False beliefs persist, even after instant online corrections

Jan 24, 2013 by Jeff Grabmeier

It seems like a great idea: Provide instant corrections to web-surfers when they run across obviously false information on the Internet. But a new study suggests that this type of tool may not be a panacea for dispelling inaccurate beliefs, particularly among people who already want to believe the falsehood.

"Real-time corrections do have some positive effect, but it is mostly with people who were predisposed to reject the false claim anyway," said R. Kelly Garrett, lead author of the study and assistant professor of communication at Ohio State University.

"The problem with trying to correct is that some people want to believe it, and simply telling them it is false won't convince them."

For example, the rumor that President Obama was not born in the United States was widely believed during the past , even though it was thoroughly debunked.

The prospect of correcting falsehoods like this online before they have a chance to spread widely has obvious appeal, Garrett said.

In fact, it has already been attempted: A team from Intel and the University of California, Berkeley, developed Dispute Finder, a plug-in for that was released in 2009 and would alert users when they opened a webpage with a disputed claim. That project has ended, but Garrett said similar efforts are under way.

"Although the average news user hasn't encountered real-time correction software yet, it is in the works and I suspect it will see more widespread use soon," he said.

But will it work? In order to find out, Garrett conducted a study with Brian Weeks, a graduate student in communication at Ohio State. Their study (available here), which they will present Feb. 26 in Austin, Texas, appears in the 2013 Proceedings of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing conference.

Participants in the study were a diverse group of 574 adults from across the country who participated online.

The experiment was designed to see what would happen when participants read false statements copied from a "political blog" (actually text prepared by the researchers) about the issue of electronic health records.

While some of the information, collected from news stories and government sources, was correct, the researchers also inserted several false statements about who was allowed access to these records. For instance, the message falsely claimed that hospital administrators, health insurance companies and even government officials had unrestricted access to people's electronic health records.

The participants were divided into three groups - some were presented with an immediate correction, saying that FactCheck.org, an independent fact-checking organization, had concluded this blog post contained factual errors. Inaccurate statements were italicized, enclosed in brackets and displayed in red, and a detailed correction appeared at the bottom of the page.

Others read the blog post with the errors, followed by completing an unrelated three-minute task, and then were presented with the exact same correction.

The final group was presented only with the inaccurate message during the study.

Afterwards, all participants were asked how easy or difficult it would be for several groups (including hospital administrators, government officials and others) to access electronic health records. Participants were graded based on the accuracy of their answers.

In general, those who received the immediate correction were just slightly more likely to be accurate than those who received the delayed correction. Those who received no corrections were, not surprisingly, the least accurate.

But the most interesting results came when the researchers analyzed who was influenced by each kind of correction.

The real-time correction worked well with participants who indicated at the beginning of the study that they supported records, also called EHRs.

"But for those who opposed EHRs, the effect of the immediate correction was essentially the same as if they had received no correction at all," Garrett said.

The reason appears to be that opponents of EHRs discounted the credibility of the source of the correction, Garrett said. On the other hand, the more favorably an individual felt about EHRs, the more credible the correction was perceived to be.

Although this pattern was also evident among those who received the delayed correction, the effect was significantly weaker.

Garrett said the results of this study cast doubt on the theory that people who believe false rumors need only to be educated about the truth to change their minds.

"Humans aren't vessels into which you can just pour accurate information," he said.

"Correcting misperceptions is really a persuasion task. You have to convince people that, while there are competing claims, one claim is clearly more accurate."

Garrett noted that, while instant corrections were slightly more effective than delayed corrections, the problem is that instant corrections actually increase resistance among those whose attitudes are supported by the falsehood.

"We would anticipate that systems like Dispute Finder would do little to change the beliefs of the roughly one in six Americans who, despite exhaustive news coverage and fact checking, continue to question whether President Obama was born in the U.S.," he said.

Garrett said it may be better to find a way to deliver corrections later, when people may not be so defensive about their beliefs.

Explore further: Enhanced communication key to successful teamwork in dynamic environments

Related Stories

Attempts to correct 'death panel' myth may backfire

Jan 16, 2013

Efforts to correct false beliefs about health care reform may backfire, depending on individuals' political views and level of knowledge, suggests a study in the February issue of Medical Care. ...

First International Conference on Quantum Error Correction

Oct 01, 2007

Quantum error correction of decoherence and faulty control operations forms the backbone of all of quantum information processing. In spite of remarkable progress on this front ever since the discovery of quantum error correcting ...

Recommended for you

Feeling bad at work can be a good thing

10 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Research by the University of Liverpool suggests that, contrary to popular opinion, it can be good to feel bad at work, whilst feeling good in the workplace can also lead to negative outcomes.

3Qs: Citizen journalism in Ferguson

11 hours ago

Tensions have escalated in Ferguson, Missouri, following the Aug. 9 shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed African-American teenager, by a white police officer. The incident has led to peaceful protests ...

Social inequality worsens in New Zealand

11 hours ago

Research by Dr Lisa Marriott, an associate professor in Victoria's School of Accounting and Commercial Law, and Dr Dalice Sim, Statistical Consultant in the School of Mathematics, Statistics and Operations Research, builds ...

User comments : 159

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dschlink
4.3 / 5 (16) Jan 24, 2013
Beliefs do not depend on facts or logic. They will persist in the presence of overwhelming evidence, corrections or internal contradictions. If facts could change them, they wouldn't be beliefs.
Sinister1811
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 24, 2013
This occurs with face-to-face conversations as well. Doesn't just apply with the Internet.
indio007
1.5 / 5 (35) Jan 24, 2013
Whether Obama was "born within the United States" is a very poor example. The United States itself is a legal fiction with no corporeal existence. Secondly whether Obama was born within it is a legal determination of to whom or what allegiance is due by his father.

The only thing the courts have determined about the issue so far is that citizens don't have standing to challenge his eligibility in US courts.

A very poor example of an erroneous belief.
Modernmystic
2.9 / 5 (21) Jan 24, 2013
Beliefs do not depend on facts or logic. They will persist in the presence of overwhelming evidence, corrections or internal contradictions. If facts could change them, they wouldn't be beliefs.


Well said. I've found as personal experience and in dealing with others that fear has a HUGE impact on belief and even systems of belief. If you're talking about any issue with someone and you're not speaking to the fear their belief is currently allaying then you honestly might as well be talking to a wall....
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (41) Jan 24, 2013
Which is why Obama and his propaganda machine promoted the lie that a U-tube video cause the death of a US ambassador in Libya,
NOT the policy failures of Obama or Clinton.
triplehelix
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2013
I can see this being used as a tool to ensure people believe exactly what you want.

If people put too much trust into these kind of programs then we run the same risk we're trying to avoid. Making a false claim and relying on the program to say yay or nay, aka, someone makes a claim about God, and people rely on the Bible (program) to see whether it is yayed or nayed. Plenty of evidence from archives show scientific information being held back or distorted, and is happening now. Evidence will out, whether someone says it's true or not. Rarely do I read statements for the statements. Just look at evidence, if you have trouble finding evidence for a statement, it's probably not true.
Grallen
1 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2013
If everyone was instantly corrected peer pressure by the friends and families of the ignorant people would bend even the most stubborn towards correct answers.

Thought, it would be VERY important to only instant correct indisputable information. If anything is ever incorrectly instant corrected, to the bulk of internet users, it would become extremely persistent even if fixed later.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (35) Jan 24, 2013
Or the false belief that socialism can create prosperity.

But there are NO on-line corrections by most 'progressive' media sources as this is NOT a false belief to them.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (26) Jan 24, 2013
I could have saved them the dollars spent on the study just by using this site. Ryggeson2, shootist55, ubavontuba, notparker and several others are perfect examples of people who hold to an uncorrectable belief system. Even the political comment by Ryggeson2 above is a good example.

@triplehelix, I think that could be avoided by teaching critical thinking to people. Or, perhaps more accurately, people learning how to employ critical thinking.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (31) Jan 24, 2013
Maggy, please apply your 'critical thinking' and objectively demonstrate how socialism creates prosperity.
Socialism continues to fail and every time some excuse is made and they try it again.
Someone defined insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (30) Jan 24, 2013
Epic example: global warming hoax. Posting direct refutation of screaming headlines has no effect on true believers any more than debunking of the Ancel Keys dietary cholesterol theory of heart disease had any effect on the authoritarian confidence of doctors. It not only has no effect but in the short term leads to the expressed desire to have such messengers literally arrested for thought crimes. I will now demonstrate this effect. The simple average of world tide gauges has been recently published as a light yellow plot in an update of the standard sea level reference paper by Church & White. Back to 1860 it shows the exact same rod straight linear trend, thus debunking all headline claims that sea level is suddenly surging:

http://oi51.tinyp...koix.jpg

Background: http://climatesan...el-data/
tadchem
4.4 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2013
I had a friend in high school who had a sign on the wall of his room: "I know what I know; Don't confuse me with the facts."
Most people faithfully accept the first pronouncements they hear on any given topic - true or not. Everything else is compared to that as the reference for veracity. Certain religions persist only because of this fact. The ability to questions one's oldest and most basic assumptions is extremely rare - usually reserved for science's skeptics.
HannesAlfven
2.4 / 5 (17) Jan 24, 2013
I think it's fair to say that this is the positivist response to the discipline of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). The problem is that CSCL is based upon a constructivist philosophy.

Whether or not you think this is a good idea depends in large part upon whether you are a positivist or a constructivist. Positivists care more about answers, whereas constructivists are more concerned with perfecting the process of debate and dialog.

@tadchem said: "The ability to questions one's oldest and most basic assumptions is extremely rare - usually reserved for science's skeptics."

The research included within the book "Immunity to Change" indicates that less than 1% of the population is capable of questioning their own belief systems. Their research very clearly indicates that researchers should focus upon the psychological processes underlying belief, rather than trying to correct people on the technical arguments.
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (15) Jan 24, 2013
RyggTard claims that the current administration lied when it claimed the protesters protesting a film, (not a U-Tube video),
were in fact video taped protesting that very film.

Now, their true motivation for the protest can only be known instantly. But we do know that RyggTard's motivation for lying about the administration lying is to support his own corrupt Libertarian/Randite ideology.

"Which is why Obama and his propaganda machine promoted the lie that a U-tube video cause the death of a US ambassador in Libya." - RyggTard

Why Libertarians and Randites like RyggTard spend their entire waking existence lying to themselves and others is beyond my comprehension.

Clearly it is a mental disease.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2013
I used to believe this.

"If everyone was instantly corrected peer pressure by the friends and families of the ignorant people would bend even the most stubborn towards correct answers." - Grallen

But when I came across classes of extremist conservatives who are willing to commit to any lie to justify their own immorality I slowly - over decades - came to realize that some people are just intellectual vermin, harboring such polluted minds, that they have no hope of redemption.

RyggTard, UbVonTard, ParkerTard, and the other Tards here are such people.

Death will be their only release from a life of self imposed ignorance.

The next message provides a wonderful example...

VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (16) Jan 24, 2013
There are now more millionares in China than in the U.S. And almost as many in Russia, Europe has it's share as well.

"Or the false belief that socialism can create prosperity." - RyggTard

In fact, mixed economies - What RyggTard ignorantly calls Socialism" have produced vastly more wealth than America has ever produced.

It is no coincidence that Free Market Capitalism in America began to corrosively destroy the American state when it was Adopted as official policy by Ronald Reagan, and has produced one economic disaster after another ever since.

Even RyggTard knows this to be true, although he will never admit it.

If he really believed in free market capitalism he would be in Somalia living a life of Libertarian Paradise.

But instead he would rather whine about "socialism" all the while parasiting himself on the socialist system that he claims he abhors.

Filth.

VendicarD
3.6 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2013
Here is an example of an immediate on line correction to Republican lies.

http://www.youtub...C4gM6QX4

"But there are NO on-line corrections by most 'progressive' media sources" - RyggTard

Such immediate correction won the election for Obama.

RyggTard does little more than post dishonest nonsense that he pulls out of his backside.

Undoubtedly lying to others and himself, makes him feel good.

It is all part of his mental disease.

VendicarD
2.7 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2013
Correct.

"Ryggeson2, shootist55, ubavontuba, notparker and several others are perfect examples of people who hold to an uncorrectable belief system." - Magnus

There are some people who are so intellectually broken that they can not be repaired.

Death is the only cure for some kinds of ignorance.
foofighter
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2013
For those of us who have been spectators of Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion, this article is totally superfluous.
Kron
2.2 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2013
Religions do not fall under the disprovable category as they involve variables that fall outside of the perceptible reality. We can say there is no supporting evidence for them, but there is no evidence against them.

Religion does not fall under this category.
Kron
1.9 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2013
False beliefs are only correctable by those willing to fully understand them. Beliefs are only false when the axioms used in their establishment fail in logical sequencing. Axioms are not provable, so truth is indescernible in reality. All we can prove is that the axioms logically work within the context of the model, the theory.

So if you want to correct someones beliefs, you must learn the axioms they base their beliefs upon and then together with them work logically to establish a model. If the model fails it will be self evident to the party you are correcting.

The big problem is in the axioms. These are subjective. Math is true. It will prove the axioms within the context of the model, but it cannot prove whether the axioms are true. So regardless, truth is not something that can be established with certainty outside of the theory. We can never know the truth about reality.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2013
there is no supporting evidence for them, but there is no evidence against them.

As long as a proposition has no supporting evidence it is completley irrelevant whether there is evidence against it or not. In either case it is to be rejected UNTIL evidence for it is presented if one wants to claim to be a consistent human being.

Because if you want to accept religion AND claim to be a consistent human being you then would have to accept ALL propositions that have no evidence for and against them (goblins, Santa, unicorns, ... )
jonnyboy
1 / 5 (17) Jan 24, 2013
keep hiding scott.
Kron
1.2 / 5 (22) Jan 24, 2013
As long as a proposition has no supporting evidence it is completley irrelevant whether there is evidence against it or not.

Supporting evidence is irrelevant in matters of faith. In fact, your whole comment is irrelevant as you are attempting to apply the scientific method to religion. This is fine. You'll find that in the end the evidence is inconclusive.
In either case it is to be rejected UNTIL evidence for it is presented if one wants to claim to be a [rational] human being.

I think rational is the word you were looking for. Sure, if you want to use rational, logical thinking, unsupported claims are baseless. Religion has nothing to do with logic. You need to learn what faith is. Atheism is also a baseless belief (no supporting evidence). If you want to take a scientific stance on the matter, you'd consider yourself an agnostic. To me an atheist such as yourself has as much relevant input as a theist does when it comes to God. I'm not interested in baseless beliefs.
antialias_physorg
3.1 / 5 (15) Jan 24, 2013
In fact, your whole comment is irrelevant as you are attempting to apply the scientific method to religion. This is fine. You'll find that in the end the evidence is inconclusive.

No. Having no evidence is not the same as inconclusive evidence.
Taking religion on belief is fine - but the person who does so just has to admit to himself (and to the world at large) that he/she is a inconsistent human being in thought and deed - and hence that no argument he or she makes based on personal experience or values can be trusted.

Atheism is also a baseless belief

Atheism is the absence of a belief. It is the OPPOSITE of a belief. That's what the "a" stands for. (read: it is not a belief at all. It is a statement of non-belief and therefore a consistent application of the principle I elucidated in my last post. If no evidence for something is there then it is to be rejected.)

Agnosticism is also an invalid approach. I'm not an agnostic on Santa, either.


djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2013
"Religion does not fall under this category" This is a good example of a false belief - Example - If you tell me that by pouring the holy water on my forehead - I will be cured of my affliction - and I pour the holy water on my forehead - but I am not healed - your belief system has been proven false. Of course - demonstrating that your belief is false will almost certainly not persuade you - which is the point of the article.
Kron
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2013
Do you believe in God, antialias?
djr
4.5 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2013
"Supporting evidence is irrelevant in matters of faith."

That being the case - how do you decide which god to believe in? There are many choices you know....
Kron
1.3 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2013
If your answer is anything other than: due to a lack of evidence I don't know what to believe, you are consciously making an irrational choice. Saying: no, I don't believe in God, despite a lack of supporting evidence, is equivalent (on a logical basis) to saying: yes, I do believe in God.
FrankHerbert
2.7 / 5 (21) Jan 24, 2013
Kron, do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Zeus? Odin? Ra? Unicorns? The Tooth Fairy? Santa Claus?

There's no evidence against any of their existences either.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (23) Jan 24, 2013
Religions do not fall under the disprovable category as they involve variables that fall outside of the perceptible reality. We can say there is no supporting evidence for them, but there is no evidence against them.

Religion does not fall under this category.
Bullshit. Science tells us conclusively that the major events in the OT did not happen. Therefore any sites which post claims that they did, can now be flagged.

Additionally, statistical analysis thoroughly disproves the promises that Jesus made to grant wishes for believers. This too can be flagged.

Thirdly, the claim that the bible is the word of the god it describes, has also been disproved as the book is full of lies, mistakes, adulterations, grafitti, and misperceptions about science and the world.

It will be very useful to remind people of these things every time they access it. It is one thing to enjoy fiction but quite another to try to sell it as truth, as something worth killing and dying for.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (23) Jan 24, 2013
2)  Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.  For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.  (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)

6)  And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.  If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.  (John 14:13-14 NAB)

-Nice feelgood stuff eh? But science, common sense, and the amazing randi all tell us this is bullshit. And science now enables us to flag it as such.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2013
Keep the denial going baby. China has finished eating your lunch and is starting on your dinner.

"Socialism continues to fail and every time some excuse is made and they try it again." - RyggTard

You know Tard Boy. A cute little british girl wrote a song just for you and your KookFart Libretarian/Randite brothers and sisters...

http://www.youtub...HXvQEOok

I like it.
zaxxon451
3.3 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2013
Atheism is the absence of a belief. It is the OPPOSITE of a belief. That's what the "a" stands for. (read: it is not a belief at all. It is a statement of non-belief and therefore a consistent application of the principle I elucidated in my last post. If no evidence for something is there then it is to be rejected.)


Atheists are partially responsible for this misunderstanding. Some atheists do make the positive assertion that no gods exist, while others hold the negative assertion, that they lack belief.

This is the difference between weak atheism and strong atheism. You seem to be a weak atheist, as am I, but I think that it is important to note this division in the atheists' camp and point out that many religious people may assume that all atheists are strong atheists who "believe" that no gods exist.
kevinrtrs
1.2 / 5 (22) Jan 25, 2013
"The problem with trying to correct false information is that some people want to believe it, and simply telling them it is false won't convince them."

Most people faithfully accept the first pronouncements they hear on any given topic - true or not. Everything else is compared to that as the reference for veracity. Certain religions persist only because of this fact. The ability to questions one's oldest and most basic assumptions is extremely rare - usually reserved for science's skeptics.

Belief in evolution - single ancestor with modified descend - is a stunning case in point. The belief persists even in the face of the latest scientific discoveries that shows it cannot happen.
You really have to be a hard-headed skeptic to break out of the
mold.

Atheism is the absence of a belief
How's that, then? You believe something that you don't believe? Get real.
djr
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2013
"This is the difference between weak atheism and strong atheism."

I think you are talking about the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. As anatalias keeps stating - an atheist is someone who does NOT believe in a supreme being. It seems like such a straightforward thing to me - but the internet is constantly twisted up in knots trying to parse the issue. Someone who says - 'maybe there is a god, maybe not - I don't know' - is an agnostic. Someone who says 'there is no god' - is an atheist.
djr
4 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2013
"How's that, then? You believe something that you don't believe? Get real."

The construct is pretty straightforward - some people believe in god - they talk to him, they go to church and worship him etc. Other people do not believe in god - they are atheists. Others reserve judgement - they say 'I do not know if there is a god or not - they are agnostic. Why is this one so hard?
djr
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2013
Kevinrts: "Belief in evolution "

Do you not believe in evolution?
sennekuyl
3 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2013
I think you are talking about the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. As anatalias keeps stating - an atheist is someone who does NOT believe in a supreme being. It seems like such a straightforward thing to me - but the internet is constantly twisted up in knots trying to parse the issue. Someone who says - 'maybe there is a god, maybe not - I don't know' - is an agnostic. Someone who says 'there is no god' - is an atheist.

Nah, zaxxon had it right.
Does not believe X exists' is not the same as believing X does not exist. I don't think it is terribly nuanced to the point of irrelevancy.
Weak atheists are agnostic atheists. They don't know if a deity does exit or not but think it is improbable. Gnostic atheist make the inverse claim to theists.

It is similar to the difference between a deist & a theist. Heck, it is the inverse of the scale of belief.
Sinister1811
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2013
Kevinrts: "Belief in evolution "

Do you not believe in evolution?


Read his other posts, and then this becomes obvious.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2013
Magnus is of course correct, science aggregators like this site, even this very thread, provides an ironic test of the hypothesis.

That Obama is Hawaii-born is confirmed by documents (birth certificate) and witnesses (his mother).

You can't touch this. Not because courts rejects the ludicrous notion that you could take their time to dispute it in courts, but because it is considered conclusive in all other cases.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2013
Creationists shouldn't comment on science. It is hilarious and helps makes deconverts from religion, see the article.

Biology is an accepted science. Its basic theory of evolution, without which nothing in biology makes sense, is the best tested science we have.

For example, we now know that there is less than 10^-2000 likelihood for creationist spontaneous creation of independent species as opposed to the genetic find of a universal common ancestor.

"Religions do not fall under the disprovable category as they involve variables that fall outside of the perceptible reality."

Thermodynamics can exclude magic, "something else" acting, by local conservation of energy, no outside influence. And since -04 we finally know that the universe had to happen spontaneously, the standard cosmology is zero energy so no outside action was responsible.

In fact, we now know that all FRW cosmologies are zero energy. So now we don't know how magic, such as gods, _could_ feasibly make a universe.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2013
Do you believe in God, antialias?

As much as you currently believe in gramblfunz (which is a word/concept I just made up).

Did you ACTIVELY believe in the NON-existence of gramblfunz until now? No, because you didn't know that the concept even existed and it wasn't an issue. Did that change once I told you the word? No.

Think back on the time BEFORE humans (or our evolutionary ancestors) invented gods. They were all 'atheists' back then. But they didn't need to BELIEVE there were no gods. It just wasn't an issue. To an atheist gods aren't an issue.

That being the case - how do you decide which god to believe in?

Believers need SOMETHING to believe in - it doesn't matter what that something is. That's why belief is highly correlated with:
- what your parents believed (what they told you you should believe)
- what country you were born in

Belief has nothing to do with the entity being believed in. The name(s) of the god(s) is just an incidental detail
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (19) Jan 25, 2013
Do you not believe in evolution?

The idea that all of life descnded from one single ancestor is a myth.

There is no way to observe such a process, no physical evidence for it and to top it all, biologically speaking we can now clearly see that it's impossible.

The uncovering of the evolutionary history is not a scientific endeavour - it's a search for origins without an Intelligent Designer.

It's main obstacle is this: Where does the incredibly complex life process come from if there is no Super Intelligent, Super Capable Designer and builder? You've got a major problem right there.
Without life, you have no "evolution". So you MUST per force explain where life originates and in WHICH FORM. If you don't know how life arose here on earth, you cannot make the kind of categorical, staunch and dogmatic statement[as you do now] that it was as the "single" ancestor from which all the rest developed. No one was there to document it.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (20) Jan 25, 2013
Creationists shouldn't comment on science. It is hilarious and helps makes deconverts from religion, see the article.

You are committing the obvious mistake of confusing the types of science involved.

There's science we can do in the here and now - observing phenomena, postulating, testing, repeating and either confirming or falsifying theories. This is what gave us radio, tv, rockets to the moon, genetics, the internet etc.

Then there's the attempts to uncover the past. This is forensic science or historical "science". This is more a case of applying scientific methods and tools in an attempt to discover what happened in the past.

Please do not confuse this with the forensics done by police investigators where the lifecycles of nature can be observed in the present.
The conclusions reached in doing historical or origins "science" depend on the assumptions made about starting conditions.
It is here where philosophical dogma drives the whole endeavour - not science
verkle
1 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2013
Allow me to make this statement:

"If you don't repent of your evil you are damned and will spend eternity in hell."

Do you believe this statement? If not, can you refute it? Of course you can't. I can show you all kinds of online information which backs this up. But will you change your belief? Probably not.

antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2013
no physical evidence for it

Do you know about the handedness of molecules (left handedness of amino acids and right handedness of sugars)? That's pretty damning evidence that we all came from a common ancestor.
If we did not then there should be an even mixture.

Where does the incredibly complex life process come from if there is no Super Intelligent, Super Capable Designer and builder?

Apparent complexity can arise fom very simple preconditions. Have you ever seen a Mandelbrot set (fractal image)?.
http://en.wikiped...brot_set

Wonderfully complex, never quite repeating stuff - made from a tiny formula.

Just because something LOOKS complex doesn't mean it doesn't have very simple origins.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (19) Jan 25, 2013
Think back on the time BEFORE humans (or our evolutionary ancestors) invented gods. They were all 'atheists' back then. But they didn't need to BELIEVE there were no gods. It just wasn't an issue

Just how DO you know this? Were you there? Did someone document this fact for you? You are simply making this statement based purely on what you want to believe, thereby confirming the first statement I made in reply to this article.
People persist on a belief in [the single ancestor for all of life] evolution even when they are told it is false.

antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2013
"If you don't repent of your evil you are damned and will spend eternity in hell." Do you believe this statement? If not, can you refute it?


Let me answer that with:
"all unicorns are bald and they live in hurzlheim beyond the great rainbow"

Do you believe this statement? If not, can you refute it?

Read: Your statement about the foregiveness of sins is as nonsensical as mine about unicorns. Just making baseless declarations (no matter how often they are repeated by others) do not make them truth. Billions of people believing in baseless statements still makes them baseless.

kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (19) Jan 25, 2013
That's pretty damning evidence that we all came from a common ancestor
Sorry, you did not cover/address the possibility that it could also have come from a common designer. You are hereby simply believing what you WANT to believe.

Just because something LOOKS complex doesn't mean it doesn't have very simple origins.

Then there are things which we KNOW are obviously complex beyond the ability of mere random physical/chemical processed to construct. Take the complex signalling required to tranfer ANYTHING across the cell-membrane for instance OR the complex gate-keeping signals that are required for accessing the nucleus.
The fact is this - the are codes and signalling involved which means there has to be DE-coding and a prebuilt response for it to work.
There is currently no known random physical or chemical process that can construct such coding and decoding mechanisms because those things are ABSTRACT and independent of the material substrates they consist o
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2013
Just how DO you know this? Were you there?

Since evolution is pretty well established by experiment, archaeological evidence, and stuff like chirality I just mentioned: there had to be a time when humans weren't capable of belief.
When our ancestors weren't evolved enough to hold something like that (depending on where you think the ability to believe started you may have to go back to when we were not much more than rodents or even to the first self reproducing modlecules in the primordial slime. Certanily at any point when a central nervous system wasn't part of our makeup is a 'safe' cutoff point for that statement)

Were you there?

Were you there when your fairy made the Earth? You seem to have no problem claiming others shouldn't believe in what they didn't see with their own eyes - but you somehow don't apply that to yourself.

As I noted in my first posts: believers are internally inconsistent human beings. QED
perrycomo
1.8 / 5 (18) Jan 25, 2013
Kevin you are the result of anthropomorphism , but it is probably not your fault your brain is wired in such a way that you see and experience a specific reality and all so think it is the truth . So there are in fact as much truths as there are humans . Now they want a correction model to take care that a specific truth (the government) will correct the internet and tell their truth . It is the same as censorship , those who try to implement this probably aren't aware that their truth could be a lie too .
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (20) Jan 25, 2013
Were you there when your fairy made the Earth? You seem to have no problem claiming others shouldn't believe in what they didn't see with their own eyes - but you somehow don't apply that to yourself

The point is that evolutionists make out that their story telling is true science and insist that no other story of origin should be allowed.

That's the difference.
Evolutionists do not want to admit that they are simply propagating their own brand of religion. Look up the definition of religion and pseudo science. Then apply those points to evolutionary theory and see for yourself.
Evolution is a religion that masquerades as science when in fact it does not contribute ANYTHING to science.
In fact it is a hinderance to scientific progress in that its disciples prevent anyone from raising alternate ideas about origins in the scientific arena. Anything questioning evolutionary thought is simply not allowed in mainstream science publications.
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2013
There is currently no known random physical or chemical process that can construct such coding and decoding mechanisms

Strawman argument. You believe n a designer therefore you say that nothing could have designed something from scratch to work like that immediately by chance.

Well guess what: evolution isn't a process where somthing is built from scratch to work perfectly in a second - that never happens.
It's mutation and selection over BILLIONS of years - where each TINY advantage leads to a shift in the direction of that advantage.

Take the complex signalling required to tranfer ANYTHING across the cell-membrane

There are precursors to cells with a nucleus (eucaryotes) which are called procaryotes which have no nucleus membrane (or any other organelle membrane for that matter). And they have primitive forms of the mechanisms that move stuff around in cells.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2013
Evolutionists do not want to admit that they are simply propagating their own brand of religion.

No. Evolution makes predictions. You can see where there should be a missing link and then say:"whoa - if we don't find one then it's been disproven" (falsifiability)
That's when we started searching for primitive forms of humans (and we found them. Lucy, Neaderthals, etc. )
That's when we started searching for intermediate stages of dinosaurs and birds (and we found them)
...

Then you can test speciation and adaptation in the lab (and by accident - as in the case of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals). (testability)

Evolution is testable and falsifiable. That's what makes it a science.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (20) Jan 25, 2013
You believe n a designer therefore you say that nothing could have designed something from scratch to work like that immediately by chance.

You of course do have supporting evidence that such a process or processes that can construct codes and decoding mechanisms actually exists and have been observed in action? ANYWHERE?

I thought not.

It's mutation and selection over BILLIONS of years

How do you know this? Did someone actually OBSERVE and record the process for you to know it's true? Or are you simply following the mythical story-telling you've come to believe? There is ZERO evidence that the statement you made is true. How can you back up your claim that mutation and selection over billions of years resulted in a coding and de-coding mechanism?
Has such a thing EVER been observed by anyone in the scientific community? If not, then your statement carries ZERO scientific value.

kevinrtrs
1.2 / 5 (19) Jan 25, 2013
And they have primitive forms of the mechanisms that move stuff around in cells.

Your so-called "primitive" forms are in fact super-complex compared to current human technology. Just because you need a mechanism to create complex signalling systems, doesn't mean you can abbrogate the right to call basic processes "primitive". You use that word as if to imply that it was something that arose in the far distant past from very simple beginnings. Right now, there are no simple, primitive parts in any living organism. There are only parts which unfortunately for evolutionists defy any notion of primitive simplicity.

Where did those highly complex "primitive" parts come from in the first place?
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (19) Jan 25, 2013
Evolution is testable and falsifiable. That's what makes it a science.

So let me ask this of evolution:

How does one test the idea that a single-celled organism can develop into a multi-cellular worm for instance?

Who is going to be around long enough to confirm that such a thing is possible?

Since we are probably agreed that it isn't going to happen, let's go the opposite direction:

Who can go BACK into the past to observe[i.e. TEST] that in fact Amoebas, Hydras and planeriums developed from a single-celled organism?

Evolution cannot be tested. Fails on standard scientific methodology point 1.

Evolution cannot be falsified either - there is no pure enough definition for that to be possible. Right now it means anything and everything to anyone who cares to check. If you disagree please supply a working definition of evolution so we can observe, test and falsify or confirm that definition.
You'll probably be in line for a Nobel prize just there.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (18) Jan 25, 2013
Then you can test speciation and adaptation in the lab (and by accident - as in the case of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals). (testability)

Sure you can observe speciation and adaptation in the lab. No creationist is going to dispute that.
Question is where or how then to extrapolate your observations of those processes into the idea that it will lead to a completely new organism.

Bacteria have been observed to switch from one diet to another over a period of tens of years BUT they are still bacteria.

There is no justification whatsoever to the assumption that just because you observe adaptation you can also have change of one kind of creature into another.

Now, about the antibiotic resistance: this has been found to exist in bacteria in very remote caves in South America. Those are places where no anti-biotic has ever been used or dispersed. So the mechanisms were already in place, just not used. It wasn't a result of "evolution", whatever that means.
Birger
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2013
We can study evolution in progress just by loking for the new MRSA strains, killing patients in hospitals.
We can study global warming in progress just by visiting Arctic regions.
Such studies of course require a willingness to change one's beliefs when finding contradicting facts...
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2013
How does one test the idea that a single-celled organism can develop into a multi-cellular worm for instance?

You test it by small steps. As I said (and as you conveniently ignored again): stuff doesn't evolve in one jump from "one molecule" to "tree" overnight.

You look at the evidence you have for the archaic bacteria and try to find every single step that could push it along the way to a nematode (and there are MANY steps needed on that path, so you'd have quite a few million years of research project going there)

A quick thing you can do is, for example, look at the DNA and see which parts are the same, which parts aren't and then look for organisms that are still alive which are intermediate stages Somtimes that may be hard because species do tend to die out occasionally* - and few reamin unchanged over such a long time.
Nature isn't a perfect lab archive.

(*Something that wouldn't make sense if there were creator. Why make species if you snuff them?)
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (18) Jan 25, 2013
You can see where there should be a missing link and then say:"whoa - if we don't find one then it's been disproven" (falsifiability)

By your own admission then, evolution has been falsified since there are currently no undisputed transitional forms.

In fact if evolution were true, there should have been transitional forms EVERYWHERE TODAY, right now as we debate. Transitional forms should have been the norm. But instead, it's so scarce that there just isn't any ONE.

The examples you mentioned are sheer day-dreaming. No respectable biologist or paleontologist will back you up on that, definitely not on a podium in front of an auditorium full of fellow evolutionists.
They'll get shot down in the blink of an eye.

There just are no physical transistional forms to parade in public. Get over it, already.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (19) Jan 25, 2013
We can study evolution in progress just by loking for the new MRSA strains, killing patients in hospitals.

So it this the kind of evolution that will transform slugs into eels?
No it's not.
This kind of statement is known as equivocation - you are using the word evolution in one sense but really implying a completely different thing.
You are saying that just because we observe adaptations in the lab or hospital it also means that "evolution" from one kind of organism into another can occur.
It cannot.
There is no physical evidence or any scientific observations to back up such a statement. See my other posts regarding this issue. It's simply a leap to far with zero scientific justification.

antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2013
Bacteria have been observed to switch from one diet to another over a period of tens of years BUT they are still bacteria.

As noted: we have DNA in common. And it's pretty damning evidence that the more different the species are the less DNA we have in common.

We see bacteria form colonies and even specialize in what they do by group in these colonies. We see intermediate stages from colonies (where each individual is viable of its own) and multicellular organisms with strict trait specialization.
An example of such an intermediary stage would be Volvox:
http://en.wikiped...i/Volvox

We see remnants of earlier development stages in higher lifeforms stuff that doesn't get taken away because there is no evolutionary pressure (but which serves no purpose anymore). That, too would make no sense if there was a designer.

An example would be photorespiration
http://en.wikiped...piration
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (19) Jan 25, 2013
You test it by small steps. As I said (and as you conveniently ignored again): stuff doesn't evolve in one jump from "one molecule" to "tree" overnight.

You can test it in small steps all you want. Supposedly the molecule will jump become a tree if you wait long enough? By which mechanism? How is new information going to arise from nowhere? Where are the blue-prints for new materials, new functionality and new architecture going to come from?

Problem is the end-result.

It just doesn't happen.

It hasn't been observed to happen. It hasn't ever been observed to happen whilst it was happening - just to negate the irrational Dawkins response.

You believe in "evolution" because you WANT to believe. This is the whole point of the article.

No matter how one points you to the lack of evidence for evolution - where one kind of thing changes into another kind of thing - you persist with the belief.

antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2013
In fact if evolution were true, there should have been transitional forms EVERYWHERE TODAY,

No, because species tend to compete and drive each other into extinction. And especially the early organisms weren't the type that left fossil records because they didn't have skletons or other structures that would endure.

As soon as there is a much better organism all intermediary stages will disappear in time - because they cannot compete.
That's SELECTION (the part you keep continually ignoring, but which lead to your parents getting it on).

It's simply a leap to far with zero scientific justification.

No. YOU are setting up a far-leap-strawman. Only YOU claim that a bacterium should give birth to a mammoth in one generation. That's not how evolution works. If you think that this strawman is 'proof' of something then you're just deluding yourself.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (18) Jan 25, 2013
(but which serves no purpose anymore).

Here you have a MAJOR problem, right there. Have you looked at the latest research done in the ENCODE project?

Have you had a look at STARR-SEQ technology?

Your idea of "junk" DNA has bitten the dust. There is now just irreducibly complex coding within the human genome.
No more place for so-called junk DNA because it's been shown to be highly functional and ESSENTIAL.

Just because up to now scientists have not discovered how or why some DNA doesn't seem to be functionally active does not mean that they know everything regarding its existence. This is now clearly being shown with the latest technology. Go back to the drawing board with this idea.
kevinrtrs
1.2 / 5 (21) Jan 25, 2013
That's SELECTION (the part you keep continually ignoring, but which lead to your parents getting it on).

No, I do not ignore it. YOU are the one who is ignoring the fact that natural selection will not provide you with NEW information. You are simply culling existing information - you are in fact LOSING information through natural selection.

To have the kind of evolution you so highly prize - where one thing can change into another, you need new information:

You need the information for new materials, e.g. if you didn't have a skeleton before you need to know how to make bone. Where or how does natural selection provide you with the knowledge to construct bone from food ingested by the organism?
You need blue-prints for the creation of material, for the architecture, the knowledge of assembly of created components into a functioning whole and then ultimately you need knowledge for the USE fo the newly constructed artifact.
Where does that knowledge come from?
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (20) Jan 25, 2013
Only YOU claim that a bacterium should give birth to a mammoth in one generation.

No, I never made such a claim. The responsibility rests on those who make the claim that one kind of organism can change into another kind , i.e. so-called "evolution", to show that over ANY period of time one organism has the ability to change into anything else.

Where does the information come from? No matter how small the step, eventually it should produce NEW information to form the basis for the next step.

No such information producing random process has ever been observed in a long enough chain of events to come to the magical conclusion that "evolution" is possible.

What has been observed is that EXISTING structures can be switched on or off depending on external pressures. What is required for your "evolution" is to have NEW structures with NEW functionality and NEW architectures to arise from existing ones via random processes.

If you can demonstrate such a process, show us
Czcibor
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2013
By occasion - do we believe that average voter can make reasonable decisions concerning politics?

If yes - how we protect our belief when we face answers from pools in which people are asked about simple facts concerning basic science, geography or history?
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2013
Your idea of "junk" DNA has bitten the dust. There is now just irreducibly complex coding within the human genome.

I didn't mean the code sequence. I meant (and I had hoped that this was plainly obvious by the example given) the stuff it codes FOR.
There's stuff like a tailbone in humas which is pretty useless (but which gets expressed in some humans as a veritable tail). There's remnants of legs in whales. Does it make sense for a designer to incorporate such remnants?


No, I never made such a claim.

YOU wanted to observe a bacterium turn into a worm. How is that NOT that claim?

you are in fact LOSING information through natural selection

...and gaining information through mutation or stuff like incorporation of viral DNA. So?
kochevnik
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2013
@kevinrtrs You believe in "evolution" because you WANT to believe.
Evolution is a maths process that even works on computers. Stop spamming this science site with your religionist voodo. You are nothing but a bane on human progress
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2013
Just because up to now scientists have not discovered how or why some DNA doesn't seem to be functionally active does not mean that they know everything regarding its existence.

So in one sentence you are arguing: "It's irreducibly complex and everything has a meaning in DNA"
...and in the next sentence you're admitting: "you don't know what all the DNA is for"

Hypocrit much?

No such information producing random process has ever been observed

Mutation in the lab has been obsrved. To the point of developing abilities that had not existed anywhere in the world before (e.g. antibiotic resistance in bacteria)
The world is FULL of new information arising in DNA all the time. Every winter you get a new strain of flu. Where do you think it gets its new tricks from every year?
Czcibor
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2013
There's stuff like a tailbone in humas which is pretty useless (but which gets expressed in some humans as a veritable tail). There's remnants of legs in whales. Does it make sense for a designer to incorporate such remnants?

Ctrl-C & Ctrl-V (and later making minor corrections to make "product" fit specification, without bothering with such features unless they interfere too much)
Quite a few designers prefer such process, especially when there is near deadline.

;)
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2013
Kevin: "The point is that evolutionists make out that their story telling is true science and insist that no other story of origin should be allowed."

You have a fundamental block on the process of science. Science is not story telling - and scientists do not try to control what is 'allowed' regarding story telling. Science is a rigorous process - observation of reality, and then the building of understanding of that reality. The fact is that if we go back more than a certain number of years - we find rocks with no evidence of life. Then as we move forward in time - we see rocks with single celled organisms, and then multi-celled organisms and on and on through time. Thousands of scientists across the generations have put the billions of pieces of this puzzle together (including observation of mutations happening real time), and are currently comfortable with the understanding that over time - life evolves. If you have a different explanation for this complex puzzle - cont.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2013
cont. you are of course welcome to jump into the fray - and submit your explanation. PZ Meyers and all the other evolutionary biologists out there would love to direct you to the very complex debates that go on regarding things like transitionary fossils. By using terms like 'storytelling' - you show your disdain for the process of science - which is of course your right - but what intrigues me more - is your need to come on to a science web site - and to try to argue against the process of science. It seems like supreme arrogance. It would be like me going to church - and trying to disrupt their process with arguments against god.
sennekuyl
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2013

The point is that evolutionists make out that their story telling is true science and insist that no other story of origin should be allowed.

That's the difference.
Evolutionists do not want to admit that they are simply propagating their own brand of religion. Look up the definition of religion and pseudo science. Then apply those points to evolutionary theory and see for yourself.

How does it help your cause to have evolution acknowledged as a religion? Why make this equivocation?

If it were to be acknowledged as a religion, I'd sign up in a heart beat because it would be the religion that has the least baggage. No one has used it as a cover to scam people nor assault people physically or sexually. Proponents have the least political power and must continually demonstrate the validity of their claims. It would be the perfect religion!

Evolutionists change their doctrines & worship according to the evidence of best practices over time. I'm in!

:shifty:
Eikka
2 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2013
The reason appears to be that opponents of EHRs discounted the credibility of the source of the correction


I wouldn't trust some "www.fact-check.org" website in either case, opposed or for, for the very same reason that I don't trust Wikipedia to tell the truth on controversial issues, or the man on the street. It just shifts the burden of proof elsewhere.

If you want to correct some falsehood about a law proposal, it inevitably exists as a document, so point directly to the document so that everybody can read what it says and doesn't say. That's more credible than some random "We are the truth" website.

Claudius
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2013
"Seek out the company of those who are searching for the truth. But avoid at all cost those who claim to have found it!"

-anon
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2013
Atheists are partially responsible for this misunderstanding. Some atheists do make the positive assertion that no gods exist, while others hold the negative assertion, that they lack belief.
These arguments are worthless and anyone who engages in this sophistry is doing the world a disservice.

Philo gods are designed by very clever people to generate endless discussion which invariably leads nowhere. And in the end religionists can claim victory because WORDS have failed to disprove the objects of their affections.

Science tells us that the bookgods DO NOT EXIST. This is why delusionists like Kevin reject evidence out if hand. The bookgods are the problem and discussing philo gods only makes it worse.

The gods of the books keep people ignorant and women subservient. They convince people that wish-granting and immortality are worth dying and killing for. The threaten civilization.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (18) Jan 25, 2013
The point is that evolutionists make out that their story telling is true science and insist that no other story of origin should be allowed.
No they will readily accept any theory that explains the evidence.
That's the difference.
Evolutionists do not want to admit that they are simply propagating their own brand of religion. Look up the definition of religion and pseudo science. Then apply those points to evolutionary theory and see for yourself.
Look up the definition of faith Kevin and you will find that it means 'belief DESPITE evidence'. Evolution is a theory and as such, it is possible that further evidence could show us that it is not true.

But even if this did happen, scientists would not open your book to look for another theory because what is in there has been convincingly, and thoroughly, disproved.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2013
"Seek out the company of those who are searching for the truth. But avoid at all cost those who claim to have found it!"

Amen - which is why I spend so much time on a science web site - and you wont find me anywhere near a church/temple/mosque etc.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2013
"Seek out the company of those who are searching for the truth. But avoid at all cost those who claim to have found it!"

-anon


Amen.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2013
@djr - lol, you beat me to it by seconds!

@ryggeson2 - late answer, but your question on socialism is non-sensical. You have formulated your question in such a way as to give the answer. That logical fallacy is called begging the question. This is typical of your drivel, and also confirms the very premise of this article.
islatas
5 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2013
Really, Kevin? Wow. I hope the irony of that rant in the comments section of the above article isn't lost on him.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (23) Jan 25, 2013
The point is that evolutionists make out that their story telling is true science and insist that no other story of origin should be allowed.
No they will readily accept any theory that explains the evidence.
That's the difference.
Evolutionists do not want to admit that they are simply propagating their own brand of religion. Look up the definition of religion and pseudo science. Then apply those points to evolutionary theory and see for yourself.
Look up the definition of faith Kevin and you will find that it means 'belief DESPITE evidence'. Evolution is a theory and as such, it is possible that further evidence could show us that it is not true.

But even if this did happen, scientists would not open your book to look for another theory because what is in there has been convincingly, and thoroughly, disproved.
-Blotto

WRONG!! Bible history has not been convincingly OR thoroughly disproved. It is an ongoing search by top scientists and is never ending. (contd)
aroc91
5 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2013
Do your job, moderators. Kevin should have been banned years ago.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (19) Jan 25, 2013
Do your job, moderators. Kevin should have been banned years ago.
Kevin provides enlightenment on the method of the religionist assault on science and reason. He represents millions of deluded people. He posts in a place where his arguments can be refuted and this is educational.
FrankHerbert
2.9 / 5 (19) Jan 25, 2013
I can't believe Kevin actually attempted a debate. That's the first time I've ever seen him leave more than one response to someone challenging his beliefs.

The sad irony here that Kevin demontrates so well is that when a religious person is resoundly defeated in debate, they resort to calling their better "religious". Isn't that just a tad hypocritical?

WRONG!! Bible history has not been convincingly OR thoroughly disproved. It is an ongoing search by top scientists and is never ending. (contd)
Unlike Kevin who is severely misguided, you are just plain stupid. Go away.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (20) Jan 25, 2013
(contd)
Given the existence of changes in and on the Earth such as wind which causes shifting sands which tend to bury historic artifacts under sand and soil that could validate much of Biblical events; and water which causes land to be inundated with floods which bury human settlements under sediment, and many other natural weather, seismic and climate events that hide the evidences that would validate and justify Biblical writing. It is the driving force of Archaeology; the evidences continue to elude and then found through the persistent work of scientists who are mostly concerned with finding historic artifacts whether or not those artifacts prove the existence of God.

Blotto's insistence that scientists would not use the Bible as reference for clues to assist in discovering Biblical artifacts is Blotto's personal error-filled view due to Blotto's inability to accept the possibility of God's existence and creation as a result of an action taken by an Intelligence of pure energy
RitchieGay01
1 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2013
(contd)

I worship God but only because I'm afraid of him. I figure since I'm so goddamned gay and screw my quadroon sons in the ass that I better doubledown on religion so I don't end up in homohell. I'm probably going to homohell anyway, but better safe the sorry.

Unlike Kevin who is severely misguided, you are just plain stupid. Go away.
-FrankHerbutt
NO you are going to homohell. If you don't quit talking about my sons like that our families are going to have to party! . . .And YOU'LL have to call a priest for last rites.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (18) Jan 25, 2013
Given the existence of changes in and on the Earth such as wind which causes shifting sands which tend to bury historic artifacts under sand and soil that could validate much of Biblical events; and water which causes land to be inundated with floods which bury human settlements under sediment, and many other natural weather, seismic and climate events that hide the evidences that would validate and justify Biblical writing.
Yes much like thread after thread gets buried under piles of your ignorant bullshit.

Pussytard thinks of many agents which can obscure evidence but fails to realize that scientists know all about these things. This is why they usually have to DIG to UNEARTH evidence of the past you imbecile.

Vandals also destroy valuable evidence of the past, much like your vandalism damages this site.

Stop flaunting your stupidity here pussytard. You are making reasonable people feel very uncomfortable.
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (16) Jan 25, 2013
Do your job, moderators. Kevin should have been banned years ago.


And Obama_socks. Do your jobs you abysmal failures.

In case it's not clear I'm talking about the people that run Phys.org. They are abysmal failures.

Stop flaunting your stupidity here pussytard.
I doubt it will happen. Clearly the people that run this site are as pussytarded as pussytard.
obama_socks
1.1 / 5 (19) Jan 25, 2013
(contd)
Ongoing research into religious and Biblical historical artifacts, places and cultures is a desirable scientific activity and is supported by the three major religions; especially supported by those religions as a final nail in the coffin of anti-religionist belief and atheistic dogma.

However long it will take to find evidence of God's existence and God's influence on man, the search will continue until every last piece of evidence is found. Whether or not scientists will change their personal view on God's existence is strictly within their own ability to accept or deny the evidence.

The existence of God and the faith in thereof is, for many, a gateway to a sense of morality, righteousness and justice for those who may need such support. These qualities are not inborn and must be learned. Those qualities are also displayed as a willingness of self-sacrifice for the love of God and for the love of one's neighbor; those being qualities that are promoted in Bible text.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (17) Jan 25, 2013
and God's influence on man, the search will continue until every last piece of evidence is found.
Or hopefully until at least one piece of evidence is found for said god. And pussytard will continue to flood this site with embarrassing ignorance in the hope that she will say ONE THING that isnt ignorant. Good fucking luck pussytard.
The existence of God and the faith in thereof is
-including to but as not to be limited or restricted thereof, by using - no, UTILIZING thereof - catchphrases she read in cosmo articles on feminine hygiene, written by doctors who after all SOUND so authoritative dont they?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (19) Jan 25, 2013
Do your job, moderators. Kevin should have been banned years ago.


And Obama_socks. Do your jobs you abysmal failures.

In case it's not clear I'm talking about the people that run Phys.org. They are abysmal failures.

Stop flaunting your stupidity here pussytard.
I doubt it will happen. Clearly the people that run this site are as pussytarded as pussytard.
Well to be fair frank they live on traffic (like pussytard, but not on their backs I should assume), and sickos like pussytard DO generate lots of traffic, in sickpuppetry and whatnot thereof.

Plus as we have seen, sickos like pussytard seem to thrive on rejection and abuse. This makes them hard to get rid of.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (17) Jan 25, 2013
@djr - lol, you beat me to it by seconds!

@ryggeson2 - late answer, but your question on socialism is non-sensical. You have formulated your question in such a way as to give the answer. That logical fallacy is called begging the question. This is typical of your drivel, and also confirms the very premise of this article.

This a typical socialist response as they know socialism is NOT about individual liberty or prosperity but state control of the individual.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (16) Jan 25, 2013
Taking religion on belief is fine - but the person who does so just has to admit to himself (and to the world at large) that he/she is a inconsistent human being in thought and deed - and hence that no argument he or she makes based on personal experience or values can be trusted.


In Anti's world, all those with the courage to state what the believe but cannot prove can't be trusted.
"WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?"
http://www.edge.o...int.html
And this include Richard Dawkins.

"SPOCK: (to Stonn) "After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical; but
it is often true."
Amok Time , Star Trek
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (18) Jan 25, 2013
Do your job, moderators. Kevin should have been banned years ago.


And Obama_socks. Do your jobs you abysmal failures.

In case it's not clear I'm talking about the people that run Phys.org. They are abysmal failures.

Stop flaunting your stupidity here pussytard.
I doubt it will happen. Clearly the people that run this site are as pussytarded as pussytard.
-FrankHerbert/Theghostofotto1923/RitchieGay01/UncleMeat and dozens of other sock puppets

I notice that many of the objectionable posts made by FrankHerbert, the sock puppet of Theghostofotto1923 etc. have been removed from threads by the wise and good moderators of Physorg who are overworked trying to determine which posts of Theghostofotto1923 and its sock puppets are much too egregious and embarrassing to Physorg to be allowed further access by the public. Such restrictions are fair and necessary while Blotto and his sock puppets continue to stink up the Physorg website with its stench.
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2013
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2013
Ryggesogn2, there you go again. Haven't we gotten it across to you that Star Trek is communist propaganda? Also, Star Trek on numerous occasions takes the opportunity to dispell the mystical, i.e. religion. Star Trek does not bolster your points. Stop using it. It makes you seem stupid.

I notice that many of the objectionable posts made by FrankHerbert have been removed from threads by the wise and good moderators of Physorg

Funny I haven't noticed any. The moderation here is awful as they allow you to post.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (17) Jan 25, 2013
(contd)
It is proven by Pussycat_Eyes who diagnosed Theghostofotto1923 aka FrankHerbert/RitchieGay01/UncleMeat and dozens of other sock puppets (see my Profile for names), that Blotto has a mental disorder called Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) aka Multiple Personality Disorder, and that "Blotto" uses these sock puppets to pretend to be holding a conversation with said sock puppet, all the while talking to himself after switching identities, back and forth. This seems to be a common disorder in those so afflicted and the internet is perfect for their continued use of sock puppets with the purpose of heightening their low self esteem and build up their egotistical proclivities.

But this DID activity is easily detectable when the DID afflicted and its sock puppets attempt to intimidate others from posting their opinions, in the hope that only the afflicted's opinion will remain and be considered all knowledgeable and intelligent. It has been proven to be an attention-getter.
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2013
Also, at least four of Obama_socks previous accounts actually have been banned in the past. My account never has been.

They could permanently ban Obama_socks but likely lack the skills necessary to do so. They've likely given up due to their lack of skill and the knowledge that Obama_socks will always return, dumber and madder than before.

Mods: learn how to use your software and actually permanently remove people from the site. You realize Obama_socks is costing you revenue, right?

In addition: it's pretty obvious Obama_socks knows I'm not Otto. He always makes the point of calling me the "sockpuppet" of Otto, rather than just Otto. If we were the same person, why make the distinction? When I talk about Pirouette, I don't say "the sockpuppet of obama_socks." I simply state you are the same person. You do this, obviously, because you know Otto and I are different people. This is an artifact in your thought processes that comes through in your communications.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2013
Ryggesogn2, there you go again. Haven't we gotten it across to you that Star Trek is communist propaganda? Also, Star Trek on numerous occasions takes the opportunity to dispell the mystical, i.e. religion. Star Trek does not bolster your points. Stop using it. It makes you seem stupid.

Maybe the issue is that modern science education has neglected the liberal arts, like literature. Frankie rejects a comment without understanding it simple because of the source.
Of course Roddenberry had scientists at JPL advising him and engineers were designing a real medical examination table not unlike the fictional one used in the show.
Aesop's Fables have no value to Frankie, even though after 2000 years they still have meaning to humanity.
Maybe this is a good thing since De Tar Baby is not PC, 'liberals' have never been taught its meaning.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2013
An Aesop Fable, Wolves in sheep's clothing. Sounds like socialism.

"A Wolf found great difficulty in getting at the sheep owing to the vigilance of the shepherd and his dogs. But one day it found the skin of a sheep that had been flayed and thrown aside, so it put it on over its own pelt and strolled down among the sheep. The Lamb that belonged to the sheep, whose skin the Wolf was wearing, began to follow the Wolf in the Sheep's clothing; so, leading the Lamb a little apart, he soon made a meal off her, and for some time he succeeded in deceiving the sheep, and enjoying hearty meals."

And this is why the sheeple must be able to defend themselves from a predatory state.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2013
Frankie rejects a comment without understanding it simple because of the source.
You clearly are the one who did not understand the source. Star Trek is a communist utopia. You don't get to claim otherwise.

Of course Roddenberry had scientists at JPL advising him
And this proves what, exactly?
and engineers were designing a real medical examination table not unlike the fictional one used in the show.
And this proves what, exactly?

The military recently invented nerve induction. I guess that means Frank Herbert's Dune was right and we need to install a superhuman superhitler as God-Emperor of the galaxy.

Like I said, quoting Star Trek makes you look stupid.

Aesop's Fables have no value to Frankie, even though after 2000 years they still have meaning to humanity.
And you come to this false conclusion how exactly?

Maybe this is a good thing since De Tar Baby is not PC, 'liberals' have never been taught its meaning.
I read De Tar Baby in school, jackass.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2013
Also, at least four of Obama_socks previous accounts actually have been banned in the past. My account never has been.
-FrankHerbert - one of the sock puppets of Theghostofotto1923

Nope...and I have explained this countless times already, that I have only THIS user name (Obama_socks) and one other which is my PRIMARY name...and I don't use my Primary name in THIS Physorg.

Continue telling your lies about me. Nobody believes you unless they are stupid. And the stupid ones know who they are.

Muahahahahahahahahah smirk
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2013
In addition: it's pretty obvious Obama_socks knows I'm not Otto. He always makes the point of calling me the "sockpuppet" of Otto, rather than just Otto. If we were the same person, why make the distinction? When I talk about Pirouette, I don't say "the sockpuppet of obama_socks." I simply state you are the same person. You do this, obviously, because you know Otto and I are different people. This is an artifact in your thought processes that comes through in your communications.
-FrankHerbert, a sock puppet of Theghostofotto1923

It's pretty obvious that FrankHerbert IS Theghostofotto1923, just one more sock puppet that is used by Blotto to run interference (football term) before or after Blotto has made his grand entrance to prove how scientific his opinions and quotes from Wikipedia are, so as to prove to all commentators in Physorg how valuable Blotto is to Physorg's existence as a science website.

(see my Profile to access all of Theghostofotto1923's sock puppet names.)
aroc91
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2013
I'll call Otto "Blotto" as if that's offensive. That'll really show him


You do realize that makes you look like a fucking idiot, right?
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (18) Jan 25, 2013
Theghostofotto1923 (Blotto) aka FrankHerbert aka dozens of other sock puppets, is a classic example of what the topic of this thread refers to...which is the persistent belief in outrageous lies about Phyorg commentators needing sock puppets because Theghostofotto1923, due to his mentally disordered affliction of DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER aka MULTIPLE PERSONALITY DISORDER, i.e. multiple identity sock puppets for each of his personalities which cannot be ignored and must find an outlet.

The internet IS that outlet for Blotto's multiple personalities, such as:
1) the guardian at the gate of Physorg to turn away certain "undesirables". An apt reference to Blotto's identity as Otto Skorzeny, the bodyguard to Adolph Hitler (see profile of Theghostofotto1932)

2) Blotto's identifying himself as supreme vessel of all scientific knowlege, while knowing nothing except for cut and paste from Wikipedia and YouTube.

3) Blotto's need for profanity and ad hominem attacks.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (17) Jan 25, 2013
Nope...and I have explained this countless times already, that I have only THIS user name (Obama_socks) and one other which is my PRIMARY name...and I don't use my Primary name in THIS Physorg.
Oh right... your secret club where you all sit around a little table and sip imaginary tea from little plastic teacups.

Do they treat you with dignity and respect while you are there pussytard? Or do they tend to make fun of the embarrassing things you cant help but say? Not to your face of course, because I understand you only let people with class into your secret club, and people with class would never insult you to your face.

Do you suspect that your dolls and stuffed animals laugh at you when youre gone? They probably do you know. Think about it. People laugh at you everywhere else. Even your friends in sausalito.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (16) Jan 25, 2013
I'll call Otto "Blotto" as if that's offensive. That'll really show him
You do realize that makes you look like a fucking idiot, right?
-aroc91

You seem perturbed over the Blotto name. Too bad. You can call Theghostofotto1923/FrankHerbert, etc. whatever you wish. Just don't call him late for dinner.

Muahahahahahahahahah smirk
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (18) Jan 25, 2013
Nope...and I have explained this countless times already, that I have only THIS user name (Obama_socks) and one other which is my PRIMARY name...and I don't use my Primary name in THIS Physorg.
Oh right... your secret club where you all sit around a little table and sip imaginary tea from little plastic teacups.

Do they treat you with dignity and respect while you are there pussytard? Or do they tend to make fun of the embarrassing things you cant help but say? Not to your face of course, because I understand you only let people with class into your secret club, and people with class would never insult you to your face.

Do you suspect that your dolls and stuffed animals laugh at you when you arent there? They probably do you know. Think about it.
-Theghostofotto1923 aka FrankHerbert

What secret club? I know of no "secret club". You need to get stronger medication for your DID, Blotto, then maybe you wont appear like an asshole as much as you are.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (17) Jan 25, 2013
See!! There's another example of Blotto's false beliefs that persist online.

Secret club seems to be on Blotto's mind persistently like his mindless rants about a pussytard. We all know that Blotto hates pussy, and that he has a boyfriend named RitchieGuy.

Blotto created another sock puppet that he calls "RITCHIEGAY01, apparently to hide the fact that his RitchieGuy came back online to continue their suck suck...isn't that right, Blotto? Blotto may be ashamed of his homosexual liaisons with his boyfriend...but no one else on Physorg really cares.
aroc91
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2013
Muahahahahahahahahah smirk


Self referential action statements are popular among young children and furries. Which are you?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2013
I read De Tar Baby in school, jackass.

But do you get the moral of the story or were you hung up on the language like your 'liberal' fellow travelers?
Gun control is the current 'liberal' tar baby.
I hope 'liberals' continue to believe their 'liberal' press buddies and ignore voters who are not 'liberal'.
djr
5 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2013
Rygg: An Aesop Fable, Wolves in sheep's clothing. Sounds like socialism.

Sounds like religion to me - fits perfectly with the point of the article on false beliefs.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2013
Rygg: 'and ignore voters who are not 'liberal'.

Did I miss something - didn't the U.S. just have an election? Didn't the 'liberal' candidate just get a majority of the votes? Interesting!!!!!
JVK
1 / 5 (16) Jan 25, 2013
But even if this did happen, scientists would not open your book to look for another theory because what is in there has been convincingly, and thoroughly, disproved.


There is evidence of weak mentalizing abilties in non-believers. See for example: The origins of religious disbelief http://linkinghub...12002677

Although four pathways lead to four distinct forms of atheism, "mindblind atheism", "apatheism", "inCREDulous atheism", and "analytic atheism" all appear to result from ignorance, which they politely call weak mentalizing ability. Or maybe I just interpret it as ignorance because that's what so many atheists exemplify.

see also: The Cooperation Instinct http://discoverma...WuayDmSo

"Perhaps Nowak became a lightning rod because, as a practicing Roman Catholic, he stands out in a field where most people keep their religious proclivities (if any) under a hat."

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2013
Rygg: 'and ignore voters who are not 'liberal'.

Did I miss something - didn't the U.S. just have an election? Didn't the 'liberal' candidate just get a majority of the votes? Interesting!!!!!

"According to the most recent Gallup Poll, what's worrying Americans?.
.
Economy ----------21%
.
Deficit ------------ 20%
.
Gov't -------------- 18%
.
Unemployment - 16%
.
Money ------------ 5%
.
Gun Control ----- 4%
."
http://www.gallup...ans.aspx
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2013
"

It was a bad Sunday for sponsors of an meeting to create a grassroots chapter of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence at the Glenview, IL Police Station Auditorium failed miserably as supporters of the Constitution and civil rights took part in the event."
http://www.gunssa.../?p=5089

Even IL can't muster much of a response.
Where do the 'liberals' think they have support for more gun bans?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2013
Rygg: An Aesop Fable, Wolves in sheep's clothing. Sounds like socialism.

Sounds like religion to me - fits perfectly with the point of the article on false beliefs.
-djr

Surely even djr must understand that every Aesop's fable has a "moral" to each story and a lesson to be learned from each story...that provides real life experience through the telling of an analogous expression that should be easy to understand...where even a child can be aware of its true meaning.

The fables are meant to awaken the awareness in individuals whose awareness may lie dormant due to the lack of real life experiences that would force individuals to observe various possibilities in real life that would ordinarily not be observed at all. That is, until the possibility of such a real life awareness is forced on the individual through a real life experience.

The fables are a means to understand a situation without having to go through a similar experience first hand. Where is the religion in it?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2013
"Da Tar Baby" is an excellent observance of how a conspiring entity can set up a ready quagmire that will eventually envelope the unwary who are aggressively overconfident, while disregarding the most elementary of motivations for caution, observation and prudence.

Not all persistent beliefs are false beliefs, and only a true reprobate who believes in nothing would reprove the persistent beliefs of others who have an a priori well thought out belief system that can be said to enable, rather than disable the individual's real life experiences, and that can only lead to that individual's happiness and satisfaction.
Tausch
1.1 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2013
In psychology this is called (immediate) reinforcement.
Ineffective for changing the behavior associated with any belief system. Not to be confused with anything labeled 'learning'.

Beliefs systems enjoy 'immunity'. As an infant or newborn you had a limited 'vocabulary'. To be honest, I don't know what infants or newborns believe.

The vocabulary or language you acquired later - like the one used here on this commentary thread - will short change you.
No one is immune to the short comings of the languages you acquired and use now. View beliefs as compensation for a language that short changes you.

You are not immune to death. So you are allowed to construct a world view where what you label 'life' can short change you too.

So how do you change beliefs faster - if not all at once?
Languages undergo evolution as well. There may come a time where you believe language evolves as fast as bacteria developed resistance. And hope is a belief.

obama_socks
1 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2013
"

It was a bad Sunday for sponsors of an meeting to create a grassroots chapter of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence at the Glenview, IL Police Station Auditorium failed miserably as supporters of the Constitution and civil rights took part in the event."
http://www.gunssa.../?p=5089

Even IL can't muster much of a response.
Where do the 'liberals' think they have support for more gun bans?
-rygg

I thoroughly enjoyed that article and parts of it made me laugh at the discomfiture of the Liberal/Socialist gun control creeps who look down their noses with disdain at the audacity of those whose family and community depend on those individuals to protect and defend the people whose lives are easily threatened and snuffed out if not for legal gun ownership by American patriots.
White Europeans will understand their mistake as they are increasingly marginalized by the growing community of Islamofascists who hate western culture and will work to change it.

zaxxon451
1 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2013
These arguments are worthless and anyone who engages in this sophistry is doing the world a disservice.

Science tells us that the bookgods DO NOT EXIST. This is why delusionists like Kevin reject evidence out if hand. The bookgods are the problem and discussing philo gods only makes it worse.


Your point about "bookgods" is well taken, but even Richard Dawkins would not make the claim that you are making. In one of his books he describes a spectrum from 1-7, with 1 being 100% probability that there is a god and 7 being a 0% probability that there is a god. He labels himself a 6. - The God Delusion p. 51

The main problem that I have with certainty is that it closes ones mind completely. The problem, as you alluded to in your post, is not that we have too many people who question. The problem lies with the people who "know".
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2013
Your point about "bookgods" is well taken, but even Richard Dawkins would not make the claim that you are making. In one of his books he describes a spectrum from 1-7, with 1 being 100% probability that there is a god and 7 being a 0% probability that there is a god. He labels himself a 6. - The God Delusion p. 51
You're confusing deism with theism. The god who described the flood, the exodus, the joshuan rampage, the kingdoms of David and Solomon, doesn't exist as these things never happened. The bible says god never lies but these things are all lies. So perhaps some deceptive god wrote the book. And so we can assume that wish-granting and eternal bliss in disneyland are also lies.

Science tells us that if a deistic god exists, he would not violate his own natural laws just because some individual here on earth asked him to. This would also be a gross deception.

Hitchens used these arguments to reject the bookgods.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2013
The main problem that I have with certainty is that it closes ones mind completely.
We are as certain that the events described in the bible never happened, as we are that the sun will rise tomorrow. Get over it. Focus on the damage these beliefs do to the world.

I was going to include a link to mahers 'Religulous' YouTube vid but they seem to gave removed all of them. Jesus.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (17) Jan 25, 2013
What secret club? I know of no "secret club".
Why, THIS secret club pussytard...

"Either PM or discussing topics in The Other Physorg. IF you have lost or misplaced your The Other Physorg password, I will provide you with the current PW, but ONLY if your User name tallies with the list in my possession of Other Physorg member names. Please keep in mind that I can ONLY help you with the first Community PW. The second and third passwords are YOUR responsibility and you will have to arrange to reset your two passwords with The Other Physorg. Also, please do NOT forget to observe and vet each and any potential member BEFORE you invite them to join our The Other Physorg groups. It is imperative that we KEEP OUT all trolls, cranks, psychos, those aiding and abetting psychos, anti-Capitalists, anti-religionists, sock puppeteers beyond only TWO sock puppets..."

-From your very excellent profile page. You fucking sicko.
zaxxon451
3 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2013
You're confusing deism with theism.

We are as certain that the events described in the bible never happened, as we are that the sun will rise tomorrow. Get over it. Focus on the damage these beliefs do to the world.


I appreciate your comments, but Dawkins was referencing the God of the Bible, not deism.

I would not be as certain as you seem to be that the "events in the Bible never happened". I think some events are likely to have some historical significance, minus the supernatural.

In any case, the problem with certainty is simply that those who "know" dismiss any arguments to the contrary. If I were certain that Columbus was the first European to visit North America, then I would be unwilling to even entertain any thought otherwise, and would reject evidence to the contrary. Certainty limits intellectual growth.
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2013
@JVK There is evidence of weak mentalizing abilties in non-believers.
Had you worked with neural networks you would know that locking onto fixated patterns is an indication of a DEGRADED NEURAL NETWORK. I'm now more than fifty percent convinced you're a crackpot

Fixated blind beliefs are a disease marker
FrankHerbert
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2013
and I don't use my Primary name in THIS Physorg.
-Obama_socks
So what you are saying is you don't have a "primary name". I take this to mean Obama_socks is your primary name and you are ashamed to admit it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 26, 2013
Dawkins was referencing the God of the Bible, not deism.
Dawkins is a scientist. He would tell you that we cant be absolutely certain the sun will rise tomorrow. How about you?

"Dawkins became a prominent critic of religion and has stated his opposition to religion is twofold: Religion is both a source of conflict and a justification for belief without evidence. He considers faith—belief that is not based on evidence—as one of the world's great EVILS...he founded the Out Campaign to encourage atheists worldwide to declare their stance publicly and proudly"
http://outcampaign.org/

The discussion of whether or not god exists is a dangerous waste of time. Scientists are the only ones capable of finding evidence for some sort of intelligent design, and so far - nothing but increasing evidence to the contrary.

The bible god described things which absolutely did not happen. So either he is not as omniscient or not as honest as the book claims he is. Ergo, THAT god does NOT exist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (16) Jan 26, 2013
Dawkins and deism
http://vimeo.com/23344175

"An Eddington Concession, named after Sir Arthur Eddington, is a rhetorical device in which Eddington "allowed" that experimental physicists could bungle their observations, and so a pet theory that contradicted them could be forgiven; further, he "allowed" that Maxwell's equations might aside to favor a pet theory. But, he said, if your theory goes against the second law of thermodynamics, there's nothing for it but to give it up in humiliation. he rhetorical construction was used by Eddington simply to underscore the unassailability of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It was not, in fact, agreeing that Maxwell or experimental observation should be set aside. Thus it was a false concession made for rhetorical purposes only, similar to a strawman argument. The name was given by Richard Dawkins..."

Dawkins compares the possibility of god with garden elves.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 26, 2013
I was going to include a link to mahers 'Religulous' YouTube vid but they seem to gave removed all of them. Jesus.
Here it is.
http://www.youtub...TVUulGwc

A religionist makes his own point about the fallacy of the bookgods @ 2:00
http://www.youtub...CyiSPAmE
zaxxon451
5 / 5 (2) Jan 26, 2013
I was going to include a link to mahers 'Religulous' YouTube vid but they seem to gave removed all of them. Jesus.


Great movie, I've seen it, and I'm a big fan of Bill Maher. But my point is that certainty (about anything) is an intellectually irresponsible position because it reeks of fundamentalism.

Most religious people I know are "certain" that they know the truth. The problem is that they will never be able to grow intellectually because they are certain that they are right in their belief. Their mindset cannot be changed despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

I don't have a problem with Dawkins equating his belief in a god to his belief in garden elves. Even this stops short of certainty.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 26, 2013
Great movie, I've seen it, and I'm a big fan of Bill Maher. But my point is that certainty (about anything) is an intellectually irresponsible position because it reeks of fundamentalism.
So you dont think the sun will come up tomorrow? You have some difficulty with words. Philosophers have done this to you.
Their mindset cannot be changed despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.
Evidence tells us that 1) the sun will rise tomorrow and 2) the book gods do not exist.

Science deals with confidence in a hypothesis in terms of probability.
http://en.wikiped...sigma.29
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 26, 2013
and I don't use my Primary name in THIS Physorg.
-Obama_socks
So what you are saying is you don't have a "primary name". I take this to mean Obama_socks is your primary name and you are ashamed to admit it.
-FrankHerbert, the sock puppet of Theghostofotto1923

FrankHerbert, the sock puppet of Blotto fails to comprehend ideas, data, and information typed in easy sentences in the English language that even an 8 year old can understand...but somehow, FrankHerbert, the genius in his own mind, cannot comprehend what I have attempted to drive into the minds of whomever is curious enough to ask the big questions.

I will say it once again. I use the name Obama_socks in THIS Physorg and I have one other Primary name which I do NOT use in this physorg. There, I have said it again with slightly different wording with the hope that, quite possibly, FrankHerbert/Theghostofotto1923 will FINALLY get a glimmer of hope for a clearer understanding of something which I have said before.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (14) Jan 26, 2013
What secret club? I know of no "secret club".
Why, THIS secret club pussytard...

"Either PM or discussing topics in The Other Physorg. IF you have lost or misplaced your The Other Physorg password, I will provide you with the current PW, but ONLY if your User name tallies with the list in my possession of Other Physorg member names. Please keep in mind that I can ONLY help you with the first Community PW. The second and third passwords are YOUR responsibility and you will have to arrange to reset your two passwords with The Other Physorg. Also, please do NOT forget to observe and vet each and any potential member BEFORE you invite them to join our The Other Physorg groups. It is imperative that we KEEP OUT all trolls, cranks, psychos, those aiding and abetting psychos, anti-Capitalists, anti-religionists, sock puppeteers beyond only TWO sock puppets..."

-From your very excellent profile page. You fucking sicko.
-Blotto

Seems that YOU are the fucking sicko...as usual
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 26, 2013
(contd) As I have said repeatedly, THERE IS NO SECRET CLUB, Blotto. It is obviously your DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER, (that was first diagnosed by Pussycat_Eyes and the psychiatric administrators she works for in the facility where she works as a psychiatric nurse,) is preventing you from recognizing your own mentally diseased brain disorder due to your multiple identities which you flit into every time you need to switch identities so that you may enable your various personalities to pop out and say something retarded. This is nothing new, and you have been indulging your Blotto personality and then going in and out of your other personalities (identities) each time you need to fake that you are getting attention from important and smart people who agree with you for the most part. Although you do have FrankHerbert disagree with you, re: gun control. Smart move in your opinion, you phony imbecilic retard.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (14) Jan 26, 2013
These arguments are worthless and anyone who engages in this sophistry is doing the world a disservice. Science tells us that the bookgods DO NOT EXIST. This is why delusionists like Kevin reject evidence out if hand. The bookgods are the problem and discussing philo gods only makes it worse.
Your point about "bookgods" is well taken, but even Richard Dawkins would not make the claim that you are making. In one of his books he describes a spectrum from 1-7, with 1 being 100% probability that there is a god and 7 being a 0% probability that there is a god. He labels himself a 6. - The God Delusion p. 51 The main problem that I have with certainty is that it closes ones mind completely. The problem, as you alluded to in your post, is not that we have too many people who question. The problem lies with the people who "know".
-zaxxon451

Dawkins evidently doesn't like being trapped in a corner that he can't get out of...thus he is a 6 and not a 7, he gave himself an out.
zaxxon451
3 / 5 (2) Jan 26, 2013
So you dont think the sun will come up tomorrow? You have some difficulty with words. Philosophers have done this to you. Evidence tells us that 1) the sun will rise tomorrow and 2) the book gods do not exist.


I think you are missing my point. Of course I think the sun will come up tomorrow, but I would not place the probability at 1.

Being willing to question is a strength of science. As soon as scientists become "certain" of their worldview, they are no different than religious fundamentalists, in that they are unable to make a paradigm shift as science progresses.

scettico
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2013
A study simply proving confirmation bias.
Tausch
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 27, 2013
Your will to question is a strength of character - Z

Science is a good platform for this strength.

Needed is your permission to morph your original words.
Asking after the fact is a character trait of mine.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 27, 2013
I think you are missing my point. Of course I think the sun will come up tomorrow, but I would not place the probability at 1.
The probability that the flood, the exodus, the joshuan rampage, the Israel kingdoms, et al having happened, on a par with the sun not coming up tomorrow. They have dug for 200 years and find only evidence confirming that this is so.

But as the books claim that they happen EXACTLY as they did, and further were written by an omniscient god, then THAT god does not exist.

Like I say maybe its some other demigod or demiurge who is jealous, forgetful, vindictive, vicious, and genocidal. And evil. Why would anyone want to spend eternity with such a monster?
Being willing to question is a strength of science. As soon as scientists become "certain" of their worldview, they are no different than religious fundamentalists
And scientists are taught early on that theories can be altered by new evidence. I'm not a scientist. Neither was hitchens.
Tetryonics101
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 27, 2013
I am a messenger for what will become the next generation Physics Textbook. I submit to you something I find to be True. Search for "Tetryonics" on Youtube, Google Plus , Tumblr, and many more...

In addition to revolutionizing our understanding of Quantum geometries and interactions, Tetryonic Theory facilitates the development of a whole new field of Physical maths based on equilateral triangles in lieu of the spherical geometries historically employed.

It effortlessly merges the tested features of Classical mechanics with the statistical probabilities of quantum mechanics and scales up to the cosmological scales of General Relativity."

What is your truth?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (14) Jan 27, 2013
The idea that 'well maybe... just maybe...' is a religious one. The whole concept of god hinges on the idea that, if we wish hard enough, god will get us out of anything. And by extension so can the govt it endorses, or insurance companies, or the medical profession, or the lottery.

This abject denial of reality and inevitability need be nothing more than an extremely powerful meme which arose very early on in human history. People need not be naturally predisposed to believe in god. No other animal is.

As a meme this can be resisted and expunged. Hope should not be based on whether we might get lucky, or attract the attention of some superbeing, but on the confidence that we can solve problems through reason and work. This is the sort of confidence-building is what science is.

As dawkins says, belief without evidence (faith) is evil. Science is a process of building confidence in theories which successfully describe the evidence. Science and faith are therefore enemies.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (17) Jan 27, 2013
What is your truth?
-That you're another crank?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 27, 2013
Here's hitchens on the pointlessness of deism and the idiocy of theism
http://www.youtub...a_player

-The whole debate is worth watching.

Here's hitchen on the extreme danger of theism and why it must be countered
http://www.youtub...a_player
obama_socks
1 / 5 (15) Jan 27, 2013
..In addition to revolutionizing our understanding of Quantum geometries and interactions, Tetryonic Theory facilitates the development of a whole new field of Physical maths based on equilateral triangles in lieu of the spherical geometries historically employed.

It effortlessly merges the tested features of Classical mechanics with the statistical probabilities of quantum mechanics and scales up to the cosmological scales of General Relativity."

What is your truth?
-Tetryonics101

OMG...your question was answered by Theghostofotto1923/Blotto aka FrankHerbert. You must understand that Blotto is NEVER open minded enough to take into consideration other possibilities to scientific theory and research and will always replace such possibilities with a return to character assassinations of "religionists" who Blotto would like to eliminate out of existence.

You are asking too much of Blotto, since Blotto can't even grasp the basics of Quantum Mechanics unless he searches Wiki.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (16) Jan 27, 2013
(contd)
Even after cutting and pasting little tidbits from Wikipedia into Physorg threads, Blotto STILL misunderstands key points of the theories...but it IS a good opportunity for Blotto and/or Blotto's sock puppet FrankHerbert to weigh in and expound further on the stuff he read in Wiki, while taking the opportunity to use BIG words that say exactly the same things as in Wikipedia, except that it is said in a different way of verbalizing those same ideas so that science students will be motivated to go...
"WOW...that Blotto is soooo smart".

The unwary may have no knowledge of the evil that Blotto does. So we will be here to explain and to give full support to those future and present scientists who wish to describe their endeavors on this site. The big bad boogeyman Blotto briefly becomes benevolent...only until Blotto reads your ideas. Blotto then becomes the big bad blowhard...that bastard.

Blotto didn't spend years studying all of these disciplines which he pretends to know.
VendicarE
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2013
Sox blathers a lot, but seldom say's anything.

"Even after cutting and pasting" - Sox
VendicarE
4 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2013
Good sir. Please find yourself a hollowed out nut-shell and make it your home.

"What is your truth?" - Tetryonics

Hardwood.
Donutz
5 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2013
Maggy, please apply your 'critical thinking' and objectively demonstrate how socialism creates prosperity.


It's not about whether socialism does or does not do this or do that. It's about the fact that you are so wound about some subject (like this one) that you will insert the argument into any conversation any chance you get. At this point, it's a dogma, if not an outright obsession. You provide a perfect demonstration of a fanatic: someone who can't change their mind and won't change the subject.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (15) Jan 28, 2013
Sox blathers a lot, but seldom say's anything.

"Even after cutting and pasting" - Sox
-Vendicardietardtard...tardE

So is that the reason for your name-change...tardietardtard?

LOL
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (14) Jan 28, 2013
It's not about whether socialism does or does not do this or do that.

It's an article about false beliefs, and socialism is sold as a false belief by the socialists to the ignorant.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2013
What name change?

"So is that the reason for your name-change" - Sox

Poor Sox lives in a ConsrvaTard land of self delusion.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2013
And RyggTard is the Randite king of false beliefs.

"It's an article about false beliefs" - RyggTard

What a shame, none of the Economists in the Chicago school predicted the Bush Depression. Keynesian economists dis.

Perhaps this has something to do with Ayn Rand being a welfare queen.

Don't you agree RyggTard?
DavidW
1 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2013
antialias_physorg

Truth and life are self-evident truths. They exist and are real, as evidence proves.

They are self-evident of a creator. There is no other evidence needed and we cannot find God without accepting the realities that God provides, first.

You clearly have not experienced the intolerable and do not understand the full meaning of the word.

Some have, and have come to find, in all the lies about God and in all the talk about how people don't think properly to believe in God, there is truth. They then survive and are fruitful, where with anything less, they would have died or worse.

Open your eyes to the great suffering the human race inflicts upon all life and understand you would not have the world you have to voice your opinion freely had others who faced tremendous terrible things did not continue to live.

You owe everything you have to to God and the fact that others have had faith in God.

Learn some tolerance and humility.