Science doesn’t deal in absolutes; its only real claim is to represent our best current understanding of the universe around us… that’s not the same as “truth”.
UK Atheist
1 Like
Why the quotes around truth UK Atheist?
Sheldon, you tell me about the human genome please. Because if you briefly look into it you see a plethora of information just like you do in these long threads. Honestly, you and i have gone back and forth with words, that are full of information, as is the himan genome. Whats behind all of it other than a mind?
I made no claims about the human genome, as you’ve been told, now please answer the questions below about your claims:
- You claimed there is scientific evidence for a deity. So please explain why atheism is far higher among scientists, and even higher again among elite scientists?
- You claimed that the human genome is evidence for a deity, what objective evidence can you demonstrate to support this, and please explain why if this were the case, atheism is higher among biologists than any other field of scientific study?
You need to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence that there is a “mind” behind the human genome, not simply assert it with that argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. you have used (yet again) here.
“Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents “a lack of contrary evidence”), is a fallacy in informal logic.”
All you have is the same argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy you have used throughout. Like the woeful and of course unevidenced conspiracy theory about scientists and atheism you offered to answer question 1 above. At this stage it seems obvious you haven’t the integrity to address this, you’re simply dropping in, and repeating the same fallacious claims, then leaving, though thankfully it’s less often now, it is no less dishonest of you.
1 Like
Because of the way you used it in your starter post (capitalised and, as someone has already said, implying you believe in some kind of absolute truth). “Truth” (the way the scientifically illiterate use it) is an absolute and, since nothing in science is beyond challenge, science cannot deal in absolutes!
UK Atheist
1 Like
Is looking up the numreous peer reviewed scientific papers devoted to this topic too much like hard work for you?
Why do mythology fanboys always demand to be spoon fed, instead of doing their own fucking homework?
Oh that’s right, they’re hoping to come up with fake “gotcha’s”. Which isn’t going to happen with a scientifically literate audience.
Some of us have done more than “briefly look into it”.
Cue ex recto apologetic fabrication in 3 … 2 … 1 …
In the case of organismal genomes, try testable natural processes. For which we have evidence, as opposed to a cartoon magic man from a pre-sacientific mythology. And don’t try to squirm out of admitting that said cartoon magic man is the only candidate you have for your merely asserted “mind” here, no one here is fooled by any attempts at dissimulation you might want to launch.
Oh, and as for canards about “information”, they’re covered under Canard #23 in my exposition on creationist canards. While you’re at it, you can also look at Canard #20, which covers bullshit about “design”, and I cover more on the dishonesty of “design” apologetics here.
Look, learn once and for all, that some of the ex recto apologetics you’re bringing here, are now more than fifty years old, and were destroyed shortly after they were first erected.
2 Likes
Oh @WhoAreYou has no interest in learning anything about the human genome, only in parroting creationist propaganda that uses the word as rhetoric. This has been demonstrated over and over in the responses.
1 Like
Obviously because truth like most words has a generally understood meaning, or dictionary definition, and you the way you have used it negates this so that the word is meaningless, for example your claim “Jesus is truth”, you might as well say unicorns are shoe polish, for all the sense that makes.
1 Like
Are you sure about that? How can you make any claims if they aren’t absolutely true?
That’s an interesting comparison. Have there been any eyewitness accounts to unicorns being shoe polish? Or were there any ancient writings that that would occur?
Please explain precisely why that would matter. How do either one of those things guarantee something is true?
1 Like
I personally know of a family of unicorns who live just up the river from me who are 100% shoe polish. Prove me wrong. (Did I mention unicorns are invisible, noncorporal, existent beyond time and space, magical, and only manifest to the chosen few?) Prove me wrong!
2 Likes
I notice the mythology fanboy avoided asking if there’s any empirical evidence for this (e.g., laboratory experiments establishing the requisite equivalence) or peer reviewed scientific papers covering this … that’s territory our mythology fanboy avoids like the plague unless there’s some quote mining opportunities to be had.
2 Likes
By acknowledging that absolute truth is a rather facile and juvenile misnomer. More indicative of a closed mind than how epistemologically sound a claim or belief is.
I shan’t even feign surprise you seem unable and / or unwilling to address the fact that your claim that Jesus is truth, was meaningless gibberish. It’s as if you think we will carry on addressing each new unevidenced claim, as you dishonestly evade answering all objections to the previous batch?
I’ll underline this point by repeating the two questions you have refused to answer throughout this discourse, that address your original claims:
- If as you claimed the human genome is evidence for a creator deity, why is atheism almost universal among elite biologists, the demographic best placed to understand what that evidence does and does not mean?
- If as you claimed there is scientific evidence for a deity, why is atheism demonstrably far higher among scientists, and especially so among elite scientists?
Straw man fallacy, and I have to ask is English your first language? As it is hard to believe you think this:
Involves any sort of claim about unicorns?
OK. Explain what you mean by “TRUTH” and why you capitalised it.
UK Atheist
The ‘ABSOLUTE TRUTH’ IS: I personally know of a family of unicorns who live just up the river from me who are 100% shoe polish. Prove me wrong. (Did I mention unicorns are invisible, noncorporal, existent beyond time and space, magical, and only manifest to the chosen few?) Prove me wrong!
“DEMONSTRATE THAT I AM WRONG!”
(He just doesn’t get it does he?)
3 Likes
Well, I’m sure it would prove to be a rather simple matter to do so, as you are clearly wrong about Mel Brooks and possibly other things as well.
Oh Wait! You meant “Prove me wrong” about the shoe polish unicorn family!! It goes without saying (but I will say it anyway) that I believe you based on my faith in your fealty to the truth. Also, I got a glimpse of a distant cousin thrice removed, sporting a seersucker horn band and a pair of gleaming penny loafers.
Edit to fetch a tin of Kiwi
’Twas brillig, and the slithy hooves
did skriten come and skrimble in skwamp:
All mimsy were the bunggroves,
that he blegited to be outgrabed.
“Beware the mighty, unicorn, oh, skriten unaeware!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
blackend, polished, birds , become more rare.
The frumious Bandersnatch!”
Thrashinked manes vorpal in hand;
Eternal the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree
And stood awhile in blood…
As in uffishingly he thought he stood,
The unicorn with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling shoe polish through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpaled lash went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
Poor skriten never jumping back.
2 Likes
Blending in nicely with the shredding bark wisps dangling in the moonlight, his undeniable apish countenance was, at first, a startling disruption to the disturbing activities in which the horned ones were involved.
Plaster covered meat pies littered the ground like dog hair in June. Yellowed fat blobs and plastic furniture covers filled galvanized washtubs to overflowing.
While angelic sounds predictably emanated from the holy bird’s beak, awe and confusion became the eyewitnesses to what was to become the reference point to which all players of the sacred appendages were drawn.
Thick fingers adorned with rings of wild pig eye orbital bones, copious quantities of fermented fruit bits, matted crotch hair stiff from previous soakings, red-rimmed eyes glowing in the firelight, all served to announce the presence of the notorious flinger of poo.
Recognizing his peculiarly unacknowledged deftness at utilizing his supple buttocks in the pursuit of the ultimate sheen, the holy bird awkwardly placed the substance bearing metallic container near the center of the invisible orb as a welcome to the hairy one.
The horned ones grunted with eyes watering in appreciation of his thoughtfulness. Slowly undulating diaphragms, and flaring nostrils exuding multi-colored confetti, preoccupied the attention of the hair-covered visitor, while the holy bird prepared his “special” recipe.
The unexpected visitor proceeded to aptly demonstrate his unique talent for hoof appearance enhancement.
As the firelight began to fade, the oatmeal and moleskin cookies proved to be too much to resist. Greedily gorging himself, he was oblivious to the excited and anticipatory eyes of the clever ever-watching bird who was still clutching the remaining portion of the industrial strength laxatives and cayenne powder.
Emanating soft tweets of self-satisfaction, the holy bird flew from one magic horn and then to another, nearly bursting in anticipation of what was surely soon to come…
2 Likes
I don’t think that science answers all questions. I’m a mathematician, so science has very little to say about most things that I am interested in.
But if I want to understand my wife’s religion, I start with the stories that she told me more than a quarter century ago when we first met, and then turn to science.
I turn to Anthropology, History, and Plate Tectonics.
I use her stories to help determine who the leading experts are in fields related her culture, history, and religion.
Do you have a better approach?