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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

---

Welcome back to the dark side Mike. Sorry your normal lecturn is off line.I'm was on the fairytales site to hear the 'other side' as the other side doesn't seem to want to come here anymore. Although I have heard the otherside's arguments form many years. They don't change sadly. It's a boast alright. As for tongue in cheek - it's an easily seen through ploy. But it's all there to be seen (or used to be) so others can make up their own mind. Yes, they did. I have an allergic reaction to crap but i persevered. I can recognise when I'm reacting against something and try to overcome it. Sometimes it's very, very hard. I spent 4 hours reading multiple threads and much as you think that it's all about you, it isn't. You are very active there so you appear frequently but at least you're not actually obviously insane like some of the others. I don't think so Mike. It would require some form of mental derangement to believe that the earth was young against all the evidence. Similarly - but perhaps not quite so obviously - with evolution. In those areas the science is quite firm - to believe otherwise simply requires a religious belief, which I don't possess.

Yes I know that Mike. Like I say, it's a good ruse. The problem is, it's totally transparent that you have an exceptionally high opinion of yourself. For no good reason. It's not about listening, it's about thinking. You project this cloud of distorted logic and erronious, convoluted argument. It impresses the sheep but it's nonsense to anyone with a brain and actual knowledge. I do not. Bad ideas and bad thinking are my enemies. You're supposed to be a Christian, I'd take that as the base level - why would anyone hate atheisists? Sheesh. I bet some of your friends are homosexuals too? Sure, like I said, this thread isn't about you, it's about the barrier to thinking that religion puts up. If you'd like to contribute to that point, maybe we could make progress. How can knowing the answer not affect your ability to think objectively about a problem?

So far you haven't added anything to this thread except to comment on my comments about you. Well ok, you've done that now. So how about actually contributing to the thread?

Finally we get you off the subject of you and almost onto the topic of the thread. But you don't get to change the question into one you'd rather answer or redirect it back to me. This is the opener. How can knowing the answer before you start not affect your ability to objectively consider it?I came across this quote from a creationist the other day

quote:

---

—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.

Well of course you can do what you wish, but if by doing so you simply show to all that you're evading the question, why would you?The thread as proposed is about belief being a barrier to knowledge. So far you've made several posts that don't address that. Perhaps you could make a start? I think that would be a letting your side down, don't you think? Leaving before making a single attempt to respond looks like you don't have an answer; surely not so?

I do apply it to myself and go on to explain how. Trying to remain objective is important to me. I'm certainly dogmatic about many of the things that I've come to feel sure about. But I'll change my mind about anything, all that's necessary is evidence. I'm pretty dogmatic about that too.But this isn't about me - or MtW, or you, or Phat or Faith - it's about how thinking you know the answer to a question prevents you being able be objective about thinking about it. Anything to say about that? That's not an accusation, that's a report. You hold very liberal views that have allowed you to reject the parts of the bible that you can not agree with. You tell us this yourself.

There's no problem with what constitutes evidence. What constitutes sufficient evidence to convince a reasonable person about a conclusive result is a little more problematic but science has some rules about such things. And of course nothing religious has even approached the level of confidence necessary to pass such a test. That is why you have a belief not knowledge. As I've said, it does apply to all of us. Humans struggle to be rational, that's why the scientific method was invented - it's a process to remove bias.But, again, this thread isn't about us, it's about prior and obvious bias. This statement is the pefect example of it and I think that it explains why creationists can not ever accept evidence.

quote:

---

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. Bozhart

---

This is a very similar statement That subjective view prevents you accepting contrary evidence - in particular it prevents you accepting 'evidence' from the bible itself. You reject the 'hard' passages. Fair enough, but interesting never-the-less.So is this equivalent? I think not because we know beyond all objective doubt that people do not rise again from the dead. (That is properly dead, dead.). We have not one single confirmed miracle and the biblical accounts of them in your book do not even begin to approach the level of even poor evidence. That's why it's called a belief and it can't be changed by evidence.We also have obvious and apparent everyday evidence of suffering and eventually death in every single piece of 'god's creation' for ever. A human that set up such an experiment would be condemned as the worst kind of evil imaginable. But you shrug that off without effort. That's prior bias very hard at work.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

That would depend on the particular thing that you're looking to test. What do you have in mind? Again, there are multiple methods, what did you have in mind? If we're talking about testing modern day miracles, that's very easy you have a set up like Randi's.One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge - Wikipedia