The Barrier

I came across this quote from a creationist the other day—Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” G.R. BozhartWe humans are permanently in a search for answers to everything. Anyone with kids has heard the frustrated question 'but why daddy? from their frustrated child a million times. But people like Mr Bozhart already have the answer. We see it in different forms here a lot, from Faith's biblical inerrancy to Phat's 'I believe this, so there must be some other way to make this work in reality' approach to GDR's rationalisations and plasticity of belief. But in the end it's all the same, they already had the answer and therefore anything that seems to contradict it is wrong. Already 'knowing' the answer is The Barrier to knowledge.We're all the same of course, we all have our ideas that we think are correct and that's why the scientific method was invented - to sort the snake oil from the asprin. We're all ok with the rational, critical thinking approach when it's something we personally don't have any emotional investment in, but as soon as it crosses into that territory all our defensive mechanisms spring into action. Where we stand affects what we can see.I had absolutely nothing to do yesterday and the weather was vile so I went to Evolution Fairytales and watched Mike the Wiz with increasing fascination. He's an amazing egotist, often incredibly impressed with his own arguments, gloating about having PROVED something in highlights and multicolours and is almost always wrong.I don't mean wrong as in got the wrong anwer - though of course he has - but as in thinking wrong. He's learned every fallacy in the book and believes that he's a great logical philosopher but he commits all the logical sins he accuses other of - but in bold. (It seem that messing with text formating is determinate of the nutter.)But MtW is pretty intelligent in the IQ way of the self taught. He just hasn't got the ability to self-criticise or self-regulate. He already has the answer; he thinks he's smart, he either not had or has rejected formal education and thinks that his ideas are as good as anybody else's in any area of knowledge.This man can only convince himself but unfortuantely the internet has allowed him to connect with others of a similar shaped mind so they can form an echo chamber.It's all pretty hopeless really, people aren't built to be rational, they can only create it artificially with procedure - in this case the scientific method - and there will always those that refuse to accept it because of prior belief.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Did you want this to be a topic? If so, what barrier are you talking about? Perhaps the topic should be about nutters. I dont know if I should be proud to be on that list or not.

I've edited 3rd para - see if that's any clearer.And no, you're not one of the nutters ;-)

Thread copied here from the The Barrier thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

I don't mean to turn this into a Mike the Wiz thread but he's such an arse that it's hard not to make him the archetype. Try this one:

quote:

---

There's nothing to say about my post dealing with abiogenesis and evolution so I didn't read the responses from Popeye or anyone else as I won't get into quibbling the finer points as a diversion from my argument, I am afraid it is just one of those posts which aren't debatable, you either accept it or you don't, I am afraid there is no way out, the deductive reason I used is correct so in this instance there is nothing more to say.

---

Which was hailed by one of his acolytes....

quote:

---

Let me not fail to mention 'Mike The Wiz' for his God given logical abilities to put the conjoined twins ( Abiogenesis & erroneous evolution) together also. So without further 'Ado' BRAVO also Mike!!

---

Mike in his modest way, accepts the plaudits...

quote:

---

It's amazing over the years how many people have contacted me asking either for help arguing against atheistic evolution, one student even asked for help in their philosophy class, others join and feel the need to appreciate what I write by messaging me, etc...

​

I'm not saying that to boast even though the Toad is my mischief-avatar, I'm actually saying this because it's an example of reductio ad absurdum;

​

"If I have no ability to be correct then lots of people will contact me saying I have ability, asking for help, saying my posts are intelligent and a high IQ atheist will recognise my abilities."

​

: "ABSURD that wouldn't follow, therefore if they do these things, it follows that I do have ability for why would they mention it if I hadn't mentioned it?"

​

[ . ]

​

I am the Toad! The brilliant, the magnificent the indefatigable toad! Ho ho! Smart bit of work that. A good lad Popoi but no intelligence, one day I really have to take him in hand." The Toad swaggered down the road, his head high in the air. - Wind In the Willows.

---

emphasis as original.I suppose some of this behaviour could be forgiven if we were witnessing some real genius at work but his outpouring is almost always utter drivel. This is what all the acclaim is over

quote:

---

”If there was an abiogenesis then there was an evolution."

​

So;

​

"if there was no evolution of life then there was no abiogenesis." (because giraffes and trees can't be reduced in time, to simpler forms)

​

Therefore the whole point of abiogenesis is to supply the common ancestor for evolution. Abiogenesis only has relevance to evolution theory because if life did not get here by evolution then there can't be any abiogenesis.

---

I mean, that bit of error-ridden pseudo logic is actually a great example of 'not even wrong' and I wonder why he can't see it. He's put an awful lot of effort into learning that form of logical argument and its jargon, he's not totally stupid, but somehow he can't use the tool.He's a golfer that has learned the rules of golf, studied the physics of the swing, bought the clubs but try as he might, can't hit the ball. But doesn't seem to notice. In his mind every shot is a hole in one. His prior belief tells him that he is correct, hence, as he says, he has no need to even read any criticism of his argument. He has no need to look in the hole for his ball, just tee up another one for the next hole in one.What's even stranger is that the actual argument he wants to make is quite simple.It's that the ToE relies on something (colour it purple, put it in itallics and bold) to evolve from. Biologists haven't yet found that something and because it supposedly happened billions of years ago and must have been invisible to the naked eye, you almost certainly never will.Hands up, we agree.Doesn't change a thing though, evolution is an observation.
And it doesn't rely on abiogenesis being correct or incorrect.

What we see of his drivel here at EvC makes it clear MtW is just a drive-by troll who thrives on PRATTs. It's like he is his own caricature.

This is a character called What If. He promotes himself as an agnostic which should imply some doubt, yet...

quote:

---

the major problem i see is that the layman has NO WAY of confirming "the findings of science" in regards to the age of the universe.

​

i don't want to hear about the supposed stability of radioactive decay.

​

furthermore, i've shown without doubt that science has a "shady" side, where the opposing viewpoint is edited out of its papers.

---

This agnostic doesn't want to hear about radioactive decay becasue he can't understand the science and doesn't trust scientists.He says that science has a dark side because it doesn't publish the things he agrees with - those that contradict his religious beliefs.There are multiple problems here.He can't understand the science.
Firstly, there's no reason why he should. I don't. It's quite hard.
The difference between us is that I accept the science but he doesn't. I suppose the reason why I accept it is that I accept the process that discovered and explained it. I guess he doesn't.He doesn't understand it and yet he disagrees with it.
That's hard to pin down. Without understanding, he disagrees. Obviously this is because he's forced to because it contradicts his belief.But he also doesn't want to hear about it.
It seems to me that this person actually knows that the science is probably correct but is afraid that if he tried to understand it he'd have a bit of a crisis.He doesn't trust science
He says science has a shady side which is proven by something he knows about editing out opposing viewpoints. I don't know what specifically he's referring to but it's a common enough complaint from creationists and comes in various forms that resolve to 'teaching the controversy'.I think all these arguments derive from a misunderstanding of what science is and what it does. The majority of science's work is in posing and testing hypotheses, gathering evidence and forming conclusions from it. It's not a political discussion where a moderator is trying to provide a balance of for and against discussion. You WILL get a section on weaknesses in the study identified by the author - this is often a bid for further funding but it never includes theistic considerations. In the discussion section of a science paper you will never see the author of say, a radiometric dating finding say that 'of course this contracticts the YEC hypothesis of biblical dating methods'. That's as irrelevant to him as what the economics lecturer next door is saying about the 2008 banking crash.What ifs obsession with his own prior beliefs means that he's forced to take a different stance to discoveries in science that contradict it to sciences that don't. He won't, for example, worry about the penicillin he's taking for his infection even though the same method is used to confirm its efficaciousness as is used to confirm rates if radioactive decay.But why can't he see this?

This is BlitzKing

quote:

---

The odds against life arising from dead matter has been firmly established as way, way, way, above and beyond the mathematical threshold of possibility of 1 in 10 > 50 power.. You CANNOT sit there and play dumb and say that a SUPERNATURAL CAUSATION (GOD DID IT) is not THE required scientific explanation.. You no longer get to commandeer the word "Science" merely because you have forged a neurotic agreement with other like minded fools because you simply "Cannot allow a divine foot in the door". It is no longer acceptable.

---

This chap also doesn't know what science is - do any of them? - but he then comes up with this quote from a scientist to support his view...

quote:

---

"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 to 10-340,000,000. This number is 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there is only supposed to be approximately 10-80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!"

​

(Professor Harold Morowitz)

---

So I immediately thought that this was a creation 'scientist' but he's not, he's a proper, real scientists. Unfortunately, he appears not to agree with BlitzKing in a pretty fundamental way

quote:

---

Morowitz's book Energy Flow in Biology laid out his central thesis that "the energy that flows through a system acts to organize that system,"[12] an insight later quoted on the inside front cover of The Last Whole Earth Catalog. He was a vigorous proponent of the view that life on earth emerged deterministically from the laws of chemistry and physics,[13] and so believed it highly probable that life exists widely in the universe.[5][14]

​

In 1983, he testified at "McLean v. Arkansas" (nicknamed "Scopes II") that creationism has no scientific basis and so should not be taught as science in public schools.[15]

---

Harold J. Morowitz - WikipediaI haven't researched this further, I don't need to do I? He's cherry-picked this quote because it appears to agree with his prior belief.Well that's my prior belief anyway.

The context of the Morowitz quote. I have not been able to find a copy online so I can actually read the actual text. Richard Carrier is a bit of mess as a person, but I have no reason to question is research and conclusions.

quote:

---

Scientific ignorance also leads to the abuse of such citations, and you have to carefully pay attention to context. Coppedge, for instance, also cites (on p. 235) Harold J. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology (p. 99), who reports that (paraphrased by Coppedge) "under 'equilibrium' conditions (the stable state reached after initial reactions have balanced), the probability of such a fluctuation during Earth's history would be...1 chance in 10^339,999,866." In particular, this is "the probability of chance fluctuations that would result in sufficient energy for bond formation" needed to make a living cell. This statistic is laughable not only for its outrageous size, but for the mere absurdity of anyone who would bother to calculate it--but what is notable is that it has nothing to do with the origin of life. For notice the qualification: these are not the odds of the first life forming, but the odds of enough energy being available for any life to grow at all, in an environment which has reached an effective state of thermal equilibrium--a condition which has never existed on Earth. It is obvious that in an equilibrium state, with no solar or geothermal input, it would be impossible for life to gather enough energy to go on. Who needs to calculate the odds against it? Morowitz was demonstrating a fact about the effects of maximized entropy on a chemical system, not the unlikelihood of life originating in a relatively low entropy environment like the early or even current Earth. The fact is that life began in, and has always enjoyed, an active chemical system that is not only far from equilibrium, but receiving steady energy input from the sun and earth. So this statistic has no bearing on the question of the odds of life.

---

Addendum B: Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? » Internet Infidels

In general, yes, thinking that you are right keeps you from questioning and examining your position to test whether it could be wrong. Refusing to examine and test your own position precludes correcting it and thus learning anything.But when regarding creationists and other fundamentalists, that refusal takes on an additional dimension. As I was trying to express in my Message 10 attempt to answer Phat's inability to understand "biblical creationism", they start out with a theology that makes some very specific and particular demands which are not met by the real world and then proceed to twist reality to fit those demands of their theology. That is basically what G.R. Bozhart expressed in your quoting of him.In Unitarian-Universalism, we have an old catch-phrase, "To question is the answer." I rather suspect that it's a left-over from the 60's when we were to question authority, but it makes a lot of sense to me theologically. We "understand" and believe many things, but being fallible humans ever prone to error, we will inevitably get those things wrong. Therefore, we must continually question our own beliefs in order to find where we had gotten them wrong, since until we do that we can never any chance of correcting those errors. Furthermore, I was taught that the true purpose of religion is not to provide us with the answers (which will invariably be wrong anyway), but rather to get us to ask the right questions. The scientific method has proven to be the best approach to learning how the universe works -- like Slartibartfast, I have always been a big fan of science. But there are many questions, such as moral and ethical questions, to which the scientific method does not apply very well, if at all. I would also have to wonder whether most religious approaches would work any better, especially the dogmatic ones. That is a sticky wicket (if you will pardon a Yank saying that, especially since cricket is the one episode of "explained" on Netflix that I never could watch all the way through), but I feel that non-dogmatic ways can be found, though still more in the religion realm than the science. Ah! Seeking something even more vile than the weather in order to make the weather look decent in comparison. Kind of like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer because it feels so good when you stop. (sorry, USA Netflix has uploaded a lot of Monty Python content these past couple months)When creationists complain bitterly of being discriminated against on this forum, all I can do is to roll my eyes that they don't know how fairly -- no, better than fairly -- they are being treated. I had spent a couple/few years on a Yahoo Groups forum which was moderated by a team, half creationists and half normals. That worked rather well, but then the moderators started dropping off until we were left with just one moderator, a creationist. Immediately he established his draconian reign. A creationist could post whatever drivel he wanted, but the moment you questioned him in any manner, you'd be suspended. Protest to the moderator about your suspension and you'd be suspended again.I have tried a couple other forums with similar results. In one, I was suspended without any notice and the admin had set it up so that every time I tried to even connect to the forum I'd be notified that it no longer existed.But one thing I learned from a creationist on that Yahoo Groups forum (before it went south) was that the primary purpose of creationism is to convince. Creationists do not care about the truth. All they care about is being able to convince you -- and mostly themselves -- of their teachings and claims.Think about it. If you are concerned about the truth of your claims, when a claim turns out to be false then you drop it, right? But if you are only concerned about being convincing, when a claim turns out to be false but it still sounds convincing, then you keep it, right? That is why so many utterly false creationist claims continue to circulate. That is why we even have the acronym, PRATT.

I wonder. Perhaps we've not tried very hard yet?I know Sam Harris has done quite a lot of work on the 'science' of morality and believes that it *is* possible to objectively evaluate moral actions. I haven't read any of his books on this but in principle I think there's something in it. From memory, he uses the concept of wellbeing as the thing to be measured against policies and actions.Religion has certainly proven unable to be trusted with these concepts. Even when it has it's hands fully wrapped around the 'golden rule', it manages to pollute and corrupt it beyond recognition.So far our best attempts at creating societies based on real moral values has been based on our criminal justice systems which he hope is informed by an evidence base of what's right and what's wrong and what works. It's clunky and crude, being almost entirely punishment based but I guess it's a start.

Most creationists and fundies are ok with being Liars for Jesus.

The Fairytales site has been down for more than 24 hours now - looks like god hacked them. Maybe he's not happy with them.

quote:

---

Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'IPS\Db\Exception' with message 'No such file or directory' in /home/evotales/public_html/forum/system/Db/Db.php:205 Stack trace: #0 /home/evotales/public_html/forum/system/Db/Db.php(119): IPS\_Db::_establishConnection('IPS\\Db', Array, false) #1 /home/evotales/public_html/forum/system/Session/Store/Database.php(77): IPS\_Db::i() #2 /home/evotales/public_html/forum/system/Session/Front.php(283): IPS\Session\Store\_Database->updateSession(Array) #3 [internal function]: IPS\Session\_Front->write('') #4 {main} thrown in /home/evotales/public_html/forum/system/Db/Db.php on line 205

---

Tangle, do you believe in, or do the readers believe in, "hearing the other side of the story". (Because the way you talk about me here, one would think I had committed a crime in your book by merely existing.)This seems to just be an, "attack mike the wiz" thread to be honest, and you have used some gloss to pretend it is some sort of topic.The example you quoted out-of-context I think most people of ordinary intelligence would realise was a 100% tongue-in-cheek BOAST. If you're going to assassinate the character, in a court of law do you agree it's going to be rather obvious that you are only going to pick an example which is a misrepresentation?Most of what you have said about me seems to come from the fact that you aren't very observant. If you look at my personal details it says, "mikey mischief" but some people aren't goof at recognising humour.Humour is 90% of my energy. If that's true wouldn't I act like an arse and call you something back? But when have I personally attacked you or any other evolutionist?In fact to call me an arse is a synecdochic dysphemism. I thought I would mention that if I am to keep in character with your comment, and I quote;"But MtW is pretty intelligent in the IQ way of the self taught".But alas, I don't want to quote-mine so I shall finish it off; I have and I can provide many examples of that which you of course, would never show the jury because, and I quote; "all our defensive mechanisms spring into action!"Did they ah, perhaps spring into action here in this thread my dear fellow? It seems to me you have sprung a tirade rather than a leak, and now your rhetorical spin is all over my shoes.(Disclaimer: I haven't got a mensa IQ, I am slightly above average IQ, and have not claimed genius, only ability where I know I have ability. I also frequently on EFF make disclaimers and admit to what I don't know, and only have provisional opinions on issues I feel I'm not qualified to talk about. If you don't believe me, when EFF forum is back up, ask Piasan, he is a theistic evolutionist and we agree about many things, the reason being he is the opposite of someone like you; he is a completely docile, inoffensive person who doesn't try to character assasinate and go to war over every issue.)CONCLUSION: If the theme of your topic is true, could it be that it most pertains to you? What can't you see about your behaviour which I can, for example? What can I see in your posts, you can't?Example: You say things are wrong but don't give any real reasons why they are, you just assert a contrary view. You don't seem to be conscious of when you're using rhetorical-devices.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

HOWEVER, if I am guilty (which of course I am at least in part as we're all imperfect) then I shall try to not use the humour-boasting, even to my friends publically online, perhaps only in private messages where they understand the context. (toad for example, is a character from Wind in the willows, he is a boastful braggart, I use him as one of my characters, I basically pretend to be him, and the poster, "killur-bluff" already knew I was taking the piss.)So I apologise if I came across as an, "arse", and shall try to do better in future, and try and listen more.DISCLAIMER: Don't forget there are things we likely would agree with, so it may appear I am diametrically opposed to literally EVERYTHING you say. But I can quote where I said for example on EFF, that "not everything atheists say is wrong." I even said to killur bluff, "I'm not going to say the sky is green if the atheist says it's blue."And in fact you may be shocked to hear this but I DO appreciate atheists. Generally speaking I find atheists are more sensible, and tend to at least generally, be smarter and more studious that creationists. I even "collect" some logical insights they have.One atheist called Wibble, on EFF argued that a human print if found at say 5 million years, doesn't precede the clade for primates.I collected that and stored it in my memory as "good logic", for of course it would be much more significant if we found a human that was dated by evo, at 200 myo.The point I'm making is this, you only see me as your enemy not realising I'm not really anyone's enemy. Part of the problem is the innate nature of a debate forum which basically creates two groups, and we are then OBLIGED as it were, to go at each other hammer and tongs. And that guy on the other side, in the other group is now the person you're at war with.But on a personal level I don't hate atheists. I even appreciate them.I have appreciated things Modulous has said, Paul K, Parasomnium, and others too. I quite like Minemoose and Percy I think they run a forum with professionalism.Can't we all just get along.