense to somebody sober.

[PVnRT]

58. Actually, you're right, a closed system is subjective

A closed system is defined only by drawing some kind of boundary around it. The Earth can only be a closed system if you draw a sphere around the planet at the edge of the atmosphere. The solar system is only a closed system if you draw a boundary somewhere outside of the Oort Cloud or the heliopause.

Now, let's probe the depth of your understanding of thermodynamics, and hear you explain how evolution violates the second law. Make sure to carefully define the boundaries of your closed system.

[tama]

61. Good of you to notice

I allready carefully defined the subjective boundaries of closed systems who insist that mind is closed inside the skull. ;)

By "evolution" I presume you mean Darwin's theory. I does not give answers to 1) emergence of life 2) emergence of consciousness, nor claims to give those unswers.

It's also good to get rid of other baseless presuppositions, such as 'universe as whole is a closed system'. For example, standard science has so far no idea what the hell is 'dark matter'. So it would seem prudent to assume entropy - thermodynamic and shannon informational - is merely a localizing phenomenon, decoherence from non-local or less-local coherent state(s), "superposition of all possible worlds" if you will.

Superposition of all possible worlds is funny notion, it's like limited only by imagination and maybe not even that but perhaps infinitely creative. But at least it's logical, what cannot be said about assumptions of more order/information from less or no order/information.


Edit:
PS: What do you think is the relation of wet and warm quantum computation in photosynthesis and the standard evolution theory? Or relation of wet and warm quantum computation in biosystems to various interpretations of quantum mechanics?

[PVnRT]

63. Excellent sophistry in an otherwise empty post

"So it would seem prudent to assume entropy - thermodynamic and shannon informational - is merely a localizing phenomenon, decoherence from non-local or less-local coherent state(s), "superposition of all possible worlds" if you will."

This makes no sense. You can assume entropy is "localized" all you want - that means you have nothing left to explain the rest of the universe. The universality of physical theories has stood up to scrutiny for hundreds of years, and there is no reason to believe that entropy only increases in our little corner of the universe.

"But at least it's logical, what cannot be said about assumptions of more order/information from less or no order/information."

By that "logic," how do children form in the womb? You're going from unordered (millions of sperm wriggling about randomly in a stream) to ordered (a human being). Your "logic" would say that this is impossible. The second law, which clearly you do not understand, does not forbid order arising from non-order. You just need energy to do it, which will increase disorder somewhere else.

[tama]

68. Universe and universal wave function

"You can assume entropy is "localized" all you want - that means you have nothing left to explain the rest of the universe. The universality of physical theories has stood up to scrutiny for hundreds of years, and there is no reason to believe that entropy only increases in our little corner of the universe."

It's not just my assumption - rather the probem seems to be false expectation of what is an explanation.

"Decoherence" is the standard word for the (thermodynamic and Shannon) entropic process of how the observable world unfolds from quantum potential. Decoherence does not presume anything about collapse or non collapse of wave function. Or the fate of universal wave function.

Word "local" in scientific jargon means 4D space where local classical processes take place. I'm sure you are aware of Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky experiment of non-local phenomena.

Modern theoretical physics is about trying to combine relativity of local 4D world and quantum theory by means of mathematically modelling higher dimensional worlds etc. So at least theoretical physics has math left to explain the rest of the universe (that cannot be measured by 4D local measurement devices). Empirical science brings up constantly new information that is conflictory with former standard assumptions. Quantum mind approaches are sensible and logical approaches to trying to include also the observer in this obsevable world the decohers from quantum coherence. The notions and scopes of entropy, negentropy, syntropy, gravity, information and thermodynamics are in flux when trying to put together the big puzzle of TOE. Modern theoretical physics is indeed fascinating.

On the other hand, classical physics as lectured in science classes of the fine and upstanding educational institutes of America is "laymans physics" as Henry Stapp puts it. It's dull, mechanical, technocratic and raises the question, how such dull, mechanical and technocratic processes could create something as fascinating and rich as modern physics. :)

Indeed, how does a seed grow into a soft and moist plant that utilizes quantum computation in photosynthesis? It's a mystery, and as far as classical physics go, unsolvable mystery. It's beyond the scope of explanatory power of laymans physics.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

64. No, recitatiion is not a religious word for believers.

It's a word for students. Anybody who's ever studied physics, for example, or biology, for another, should be capable of recitation.

"PS: "closed system" is a subjective notion"

Um, no it's not. It's rather objective. So is "isolated system." Particularly in the context of physics.

So tell me, tama, which organizms live in a closed, isolated system?

[tama]

82. Well I ain't a student no more

and don't like to recite what some Higher Authority wants me to dogmatically recite. I've found out that to keep on learning one needs also to delearn, to drop some burdens of cultural and linguistic conditioning when they become obstacles of keeping on learning. You can call me an anarchist.

By "objective" I presume you mean some version of metaphysical idealism?

This body-mind whole that is called tama is not a closed, isolated system, that much I can tell. As far as I care, you can be what you believe.

"You are showing a closed mind, not an open mind. According to second law of thermodynamics confusion increases in closed systems" is a taunt I picked up from Jack Sarfatti. I use it because it amuses me. Hey, this time I recited it word by word instead of applying the metaphor creatively. Happier now? :)

BTW I just read an article about quantum psychology and mental disorders that does indeed suggest that disorder arises from blocking active information (a Bohmian notion). And from where I look, the whole society seems to be in mental disorder, in state of collective insanity. Being not a closed system, I'm also part of this collective insanity. But as they say in AA, the first step of curing is admitting the disease. :)

PS: If you are interested I can search up the link to the article. But only if you are interested.

[Warren DeMontague]

84. AA, and the "Oxford Group", was also linked to moral re-armament and the Nazis.

If you want to talk science, I'd suggest not bringing the 12 steps into it.

[tama]

89. Umm

What has science to do with morality?

Of course, the assumption of collective insanity does not exclude scientists either, moral or immoral. :)

[Warren DeMontague]

93. I don't know. I think pretending to be something you're not is fairly immoral.

Doing it over and over again, day in and day out, is even worse.

And whatever sort of "insanity" may be driving the behavior, IMHO the individual involved ought to find another outlet.

[tama]

103. Hmm...

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,"

[Warren DeMontague]

104. Yeah.

I've noticed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

87. Obviously.

It doesn't appear you were one for very long either.

"and don't like to recite what some Higher Authority wants me to dogmatically recite.

Unfortunately for you, physics is dogmatic, and does require memorization. Maybe if you had learned about the laws of thermodynamics, you wouldn't be getting them so wrong.

"this body-mind whole that is called tama is not a closed, isolated system, that much I can tell."

That's exactly my point. You are not a closed, isolated system. You are capable of becoming more complex, despite your reluctance to do so. More to the point, so is every other organism on the planet. Or anything on the planet for that matter, since the planet is not a closed system. Thus, the 2nd law argument that Creationists such as yourself use is a fallacy. It's the sort of unintentionally humorous fallacy that the OP was talking about.

"BTW I just read an article about quantum psychology and mental disorders that does indeed suggest that disorder arises from blocking active information"

You read pseudoscientific bullshit. No surprise there.

"PS: If you are interested I can search up the link to the article. But only if you are interested."

No, Tama. You can talk all day about quantum psychology or chemtrails or timecube or how fossils were placed there by Satan to trick us. It doesn't interest m.

[tama]

91. "Pseudoscientific bullshit"

"physics is dogmatic"

Thanks for proving the point of Wilson against fundie "irrational rationalists".

Fervent belief that physics is about dogmatism and that non-dogmatic science is "pseudoscience".

If you are feeling angry and frustrated or having any kind of mental disorder, perhaps a therapeutic group hug from your pseudosceptic group of fellow believers would help?


I rest my case and disturb you no more by responding to your posts and recommend you don't read mine if they are too upsetting. Thanks and sorry. :)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

94. Oh, your posts aren't upsetting.

They'd have to have a point in order to be upsetting.

Your posts don't have a point. They're just random pseudointellectual words wrapped up in fundamental misunderstandings. And unintentionally humorous, like timecube.

Remember your thread about singularities in the R&T forum?

:crazy:

[Warren DeMontague]

54. Okay Mr Aristotle Materialist Dogmatic Science-Man. Explain how come 1 = 2 around here, then.

Shit, sometimes it feels like 1 = 30.

[sudopod]

50. You do realize that the enormous fusion furnace in the sky is constantly dumping

about 1 kW/m^2 onto the surface of the earth, right? The earth isn't a closed system.

[NYC Liberal]

55. Wow. You really need to do some reading. Preferably from scientists,

who know what they're talking about.

[tama]

62. No thanks

I prefer reading scientists and philosophers who remain agnostic, open and curious and creative. Not your dogmatic guys who allready "know" and tell believers like you what to believe.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. It's rather obvious you don't.

[sudopod]

67. Gods of Irony

"I prefer reading scientists and philosophers who remain agnostic, open and curious and creative. Not your dogmatic guys who allready "know" and tell believers like you what to believe."

We wouldn't want you to have to read things that you don't already believe in, after all. XD XD XD

[tama]

85. I must confess

that there are limits to my skepticism. As skeptically I try to doubt everything, including universality of categories of subject and object and substance, I still cannot doubt that mental processes such as doubting happen.

Phenomenology is fun mainly because it's not about making propositions that can be doubted, denied and believed. After a while, propositional games of being right do start to feel boring. Neuroscience tells that novel and challenging ideas keep the neural networks active and flexible. Who am I to doubt neuroscience? :)

[NYC Liberal]

86. Um - what do you mean "YOUR" dogmatic guys?

Science is about always being open to new possibilities. But there are things that have so much evidence in their favor that they ought to be accepted as true until and unless they are disproven. The laws of gravity are an example. Is it possible that we could discover somewhere they don't apply and thus have to radically alter our theories? Sure, but until that unlikely scenario actually happens, we can be almost SURE that our theories are correct.

[tama]

90. Update, old news

Law of gravity does not apply to Mercury's orbit which is anomalous in that regard.

Einstein's wierd theory of relativity and curved space can predict Mercury's orbit, but NASA engineers can still use Newton's math to send people to Moon.

As it happens, we know almost certainly that both current versions of relativity and quantum theory are wrong because attempts to combine them end up dividing by zero which is generally considered a no-no in math and mathematical physics. Hence search for a unificatory theory, so far nothing generally accepted.

Scientific method, according to standard philosophy of science, is not about positively proving a theory but accepting a theory as valid enough until it is proven wrong. Hence the slur "not even wrong" thrown against the stringy approaches that fail to make measurable predictions.

[Warren DeMontague]

95. Right, and that's SCIENCE. Which has nothing to do with creationism, homeopathy, or spirit guides.

These 'dogmatic guys' who you think sit on high in the legitimate scientific world and have decided they already have all the answers, only exist in your head. And I don't mean in a solipsism sense.

[tama]

101. Sure

but I'll keep an skeptical but open mind about homeopathy and spirit guides also, along with Wilson, McKenna and others. And even about creationism, e.g. in the sense that Francis Crick believed (DNA is intelligent design by ET's). Though I prefere the anthropic principle and quantum superposition of all possible worlds as an explanation. :)

[NYC Liberal]

98. And hence EXACTLY what I was saying.

"Scientific method, according to standard philosophy of science, is not about positively proving a theory but accepting a theory as valid enough until it is proven wrong."

And thus my point.

[tama]

102. We people

have funny ways of remembering EXACTLY as we like to remember and are made to remember. We are so endearing! :)

[Hugabear]

35. God put dinosaur fossils in the rocks to fuck with scientists

Problem: Evolution says that dinosaurs lived millions of years before man, the fossil record proves this.

Solution: God placed those fossils in the ground simply to confound science. Faith trumps all.

[Motown_Johnny]

41. or Lucifer did it

[bridgit]

39. What has more unintentional humor than creationist 'science'? The proof that it exists - check it!

[Motown_Johnny]

40. easy

Problem 1

God created the light "en route" so that it only appears to be older than 5000 years old, or 6000 year, or _____ years. (whatever)



Problem 2

God created all those things that turned into fossils but they died in Noah's Flood.



Problem __


God created ______ so that the ______ makes us think that but it is actually_______.

[old mark]

56. All religion is all this stupid - the creationists are just the icing on the cake of idiocy. nt

[la_chupa]

72. God created the beer can

to fit nicely in a human hand.

It was brillant really

[snooper2]

75. The 911 forum on DU

:rofl:

[LanternWaste]

76. Stoners discussing philosophy...

Stoners discussing philosophy and/or time.

Not that much more humor though-- in fact, the two may be neck and neck...

[SidDithers]

80. Not much is as crazy as creationist science...

tho the fevered ramblings upthread come close.

Sid

[Hekate]

96. Michael Steele has more unintentional humor, that's who. nt

[sakabatou]

105. Oh, oh!

Because of experiments which has nothing to do with geocentric models, we live in a geocentric universe!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X1isrPVtlo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNTwNhzvPO4

[ThomThom]

108. so god is just a trickster, manipulating things to make people believe

in the untrue. I guess that is better then the vengeful god that strikes you down for blasphemy. Just testing your faith I suppose.