Home Politics & Debate

Wow, just wow! Why science is bullshit...

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Not often I'm speechless.

Is this guy serious?
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh where to begin?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lexi99 wrote: »
    Oh where to begin?

    I find this is usually a suitable answer.

    ‎"'Cos the Good Book is a book and it is good and it's a book."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This guy is a charmer too, I just can't quite work out his political stance on things
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Not often I'm speechless.

    Is this guy serious?

    Bill O'Reilly always makes me laugh; he's such a colossal tool. Neil Degrasse Tyson summed it up brilliantly on Real Time with Bill Maher, saying "the good thing about science is that it’s true, whether or not you believe in it".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't know who Bill O'Reilly is, although I have a hunch that he might be a bit of a tool.

    However, however, however.

    What's wrong with what he says? Science explains how stuff works, it doesn't explain why stuff works. Do you really think that everything we have just happened through pure chance?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What's wrong with what he says?

    The preamble to that video, which I presume you've watched, was him asserting God existed because he didn't know how the tides worked. It was a bit of a joke in the U.S. for a while. This is his subsequent stance to clarify what he actually meant: that OK, the moon does affect the tides, but how did that get there. He's a superlative ignoramus.
    Science explains how stuff works, it doesn't explain why stuff works. Do you really think that everything we have just happened through pure chance?

    Your premise is faulty because you assumes a why, which infers purpose. If you're really after understanding why things are they way they are, you need to abandon the purposeful why.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't know who Bill O'Reilly is, although I have a hunch that he might be a bit of a tool.

    He's a right wing Republican with more mouth than brain on the Fox news channel (Murdock owned) ... and he gives that uber-cretin, Glenn Beck, a platform to openly talk shite.
    What's wrong with what he says? Science explains how stuff works, it doesn't explain why stuff works. Do you really think that everything we have just happened through pure chance?

    Well, in Bill's example of the moon, it's been pretty much proven that our moon was formed by a giant impact into our Earth. So why did God 'create' a random act like that, when he could so easily just snapped his fingers and the moon would have been ... *pop* ... created?

    Bill then goes on to talk about the reliability of the seasons and the tides. Well, doesn't he know that the spin of the Earth is actually slowing down ... so one day in the far, far future, there will be no seasons as we know it. What will 'creationists' say then?

    We can't be sure who or what set off the 'Big Bang' but the results have certainly been violently random since.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Has anyone yet posted Stephen Colbert's take on this? I especially like the part where O'Reilly questions why our planet a moon, when Mars doesn't (!).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The preamble to that video, which I presume you've watched, was him asserting God existed because he didn't know how the tides worked. It was a bit of a joke in the U.S. for a while. This is his subsequent stance to clarify what he actually meant: that OK, the moon does affect the tides, but how did that get there. He's a superlative ignoramus.

    No, I hadn't seen all of it. I'd never heard of the guy. Sounds like a typical Fox News presenter, all the brains of plankton.
    Teagan wrote:
    Bill then goes on to talk about the reliability of the seasons and the tides. Well, doesn't he know that the spin of the Earth is actually slowing down ... so one day in the far, far future, there will be no seasons as we know it. What will 'creationists' say then?

    Depends on who you ask, I suppose. I think seven-day creationists are complete tools, the evidence of Genesis being allegorical is pretty much completely overwhelming. The Big Bang did happen, the question is what caused it. Atheists believe that nothing suddenly exploded and became something, which seems a bit far-fetched to me.

    PS Love the Stephen Colbert :heart:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Atheists believe that nothing suddenly exploded and became something, which seems a bit far-fetched to me.

    Nope, you're wrong, that's not what atheists as a group all believe - they all DON'T believe in gods, you can't decide for them that they DO believe in something, that's not your place.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    True enough, but I've not met many atheists who don't accept the explanation of the Big Bang.

    Apart from maybe the Raelians...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Depends on who you ask, I suppose. I think seven-day creationists are complete tools, the evidence of Genesis being allegorical is pretty much completely overwhelming. The Big Bang did happen, the question is what caused it.

    Sorry. Depends who you ask about what? That the Earth's spin is slowing down?

    I agree that we don't understand why a 'Big Bang' should have happened, or why, but all the current research confirms it. Since then, though, everything in the universe appears to be completely random.

    13.5 billion years since the 'Big Bang' is a number one can barely get one's head around. During that time, it does seem that Earth resulted from being in the right place at the right time and subjected to the right sort of massive natural forces and incidents to become what it is today. If God had directly ordained this, why did he place the Earth next to such a small, inconsequential star, not even near the centre of the universe? Questions, questions, questions .. :)
    Atheists believe that nothing suddenly exploded and became something, which seems a bit far-fetched to me.

    Well, we know that for some reason, the smaller the subatomic particles, the less certain we can be that they are in any one place at a given time. So while I can see a chair in front of me, for example, as I dig deeper into it's atomic structure, the particles that make up the chair are not where one might expect to find them and can be in more than one place at a time. That's pretty hard to get one's head around too and sounds far-fetched - but it's undeniably true. So there is something going on with the 'Big Bang' which we still need to understand, although it's likely we never will.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    it's been pretty much proven that our moon was formed by a giant impact into our Earth.

    That is somewhat reassuring for someone who is uncertain about certainty.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That is somewhat reassuring for someone who is uncertain about certainty.

    If you fall into water, can you be certain that you will get wet?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    PS Love the Stephen Colbert :heart:
    You're like St. Thomas Aquinas. In that your world-view is also from the thirteenth century.
    I am totally using that on some Evangelicals I know :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    If you fall into water, can you be certain that you will get wet?

    I am no prophet, and to falsely claim to be so would (according to some ;) ) be a death sentence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am no prophet, and to falsely claim to be so would (according to some ;) ) be a death sentence.

    In that case, I am pleased that you are reassured. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    If you fall into water, can you be certain that you will get wet?

    Depends what you mean by wet!

    I wouldn't ever claim to be a physicist, but I do understand a little bit about the subatomic particles moving about.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wouldn't ever claim to be a physicist, but I do understand a little bit about the subatomic particles moving about.

    I'm not sure if you thought my answer on particles was patronising. I didn't mean it to be and if you did think that, I'm sorry. I was just using it as an example of things sounding far-fetched but are actually true. :)

    I must say, the weird thing about those electron experiments whereby they shoot one electron through a mask but yet two appear on the other side, if they try and actually watch it happen using all their gadgetry, it doesn't happen. But if they don't watch the exeperiment, it does. Boggling. :crazyeyes
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't worry, I didn't think it patronising at all. I think so much of it is really interesting, although definitely over my head- GCSE physics and A'Level maths. The water particles never merge with your particles, so do you ever really get wet?

    I think we're united in thinking that most of the right-wing Christian nutjobs in America are complete tools. They give us all a bad name. I was taught about the Bible and allegory in year eight at a Catholic grammar school, ffs, so goodness only knows why they can't get it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The problem in thinking is not one that is limited to professional idiots like Bill O'Reilly,though. There are too many people in this world who will state "science doesn't know the answer to this, therefore X is true/plausible." And it's not just on the god question, either.

    It doesn't take a genius to realise that if we did know exactly what caused the big bang, and what caused the thing that caused the big bang, and what caused the thing that caused the......well, you get the picture. And all you end up with is an infinite regression of someone saying, "But we don't know what caused that." This has gone on throughout scientific discovery, and it was just as spurious when people were using our lack of knowledge about evolution as an argument for literal Genesis as it is now.

    As Teagan pointed out, the question of "why" is also a false one. It sounds very profound, but in reality, it's a meaningless question. The question "why" only exists in the context of purpose, and purpose only exists in the context of intelligent consciousness. Therefore the question "why" when talking about the universe already presupposes an intelligence involved. And that's why science doesn't answer the "why" questions, because it doesn't answer any questions based on huge assumptions that lack evidence. And it's worth bearing in mind that while science may not answer the why questions, no-one else does either. Plenty claim to, but no-one actually does.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And that's why science doesn't answer the "why" questions, because it doesn't answer any questions based on huge assumptions that lack evidence.

    That may, by definition, be true of science in the abstract but could you claim, with a straight face, that same assertion of paid professionals who are given the label scientists ?
    And it's worth bearing in mind that while science may not answer the why questions, no-one else does either. Plenty claim to, but no-one actually does.

    See above.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This thread has started me on a total Tim Minchen tangent, which is exactly what I needed today, thanks MoK!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think others have mentioned it, but may as well chime in. I know science has explained how the universe came about, how the earth was formed, how humanity sprang into existence. That's fine.

    I still believe that it's a grand design. Maybe God wasn't the builder, but he was certainly the architect. There are too many variables affecting humanity's existence for it to have just been an act of chance. And to be honest, I don't really want to believe we were just a chance occurrence, the idea that we're here by fluke?
    Science may have answers, it doesn't hold any comfort.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That may, by definition, be true of science in the abstract but could you claim, with a straight face, that same assertion of paid professionals who are given the label scientists ?

    The beauty of this system, is that as long as you have the evidence, you can prove anyone else's claims wrong, which is why it makes up for the failings of any individual scientist who may be incompetent or dishonest (or both, in the case of that MMR/autism fella). An experiment actually starts with an assumption, but the experiment itself is the process of trying to prove that assumption wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I still believe that it's a grand design. Maybe God wasn't the builder, but he was certainly the architect. There are too many variables affecting humanity's existence for it to have just been an act of chance. And to be honest, I don't really want to believe we were just a chance occurrence, the idea that we're here by fluke?

    Science may have answers, it doesn't hold any comfort.

    Certainly? Really? You're certain, without evidence, that God not only exists (presumably a particular god you have in mind, since you capitalise his name and give him a gender) but that he designed the universe?

    As for science holding no comfort? So what? It's not particularly comfortable to wake up knowing that there are millions starving in the world, but I'm not going to start believing something else because it's more comfortable. Those are the facts, and when we get beyond the facts, I'm entirely comfortable saying that I don't know, rather than making up certainties that I couldn't possibly know to be true.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Certainly? Really? You're certain, without evidence, that God not only exists (presumably a particular god you have in mind, since you capitalise his name and give him a gender) but that he designed the universe?

    Yes. Because, in my opinion, there is evidence.
    An experiment actually starts with an assumption, but the experiment itself is the process of trying to prove that assumption wrong.

    Is it shite. It's the process of trying to prove your assumption right, particularly with an assumption that you've invested a lot of time and effort into. It's human nature- in the face of facts, people become more entrenched in their views. That applies to both sides of the argument.

    There are precious few facts about what caused us to be created, everything else is filled with conjecture. You can either believe that everything's random or you can believe that there is method behind the madness. I choose the latter, you choose the former, but don't pretend that there is more "evidence" for your viewpoint.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Is it shite. It's the process of trying to prove your assumption right, particularly with an assumption that you've invested a lot of time and effort into. It's human nature- in the face of facts, people become more entrenched in their views. That applies to both sides of the argument.

    'fraid not. For a theory to be valid it has to be falsifiable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That'd be why scientists with investment from drug companies always find against the new miracle drugs, wouldn't it :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That'd be why scientists with investment from drug companies always find against the new miracle drugs, wouldn't it :rolleyes:

    They often do. You just don't hear about it because those drugs don't come to market or are used for something else.

    NB You know that Viagra's usage now was actually just a side effect discovered during clinical trials, don't you?
Sign In or Register to comment.