http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aj_UNk.V8HpYZAqyf_D2VBbsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100503062744AAdUJYQ
On the last question I asked about Richard Darkins, a lot of Atheist questioned me on exactly what type of contradictions, double-standards, poorly-thought-out arguments, logical fallacies, and glaringly bad scientific factual errors did he made. Here is the list of errors that I found on his book.
Atheists, if please explain or justified theses errors for me.
(1) Science, by definition, deals only with the study of routine, repeatable natural processes. Miracles are, by definition, singularities caused by a supernatural source. Science can neither confirm NOR DENY miracles. (Too bad your homeboy Dawkins can’t seem to figure out this limitation of science). Saying “Miracles can’t happen because they defy the laws of science,” is like saying “2+2 cannot equal 4 because that defys the laws of grammar.” Both are colossal category errors!
(2) Darkins and a lot of Atheists always told me that a theory will not be taken seriously if it is not “peer reviewed”. But as far as “peer reviewed” journals go, do you suppose Galileo had “peer reviewed” journals supporting his helio-centric model of the solar system? Just curious. Do you reject his model too?
(3) Dawkins himself does, in scientific consensus. This is pretty silly in light of the fact which Dawkins himself admits, that scientific findings are continually in danger of being falsified and overturned by newer discoveries, just as certain aspects of Newtonian physics were proven incorrect by Einstein’s discoveries.Newtonian physics were repeatedly tested and proven useful for three CENTURIES. Then Einstein came along and introduced his theory, and suddenly certain portions of Newton’s theories were proven wrong. There’s very little scientific “truth” which cannot be overturned by newer research. Yet you base your eternal destiny on “science”? Now who sounds silly?
(4) As far as your claim that the Bible “has been proven wrong” so “many times,” you’re simply showing your ignorance of history, archeology, and Biblical transmission. Every time the skeptics have crowed that the Bible was nonsense because it mentioned some historical detail that wasn’t mentioned in secular history, they were later proven horribly wrong as new archeological discoveries confirmed those details. Now how is the foolish one?
More Pages:
- Science Help. Can someone answer and explain these for me? I’m having trouble in this part of science class.?
- Solar Producer: Does The Shrinking Atmosphere & Recent Lowlevels Of Solar Radiation Help Explain The Mini Iceage & Maunder Min? (6/12/2011)
- Humor me please. I did this when I was a kid but can’t remember how?
- Solar Producer: Could Someone Please Check My Essay For Grammatical Errors And Punctuation ? (6/17/2011)
- Solar Producer: What Are The Answers To The Follwoing Questions? PLEASE DOUBLE CHECK.. GETTING GRADED!? (5/11/2011)
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
Incoherent rant. Going through each argument is more than you deserve here, but I can do it easily so here goes:
1. The burden of proof is on you to prove miracles. You must prove an utter suspension of the laws of nature resoundlingly. Moreover, ‘miracles’ would not prove the existence of a deity, only realized improbability.
2. If a layman can peer review a cretinist journal and reject it with valid argument, I think that destroys your ‘journal’. It happens all the time when layman atheists get a hold of your cretinist garbage literature.
3. Science is rarely ‘overturned’ if ever. Revolutionized ≠ overthrown. Get it, tard? The models are refined, built upon etc etc. We don’t start making houses out of paper because we discovered that paper was superior.
4. The Babble is a collection of mythology. Any similarity with actual events is purely coincidental. You need to read the disclaimers before you use such language as ‘horribly wrong’; what is this adverb/adjective supposed to convey anyway? Your stupidity?
Krhm..
1) Science: A systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
I don’t see anything about not being able to comment on miracles on that.
2) Peer-reviewing is more important in the modern world than it was in the past. In Galileo’s time, one individual could very well absorb everything known to mankind back then. This is NOT the case today. In our time, you have to consult multiple experts and see that your theory is well-founded. This is done through peer-review. The other reason for peer-review is for everyone to check that your work upholds the standards of science: verifiability, falsifiability and repeatability. That no such method existed in his time does ofc not invalidate his research. But it would pass today.
3) Umm.. What? That science adapts to our increasingly accurate observations of the world around us is a STRENGTH, not a weakness. I mean, which of these sounds like the better way to go about achieving knowledge?: http://miscellanea.wellingtongrey.net/comics/2007-01-15-science-vs-faith.png
4) So the Bible doesn’t get anything wrong, does it? So these passages are all true? All of them? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk
Whut th* fock??? I just about fell off my chair trying to read that whole big long question.
And why the crap don’t you ever post a question addressed at agnostics??
Maybe because you aint’ got nothin?
.
“2) Darkins and a lot of Atheists always told me that a theory will not be taken seriously if it is not “peer reviewed”. But as far as “peer reviewed” journals go, do you suppose Galileo had “peer reviewed” journals supporting his helio-centric model of the solar system? Just curious.”
Funny but even after death, Galileo’s work has held up under scrutiny. Not all of it of course, but the basic Scientific methods he used.
However, at the time, no such mechanism was used.
Now, would YOU as a modern person, go to a doctor that prescribed leeches or referred to your “humors” when describing your medical problems?
Of course not. Reasonable people study history but do not repeat it’s mistakes. Unlike christians.
Oh and his name is Dawkins, not “Darkins” like you wrote up there.
If you’re going to try to discredit someone, at least have the good grace to spell his name correctly.
Heck, have the good grace to spell correctly in any case. Either way, you fail miserably.
This one is even funnier;
“Every time the skeptics have crowed that the Bible was nonsense because it mentioned some historical detail that wasn’t mentioned in secular history, they were later proven horribly wrong as new archeological discoveries confirmed those details.”
Oh really? Name ONE instance please. With sources.
I’ll wait…
… still waiting…
… 11 hours later and I’m STILL waiting. Gee, I wonder why?
Could it be because you know you’re 100% wrong? Yep, seems to be the case.
im an atheist and i didnt say richard dawkins was right about everything. but he was certainly right in saying ‘god’ doesnt exist.
1. Give me any evidence that the supernatural exist.
2. The church was the one that put him under house arrest for his claims.
If I wanted, I could check Galileo’s work if I so choose, like so may scientist have done before me.
3. Newton’s work was not incorrect, but incomplete. Einstein built upon his theories and other scientists to produce his famous relativity patient.
4. I am not even aware of the any archaeological evidence that Exodus being true, and that’s the under pinning part for of the Hebrew bible.
There isn’t even any documentation of Jesus. Oh and the birth, death and resurrection has been shamelessly plagiarised from many earlier faiths.
Thanks, I enjoyed that!
Darkins?
1. Science can most definitely confirm miracles by announcing it has no natural explanation for this phenomenon. If you could turn water into wine in lab conditions, science WOULD acknowledge it.
2. If Galileo submitted his paper for peer review right now, it would pass. His conclusions were verifiable, observable and repeatable.
3. Einstein didn’t prove Newton “wrong”, he proved him obsolete by producing a BETTER model. With better explanation of the facts and better predictions. Any established theory in science can be “overturned” or in most cases corrected, by a better working one. This is why science is so awesome, it only gets better and more accurate.
4. The Bible proposed global flood. Science disproved global flood. QED.
Undoubtedly you believe you are on to something. I’m happy for you.
How ironic that you throw Galileo out as an example. How did the church receive his theories, btw?
1.) What part of “burden of proof” is unclear to you?
2.) The scientific method has evolved over the course of humanity’s existence as well.
3.) Scientists aren’t claiming infallibility or knowledge of things that no one can detect in any way.
4.) Apart from a bit of pretentious name-dropping, there’s no factual claim in the Bible that wasn’t already common knowledge or a common misconception among 1st Century plebians.
I reluctantly have to agree with you on (1).
On (2)-(3), I think you don’t quite understand how science works.
On (4) … hoo boy, are you ever wrong.
Dude, Richard Dawkins is just one Atheist out of many. Personally, I see him as as much of an “evangelist” as many deluded Christians. He is not my leader, or “savior” his opinions are his own and do not effect me or mine.
You should spend your time figuring out the inconsistencies in your Bronze Age Shepard’s Guide.
The only thing that connects all Atheists is the lack of belief in god or gods.
Taoist/Atheist (realist)