Comments on: A Skeptic Goes Inside Noah’s Ark http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/17/a-skeptic-goes-inside-noahs-ark/ The official blog of the Skeptologists Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:44:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Wrong http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/17/a-skeptic-goes-inside-noahs-ark/#comment-69667 Wrong Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:56:20 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1256#comment-69667 You're reading the comments of a skeptical website, that'd make you just as sad and lonely as he is. A zoo is fine (Well, not to me, but that's my personal view) but indoctrination is not. How would you like it if I were to set up a fundamentalist Islamic mosque, with tendancies towards matyrdom in your neighbourhood, and call it a childcare centre, to lure the kids in and indoctrinate them? It's the same nonsense. A childcare centre, a zoo, they're not the objectionable part. The objectionable part is in hiding the nonsense beneath a useful exterior to confuse people trying to learn. You’re reading the comments of a skeptical website, that’d make you just as sad and lonely as he is.

A zoo is fine (Well, not to me, but that’s my personal view) but indoctrination is not. How would you like it if I were to set up a fundamentalist Islamic mosque, with tendancies towards matyrdom in your neighbourhood, and call it a childcare centre, to lure the kids in and indoctrinate them? It’s the same nonsense. A childcare centre, a zoo, they’re not the objectionable part. The objectionable part is in hiding the nonsense beneath a useful exterior to confuse people trying to learn.

]]> By: Wrong http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/17/a-skeptic-goes-inside-noahs-ark/#comment-69666 Wrong Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:52:23 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1256#comment-69666 Fuck you. Seriously. Playing the sympathy card is worthy of nothing but derision. You were never going anywhere. Oblivion likely awaits you. Nothing. You'll die, get put in a hole, and rot. Your consciousness will be gone as soon as you die, and you'll cease to be. That's about all that's likely. Your ancestors? They're wormfood. The Christians? They're wormfood. Me? I'm going to be wormfood. Believing in nonsense on faith is not admirable, and belief does not generate an afterlife. I'm sorry if it makes you feel bad, but hey, now strip clubs and promiscuos sex, excessive drinking, partying, and general fun, are all ok. Fuck you. Seriously. Playing the sympathy card is worthy of nothing but derision.

You were never going anywhere. Oblivion likely awaits you. Nothing. You’ll die, get put in a hole, and rot. Your consciousness will be gone as soon as you die, and you’ll cease to be. That’s about all that’s likely.

Your ancestors? They’re wormfood. The Christians? They’re wormfood. Me? I’m going to be wormfood.

Believing in nonsense on faith is not admirable, and belief does not generate an afterlife. I’m sorry if it makes you feel bad, but hey, now strip clubs and promiscuos sex, excessive drinking, partying, and general fun, are all ok.

]]> By: Wrong http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/17/a-skeptic-goes-inside-noahs-ark/#comment-69664 Wrong Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:48:01 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1256#comment-69664 I'd agree, but the important thing is steps: If a large amount of people are religious (And they are), then rational, polite folk such as Dawkins, come across as offensive, and lose their ability to communicate with the believer. But if you criticise the fanatics, the fringe, the wackos, then you eventually make the unsavoury parts go away, and can concentrate on dealing with the moderates. I’d agree, but the important thing is steps: If a large amount of people are religious (And they are), then rational, polite folk such as Dawkins, come across as offensive, and lose their ability to communicate with the believer. But if you criticise the fanatics, the fringe, the wackos, then you eventually make the unsavoury parts go away, and can concentrate on dealing with the moderates.

]]> By: Wrong http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/17/a-skeptic-goes-inside-noahs-ark/#comment-69663 Wrong Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:45:06 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1256#comment-69663 Actually, what you're talking about there is abiogenesis: How life came about. That's completely unrelated to evolution. That just demonstrates the basic scientific illiteracy we'd expect. In fact, some, more rational than yourself, believe in evolution, but believe the process was caused by a God who set the thing in motion through the creation of natural laws. Some, even more rational, remain agnostic about what they're unsure of. But either way, if you'd like to claim your position is rational, you'll have to disprove the muslims and the jews, the hindus and the sikhs, and pretty much every other religion, before your claim would even start to look like a rational explanation. Moreover, we have adequate proof of evolution, such as the discovery (independant of the theory) of DNA, and the understanding of the genome. Moreover, evolution is visible in micro-organisms, such as diseases, and is used in medicine successfully every year to predict potential flu viruses for vaccines. On the subject of biogenesis, the concept of abiogenesis is gaining ground, given that self replicating reactions, and organic matter, have been shown the be capable of forming from inorganic matter. This suggests that the process may occur entirely on its own. Also, you could answer the obvious question: How did several large carnivours go without meat for 40 days, especially considering that they were somehow managed by a family of shepherds. And what of the poisonous reptiles? Surely those are far more reasonable explanations. If you don't agree with abiogenesis, then you should remain agnostic about the issue, undecided. You can't just say "God" and put in your favourite imaginary friend. That explanation isn't a rational one at all. If you weren't raised with God in mind, then you wouldn't be interposing IT there. Also, citing a documentary: That's not a primary source. Attenborough? Not a scientist, though a respected naturalist. You need to find sources which are actually scientific, rather than journalistic. Actually, what you’re talking about there is abiogenesis: How life came about. That’s completely unrelated to evolution. That just demonstrates the basic scientific illiteracy we’d expect.
In fact, some, more rational than yourself, believe in evolution, but believe the process was caused by a God who set the thing in motion through the creation of natural laws. Some, even more rational, remain agnostic about what they’re unsure of. But either way, if you’d like to claim your position is rational, you’ll have to disprove the muslims and the jews, the hindus and the sikhs, and pretty much every other religion, before your claim would even start to look like a rational explanation.

Moreover, we have adequate proof of evolution, such as the discovery (independant of the theory) of DNA, and the understanding of the genome. Moreover, evolution is visible in micro-organisms, such as diseases, and is used in medicine successfully every year to predict potential flu viruses for vaccines.

On the subject of biogenesis, the concept of abiogenesis is gaining ground, given that self replicating reactions, and organic matter, have been shown the be capable of forming from inorganic matter. This suggests that the process may occur entirely on its own. Also, you could answer the obvious question: How did several large carnivours go without meat for 40 days, especially considering that they were somehow managed by a family of shepherds. And what of the poisonous reptiles? Surely those are far more reasonable explanations.

If you don’t agree with abiogenesis, then you should remain agnostic about the issue, undecided. You can’t just say “God” and put in your favourite imaginary friend. That explanation isn’t a rational one at all. If you weren’t raised with God in mind, then you wouldn’t be interposing IT there.

Also, citing a documentary: That’s not a primary source. Attenborough? Not a scientist, though a respected naturalist. You need to find sources which are actually scientific, rather than journalistic.

]]> By: Wrong http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/17/a-skeptic-goes-inside-noahs-ark/#comment-69662 Wrong Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:35:03 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1256#comment-69662 Stop asking questions. Next thing you know, you'll be thinking for yourself, and not blindly repeating the philosphy of illiterate shepherds and fishermen. Stop asking questions. Next thing you know, you’ll be thinking for yourself, and not blindly repeating the philosphy of illiterate shepherds and fishermen.

]]> By: Wrong http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/17/a-skeptic-goes-inside-noahs-ark/#comment-69661 Wrong Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:33:57 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1256#comment-69661 There's no such thing as a "Scientific Literalist". So speaking of strawmen, you just created one. Neither are there "Creationist Literalists". There are Bible Literalists (Who believe everything in the Bible, even when it contradicts itself, is true) and Scientists, since that's not open to interpretation, as it evolves to suit the best possible explanation. You can't scientifically interpret science in any way but one, so the claims of literalist viewpoints are idiotic. There’s no such thing as a “Scientific Literalist”. So speaking of strawmen, you just created one. Neither are there “Creationist Literalists”. There are Bible Literalists (Who believe everything in the Bible, even when it contradicts itself, is true) and Scientists, since that’s not open to interpretation, as it evolves to suit the best possible explanation. You can’t scientifically interpret science in any way but one, so the claims of literalist viewpoints are idiotic.

]]> By: Wrong http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/17/a-skeptic-goes-inside-noahs-ark/#comment-69660 Wrong Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:30:11 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1256#comment-69660 Well, that's a shame. Since the BANANA is a genetically modified, specially bred food, created BY HUMANS. The Banana is not a natural occurence: We forced it to. So that puts paid to that one. Moreover-that could prove anything. It doesn't mean god, it doesn't mean his god. I could use it as proof we should eat bananas and nothing else (Stupid) I could use it to try to convert you all to vegetarianism. I could use it to say that Bananas created US to eat THEM. As far as an observation goes, it's far from probative. "Convergence of evidence"-You're deluded. Two coincidences of a highly dubious nature do not equal proof or evidence, moreover, the evidence for evolution still trumps it. But I could explain two other things about those subjects: Human male takes less than half the time as his female partner to come to orgasm. Some women can't orgasm through the missionary position. So that's the angle/slant thing made into rubbish as well. Well, that’s a shame. Since the BANANA is a genetically modified, specially bred food, created BY HUMANS. The Banana is not a natural occurence: We forced it to. So that puts paid to that one. Moreover-that could prove anything. It doesn’t mean god, it doesn’t mean his god. I could use it as proof we should eat bananas and nothing else (Stupid) I could use it to try to convert you all to vegetarianism. I could use it to say that Bananas created US to eat THEM. As far as an observation goes, it’s far from probative.

“Convergence of evidence”-You’re deluded. Two coincidences of a highly dubious nature do not equal proof or evidence, moreover, the evidence for evolution still trumps it. But I could explain two other things about those subjects: Human male takes less than half the time as his female partner to come to orgasm. Some women can’t orgasm through the missionary position. So that’s the angle/slant thing made into rubbish as well.

]]> By: Wrong http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/17/a-skeptic-goes-inside-noahs-ark/#comment-69659 Wrong Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:23:00 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1256#comment-69659 I like how when I talk about Religion being wrong, then I'm the asshole. But when a pious jackass talks, he's peace and love. Well, I've had enough of it- What's that Atheist saying? "Science flies you to the moon. Faith flies you into a building." I like how when I talk about Religion being wrong, then I’m the asshole. But when a pious jackass talks, he’s peace and love. Well, I’ve had enough of it- What’s that Atheist saying? “Science flies you to the moon. Faith flies you into a building.”

]]> By: Wrong http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/17/a-skeptic-goes-inside-noahs-ark/#comment-69658 Wrong Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:21:09 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1256#comment-69658 Prove it. You've just made a hypothetical argument based on an untested and unproven hypothesis. Now, some evidence may suggest we're hard wired to believe, but that doesn't connotote a selective advantage. More to the point, you can't make a conclusion without a proper premise. Scientific education is the best we can do. We don't have to necessarily win. If we can at least take out the stupid (Evolution is just a theory, THERE MUST BE SOMETHING, The Watchmaker) then we're left with only the hopelessly deluded. By educating the people, you reduce those who can be easily convinced of irrational concepts, Prove it. You’ve just made a hypothetical argument based on an untested and unproven hypothesis. Now, some evidence may suggest we’re hard wired to believe, but that doesn’t connotote a selective advantage. More to the point, you can’t make a conclusion without a proper premise.
Scientific education is the best we can do. We don’t have to necessarily win. If we can at least take out the stupid (Evolution is just a theory, THERE MUST BE SOMETHING, The Watchmaker) then we’re left with only the hopelessly deluded. By educating the people, you reduce those who can be easily convinced of irrational concepts,

]]> By: Wrong http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/17/a-skeptic-goes-inside-noahs-ark/#comment-69657 Wrong Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:17:50 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1256#comment-69657 Such a shame that that progress comes by arguing, and refuting those people who talking to is a "waste [of] breath". If anti science movements get enough momentum, then it needs to be refuted, and the members need to be told what's right. I can attest to the use of people like Dawkins and Hitchens in making me give up my faith. It's a task which may seem daunting, but to give up for want of a perfect solution is not only pathetic, but it's fallacious as well. Such a shame that that progress comes by arguing, and refuting those people who talking to is a “waste [of] breath”. If anti science movements get enough momentum, then it needs to be refuted, and the members need to be told what’s right. I can attest to the use of people like Dawkins and Hitchens in making me give up my faith. It’s a task which may seem daunting, but to give up for want of a perfect solution is not only pathetic, but it’s fallacious as well.

]]>