Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Scientific literature Athiest bias

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 6:54:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Articles written by Scientific Journals often over exaggerate the findings of an experiment, or even a conjecture to promote and endorse an militant Atheist ideology.

Take the title from some articles "Physicist "Prove" God didn't create the Universe". The quotations around Prove, I imagine had to be present lest they be legally obligated to abandon honest journalism. The idea is a theoretical conjecture of a zero-point universe. Similar to the hypothesis already presented by Krauss and other free lunch advocates. Just like how virtual particles emerge from :nothing" then the universe emerges as well.

Now while I do have my contentions about the theories themselves, such as virtual particles come from space-time and the universe encapsulates spacetime, so any free lunch must assert the existence of another meta-verse this universe sprung from. @ models exist a nested version or an ever expansive one.

But notice "prove"is a strong word, practically flat out lying. The only venture of the scientist involved were to assemble different hypothetical conjectures and say this works as a way the universe could spring from nothing. They haven't gone from chalk on the black board to cheese on the table.

Scientific America wrote an article titled "First Life with "Alien" DNA Created in Lab". Familiar quotes around Alien. Now Alien is not mutually exclusive to religion of a God, but many would have their faith shaken if Aliens were to visit Earth.

The Daily Galaxy ""Evolution in a Test Tube" -Scientists Create Immortal Genetic Molecule" This might have been another Scientist make "life" in test tube story if it weren't for the original scientist encouragement. But that okay for the Agenda, use the word Evolution a concept most people apply to animals and species changing to a chemical process. How is this stuff not lying. Anything that changes over time can be called evolution. The evolution of blood in our blood stream, the evolution of hydrogen into helium inside a star.. honestly no limit to it's use. But certainly an attempt to repeat ad naseum that life can be made in a tube, evolution is fact, and God didn't do it.

I'm not a creationist Evolution does happen. The Evolution vs 6 day Creationist debate is just encouraged to undermine the Christian communities appeal to intellect. Like show casing Americans, and all the interviews are of hillbillies and cowboys. the point is Evolution is being used to describe everything that undergoes any change over time. And these articles appeal to the masses ignorance to convince them Scientist have created LIFE in a test tube.

Take the article titled ""Frankenstein" lab creates life in a test tube" The opening sentence of the article is A CONTROVERSIAL geneticist has "gone towards the role of a god" by becoming the first person to create "synthetic life". And of course the TRUTH is not even close to the hype. The geneticist successfully implanted X-Y (non-natural nucleotides) into bacteria. He didn't make the bacteria or chimera the bacteria to plant life.. no. He added artificial information to the natural system that was read and operated on by the natural system. Still landmark achievement but not Scientist create Life, God fake.

Which is silly because if Scientist manufacture Life in a tube through precise and careful manipulations... then that is evidence life emerges by way of intelligent manufacturing not random natural processes. At any point it doesn't confirm God doesn't exist. They are unrelated in conditions.

So we see Athiest's duplicitous proselytizing.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:08:14 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
None of that is atheistic bias. Journalism today has loads of clickbaity titles, not just science journals (and I wouldn't be surprised if they were due to the editors, in order to generate buzz/controversy).
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:20:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 7:08:14 PM, Torton wrote:
None of that is atheistic bias. Journalism today has loads of clickbaity titles, not just science journals (and I wouldn't be surprised if they were due to the editors, in order to generate buzz/controversy).
None of that is atheistic bias is a pretty strong statement. Considering the large number of atheists (and agnostics) within the scientific community, are you sure you can really stand by that idea that there is no atheistic bias?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:58:56 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 6:54:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Articles written by Scientific Journals often over exaggerate the findings of an experiment, or even a conjecture to promote and endorse an militant Atheist ideology.

That's like saying scientist attempt to present evidence the earth is round as propaganda for their militant round-earth ideology. The only people that think that are people that believe in a flat earth.

If a scientists is ever biased on an important topic, there are 100 scientists that will take him down out of simple self promotion. If all the scientists are biased and wrong, prove them wrong. You would be rich and famous. Can you imagine the uproar in society if it was disproven the earth was round?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:02:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 6:54:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Articles written by Scientific Journals often over exaggerate the findings of an experiment, or even a conjecture to promote and endorse an militant Atheist ideology.

Take the title from some articles "Physicist "Prove" God didn't create the Universe". The quotations around Prove, I imagine had to be present lest they be legally obligated to abandon honest journalism. The idea is a theoretical conjecture of a zero-point universe. Similar to the hypothesis already presented by Krauss and other free lunch advocates. Just like how virtual particles emerge from :nothing" then the universe emerges as well.

Now while I do have my contentions about the theories themselves, such as virtual particles come from space-time and the universe encapsulates spacetime, so any free lunch must assert the existence of another meta-verse this universe sprung from. @ models exist a nested version or an ever expansive one.

But notice "prove"is a strong word, practically flat out lying. The only venture of the scientist involved were to assemble different hypothetical conjectures and say this works as a way the universe could spring from nothing. They haven't gone from chalk on the black board to cheese on the table.

You're probably referring to this article:

http://www.express.co.uk...

... which has been debunked by this article as a false claim:

http://www.skeptical-science.com...

Did you not do your homework on this one Mhykiel?

Scientific America wrote an article titled "First Life with "Alien" DNA Created in Lab". Familiar quotes around Alien. Now Alien is not mutually exclusive to religion of a God, but many would have their faith shaken if Aliens were to visit Earth.

Would they? Or, would the try and convert the aliens to Christianity?

The Daily Galaxy ""Evolution in a Test Tube" -Scientists Create Immortal Genetic Molecule" This might have been another Scientist make "life" in test tube story if it weren't for the original scientist encouragement. But that okay for the Agenda, use the word Evolution a concept most people apply to animals and species changing to a chemical process. How is this stuff not lying. Anything that changes over time can be called evolution. The evolution of blood in our blood stream, the evolution of hydrogen into helium inside a star.. honestly no limit to it's use. But certainly an attempt to repeat ad naseum that life can be made in a tube, evolution is fact, and God didn't do it.

Once again, please brush up on your knowledge, or lack thereof, of how evolution works.

I'm not a creationist Evolution does happen. The Evolution vs 6 day Creationist debate is just encouraged to undermine the Christian communities appeal to intellect. Like show casing Americans, and all the interviews are of hillbillies and cowboys. the point is Evolution is being used to describe everything that undergoes any change over time.

No, it isn't, it has to meet the two postulates of evolution. Do you know what they are?

And these articles appeal to the masses ignorance to convince them Scientist have created LIFE in a test tube.

Take the article titled ""Frankenstein" lab creates life in a test tube" The opening sentence of the article is A CONTROVERSIAL geneticist has "gone towards the role of a god" by becoming the first person to create "synthetic life". And of course the TRUTH is not even close to the hype. The geneticist successfully implanted X-Y (non-natural nucleotides) into bacteria. He didn't make the bacteria or chimera the bacteria to plant life.. no. He added artificial information to the natural system that was read and operated on by the natural system. Still landmark achievement but not Scientist create Life, God fake.

Which is silly because if Scientist manufacture Life in a tube through precise and careful manipulations... then that is evidence life emerges by way of intelligent manufacturing not random natural processes. At any point it doesn't confirm God doesn't exist. They are unrelated in conditions.

So we see Athiest's duplicitous proselytizing.

I see a misrepresentation of science and evolution from you.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:14:55 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 7:58:56 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Articles written by Scientific Journals often over exaggerate the findings of an experiment, or even a conjecture to promote and endorse an militant Atheist ideology.

That's like saying scientist attempt to present evidence the earth is round as propaganda for their militant round-earth ideology. The only people that think that are people that believe in a flat earth.

If a scientists is ever biased on an important topic, there are 100 scientists that will take him down out of simple self promotion. If all the scientists are biased and wrong, prove them wrong. You would be rich and famous. Can you imagine the uproar in society if it was disproven the earth was round?

I'm not saying their findings are wrong please gain some reading comprehension. In many of the actual papers the Scientist are accurate and careful of their conclusion. I am pointing out how when reported on the articles propagate an Atheist ideology.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:19:26 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 8:14:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:58:56 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Articles written by Scientific Journals often over exaggerate the findings of an experiment, or even a conjecture to promote and endorse an militant Atheist ideology.

That's like saying scientist attempt to present evidence the earth is round as propaganda for their militant round-earth ideology. The only people that think that are people that believe in a flat earth.

If a scientists is ever biased on an important topic, there are 100 scientists that will take him down out of simple self promotion. If all the scientists are biased and wrong, prove them wrong. You would be rich and famous. Can you imagine the uproar in society if it was disproven the earth was round?

I'm not saying their findings are wrong please gain some reading comprehension. In many of the actual papers the Scientist are accurate and careful of their conclusion. I am pointing out how when reported on the articles propagate an Atheist ideology.

Can you provide a link to a scientific study that was claimed as proof that god doesn't exist?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:24:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 6:54:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Articles written by Scientific Journals often over exaggerate the findings of an experiment, or even a conjecture to promote and endorse an militant Atheist ideology.

Mhykiel, you linked no independent citations supporting your contention that science has an atheist bias. Nor is your contention clear on when this bias was supposed to have appeared, why it appeared, or why it hasn't been more readily detected and contested in science, as other biases at times, have.

And finally, your allusion to 'militant atheist ideology' doesn't say what the ideology is, what its goals are, where they were first documented, when and by whom, who champions them, or how they are prosecuted across a worldwide discipline that spans cultures, faiths and creeds, involves the participation of thousands of secular and religious institutions, in a sector with more than ten million active participants and among tens of millions of people qualified to comment.

Not only does your post appear to be wild-eyed tinfoil-hat opinion, I can't readily see whose opinion it is, or how it was formed, or how it was tested (if at all) before you posted it.

I don't think it needs rebuttal so much as evidentiary root canal therapy. :p
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:25:56 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
I should probably rephrase that because I'm sure some blogger out there somewhere claimed some scientific findings prove a god doesn't exist.

For every author that might make such a claim, there are dozens of religious authors that claim that scientific findings disprove evolution. If you are looking to point fingers at biases, your looking in the wrong place.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:37:20 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 8:19:26 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 2/13/2016 8:14:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:58:56 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Articles written by Scientific Journals often over exaggerate the findings of an experiment, or even a conjecture to promote and endorse an militant Atheist ideology.

That's like saying scientist attempt to present evidence the earth is round as propaganda for their militant round-earth ideology. The only people that think that are people that believe in a flat earth.

If a scientists is ever biased on an important topic, there are 100 scientists that will take him down out of simple self promotion. If all the scientists are biased and wrong, prove them wrong. You would be rich and famous. Can you imagine the uproar in society if it was disproven the earth was round?

I'm not saying their findings are wrong please gain some reading comprehension. In many of the actual papers the Scientist are accurate and careful of their conclusion. I am pointing out how when reported on the articles propagate an Atheist ideology.

Can you provide a link to a scientific study that was claimed as proof that god doesn't exist?

Are you even bothering to read what I am typing?

I stated that the Scientific Papers often show conservative carefully defined conclusions.

My post is about the Scientific Literature advertising the results of these Scientific Papers.

What's not surprising is this "Proof" comes from a Professor Mir Faizal. A Muslim who sincerely believes in a God.

But you can read the original paper here http://arxiv.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:43:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 8:24:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Articles written by Scientific Journals often over exaggerate the findings of an experiment, or even a conjecture to promote and endorse an militant Atheist ideology.

Mhykiel, you linked no independent citations supporting your contention that science has an atheist bias. Nor is your contention clear on when this bias was supposed to have appeared, why it appeared, or why it hasn't been more readily detected and contested in science, as other biases at times, have.

And finally, your allusion to 'militant atheist ideology' doesn't say what the ideology is, what its goals are, where they were first documented, when and by whom, who champions them, or how they are prosecuted across a worldwide discipline that spans cultures, faiths and creeds, involves the participation of thousands of secular and religious institutions, in a sector with more than ten million active participants and among tens of millions of people qualified to comment.

Not only does your post appear to be wild-eyed tinfoil-hat opinion, I can't readily see whose opinion it is, or how it was formed, or how it was tested (if at all) before you posted it.

I don't think it needs rebuttal so much as evidentiary root canal therapy. :p

i didn't say Scientist but Scientific Journalism. The propaganda is an attempt to instill strong Atheist ideology onto the readers by hyperbole and duplicitous reporting.

I presented a few examples. The attempt of which is to instill a concept that "Scientist have "proven" no god", that "Scientist have made "Life", and that the word evolution is generously sprinkled about to describe any change over time. Even describing physical or chemical reactions. Where impurities can be called "mutations" and magnetic attraction is called "natural selection". While i have no problem with Evolution being change over time (that is what it means) I remark that it's generous use is brow beating an audience who equate less nuance with the word.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 1:32:21 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 6:54:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Articles written by Scientific Journals often over exaggerate the findings of an experiment, or even a conjecture to promote and endorse an militant Atheist ideology.

Take the title from some articles "Physicist "Prove" God didn't create the Universe". The quotations around Prove, I imagine had to be present lest they be legally obligated to abandon honest journalism. The idea is a theoretical conjecture of a zero-point universe. Similar to the hypothesis already presented by Krauss and other free lunch advocates. Just like how virtual particles emerge from :nothing" then the universe emerges as well.

Now while I do have my contentions about the theories themselves, such as virtual particles come from space-time and the universe encapsulates spacetime, so any free lunch must assert the existence of another meta-verse this universe sprung from. @ models exist a nested version or an ever expansive one.

But notice "prove"is a strong word, practically flat out lying. The only venture of the scientist involved were to assemble different hypothetical conjectures and say this works as a way the universe could spring from nothing. They haven't gone from chalk on the black board to cheese on the table.

Scientific America wrote an article titled "First Life with "Alien" DNA Created in Lab". Familiar quotes around Alien. Now Alien is not mutually exclusive to religion of a God, but many would have their faith shaken if Aliens were to visit Earth.

The Daily Galaxy ""Evolution in a Test Tube" -Scientists Create Immortal Genetic Molecule" This might have been another Scientist make "life" in test tube story if it weren't for the original scientist encouragement. But that okay for the Agenda, use the word Evolution a concept most people apply to animals and species changing to a chemical process. How is this stuff not lying. Anything that changes over time can be called evolution. The evolution of blood in our blood stream, the evolution of hydrogen into helium inside a star.. honestly no limit to it's use. But certainly an attempt to repeat ad naseum that life can be made in a tube, evolution is fact, and God didn't do it.

I'm not a creationist Evolution does happen. The Evolution vs 6 day Creationist debate is just encouraged to undermine the Christian communities appeal to intellect. Like show casing Americans, and all the interviews are of hillbillies and cowboys. the point is Evolution is being used to describe everything that undergoes any change over time. And these articles appeal to the masses ignorance to convince them Scientist have created LIFE in a test tube.

Take the article titled ""Frankenstein" lab creates life in a test tube" The opening sentence of the article is A CONTROVERSIAL geneticist has "gone towards the role of a god" by becoming the first person to create "synthetic life". And of course the TRUTH is not even close to the hype. The geneticist successfully implanted X-Y (non-natural nucleotides) into bacteria. He didn't make the bacteria or chimera the bacteria to plant life.. no. He added artificial information to the natural system that was read and operated on by the natural system. Still landmark achievement but not Scientist create Life, God fake.

Which is silly because if Scientist manufacture Life in a tube through precise and careful manipulations... then that is evidence life emerges by way of intelligent manufacturing not random natural processes. At any point it doesn't confirm God doesn't exist. They are unrelated in conditions.

So we see Athiest's duplicitous proselytizing.

- Science, itself, is a product of bias. As al-Ghazali have postulated, the three reasons why humans are interested in investigating the world are: Necessity, Bias, & Curiosity/Obsession. The Scientific Method is, by design, an instrument of confirming bias, for the the hypothesis therein are all born from biased views of the world, based on previous prejudice. Given that scientists are the agents of this Scientific Method, the resulted biased Science would heavily depend on the predominant prejudices of these scientists. If most of them are theists, it's likely the resulting Scientific Model would relate to that worldview, idem for if most are atheists.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 1:54:35 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 8:14:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:58:56 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Articles written by Scientific Journals often over exaggerate the findings of an experiment, or even a conjecture to promote and endorse an militant Atheist ideology.

That's like saying scientist attempt to present evidence the earth is round as propaganda for their militant round-earth ideology. The only people that think that are people that believe in a flat earth.

If a scientists is ever biased on an important topic, there are 100 scientists that will take him down out of simple self promotion. If all the scientists are biased and wrong, prove them wrong. You would be rich and famous. Can you imagine the uproar in society if it was disproven the earth was round?

I'm not saying their findings are wrong please gain some reading comprehension. In many of the actual papers the Scientist are accurate and careful of their conclusion. I am pointing out how when reported on the articles propagate an Atheist ideology.

So what you meant to say was:
Journalist's science stories have Athiest bias
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 1:58:45 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 6:54:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Articles written by Scientific Journals often over exaggerate the findings of an experiment, or even a conjecture to promote and endorse an militant Atheist ideology.

Take the title from some articles "Physicist "Prove" God didn't create the Universe". The quotations around Prove, I imagine had to be present lest they be legally obligated to abandon honest journalism. The idea is a theoretical conjecture of a zero-point universe. Similar to the hypothesis already presented by Krauss and other free lunch advocates. Just like how virtual particles emerge from :nothing" then the universe emerges as well.

Now while I do have my contentions about the theories themselves, such as virtual particles come from space-time and the universe encapsulates spacetime, so any free lunch must assert the existence of another meta-verse this universe sprung from. @ models exist a nested version or an ever expansive one.

But notice "prove"is a strong word, practically flat out lying. The only venture of the scientist involved were to assemble different hypothetical conjectures and say this works as a way the universe could spring from nothing. They haven't gone from chalk on the black board to cheese on the table.

Scientific America wrote an article titled "First Life with "Alien" DNA Created in Lab". Familiar quotes around Alien. Now Alien is not mutually exclusive to religion of a God, but many would have their faith shaken if Aliens were to visit Earth.

The Daily Galaxy ""Evolution in a Test Tube" -Scientists Create Immortal Genetic Molecule" This might have been another Scientist make "life" in test tube story if it weren't for the original scientist encouragement. But that okay for the Agenda, use the word Evolution a concept most people apply to animals and species changing to a chemical process. How is this stuff not lying. Anything that changes over time can be called evolution. The evolution of blood in our blood stream, the evolution of hydrogen into helium inside a star.. honestly no limit to it's use. But certainly an attempt to repeat ad naseum that life can be made in a tube, evolution is fact, and God didn't do it.

I'm not a creationist Evolution does happen. The Evolution vs 6 day Creationist debate is just encouraged to undermine the Christian communities appeal to intellect. Like show casing Americans, and all the interviews are of hillbillies and cowboys. the point is Evolution is being used to describe everything that undergoes any change over time. And these articles appeal to the masses ignorance to convince them Scientist have created LIFE in a test tube.

Take the article titled ""Frankenstein" lab creates life in a test tube" The opening sentence of the article is A CONTROVERSIAL geneticist has "gone towards the role of a god" by becoming the first person to create "synthetic life". And of course the TRUTH is not even close to the hype. The geneticist successfully implanted X-Y (non-natural nucleotides) into bacteria. He didn't make the bacteria or chimera the bacteria to plant life.. no. He added artificial information to the natural system that was read and operated on by the natural system. Still landmark achievement but not Scientist create Life, God fake.

Which is silly because if Scientist manufacture Life in a tube through precise and careful manipulations... then that is evidence life emerges by way of intelligent manufacturing not random natural processes. At any point it doesn't confirm God doesn't exist. They are unrelated in conditions.

So we see Athiest's duplicitous proselytizing.

Let me paraphrase that:

"Atheistic click bait exists"!

Well done for noticing that. *slow clap*

Anyway, you theists aren't much better either:

http://witscience.org...

http://www.news24.com...

https://realtruth.org...

Click bait is aimed at everyone, including atheists. Grow up.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 2:01:10 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 1:58:45 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Articles written by Scientific Journals often over exaggerate the findings of an experiment, or even a conjecture to promote and endorse an militant Atheist ideology.

Take the title from some articles "Physicist "Prove" God didn't create the Universe". The quotations around Prove, I imagine had to be present lest they be legally obligated to abandon honest journalism. The idea is a theoretical conjecture of a zero-point universe. Similar to the hypothesis already presented by Krauss and other free lunch advocates. Just like how virtual particles emerge from :nothing" then the universe emerges as well.

Now while I do have my contentions about the theories themselves, such as virtual particles come from space-time and the universe encapsulates spacetime, so any free lunch must assert the existence of another meta-verse this universe sprung from. @ models exist a nested version or an ever expansive one.

But notice "prove"is a strong word, practically flat out lying. The only venture of the scientist involved were to assemble different hypothetical conjectures and say this works as a way the universe could spring from nothing. They haven't gone from chalk on the black board to cheese on the table.

Scientific America wrote an article titled "First Life with "Alien" DNA Created in Lab". Familiar quotes around Alien. Now Alien is not mutually exclusive to religion of a God, but many would have their faith shaken if Aliens were to visit Earth.

The Daily Galaxy ""Evolution in a Test Tube" -Scientists Create Immortal Genetic Molecule" This might have been another Scientist make "life" in test tube story if it weren't for the original scientist encouragement. But that okay for the Agenda, use the word Evolution a concept most people apply to animals and species changing to a chemical process. How is this stuff not lying. Anything that changes over time can be called evolution. The evolution of blood in our blood stream, the evolution of hydrogen into helium inside a star.. honestly no limit to it's use. But certainly an attempt to repeat ad naseum that life can be made in a tube, evolution is fact, and God didn't do it.

I'm not a creationist Evolution does happen. The Evolution vs 6 day Creationist debate is just encouraged to undermine the Christian communities appeal to intellect. Like show casing Americans, and all the interviews are of hillbillies and cowboys. the point is Evolution is being used to describe everything that undergoes any change over time. And these articles appeal to the masses ignorance to convince them Scientist have created LIFE in a test tube.

Take the article titled ""Frankenstein" lab creates life in a test tube" The opening sentence of the article is A CONTROVERSIAL geneticist has "gone towards the role of a god" by becoming the first person to create "synthetic life". And of course the TRUTH is not even close to the hype. The geneticist successfully implanted X-Y (non-natural nucleotides) into bacteria. He didn't make the bacteria or chimera the bacteria to plant life.. no. He added artificial information to the natural system that was read and operated on by the natural system. Still landmark achievement but not Scientist create Life, God fake.

Which is silly because if Scientist manufacture Life in a tube through precise and careful manipulations... then that is evidence life emerges by way of intelligent manufacturing not random natural processes. At any point it doesn't confirm God doesn't exist. They are unrelated in conditions.

So we see Athiest's duplicitous proselytizing.

Let me paraphrase that:

"Atheistic click bait exists"!

Well done for noticing that. *slow clap*

Anyway, you theists aren't much better either:

http://witscience.org...

http://www.news24.com...

https://realtruth.org...

Click bait is aimed at everyone, including atheists. Grow up.

Are you saying because it is sensational to drive traffic, it means it is not bias or promoting a particular ideology?

You can just say concede and say yes that is what it is.
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 2:06:45 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 2:01:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/14/2016 1:58:45 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Articles written by Scientific Journals often over exaggerate the findings of an experiment, or even a conjecture to promote and endorse an militant Atheist ideology.

Take the title from some articles "Physicist "Prove" God didn't create the Universe". The quotations around Prove, I imagine had to be present lest they be legally obligated to abandon honest journalism. The idea is a theoretical conjecture of a zero-point universe. Similar to the hypothesis already presented by Krauss and other free lunch advocates. Just like how virtual particles emerge from :nothing" then the universe emerges as well.

Now while I do have my contentions about the theories themselves, such as virtual particles come from space-time and the universe encapsulates spacetime, so any free lunch must assert the existence of another meta-verse this universe sprung from. @ models exist a nested version or an ever expansive one.

But notice "prove"is a strong word, practically flat out lying. The only venture of the scientist involved were to assemble different hypothetical conjectures and say this works as a way the universe could spring from nothing. They haven't gone from chalk on the black board to cheese on the table.

Scientific America wrote an article titled "First Life with "Alien" DNA Created in Lab". Familiar quotes around Alien. Now Alien is not mutually exclusive to religion of a God, but many would have their faith shaken if Aliens were to visit Earth.

The Daily Galaxy ""Evolution in a Test Tube" -Scientists Create Immortal Genetic Molecule" This might have been another Scientist make "life" in test tube story if it weren't for the original scientist encouragement. But that okay for the Agenda, use the word Evolution a concept most people apply to animals and species changing to a chemical process. How is this stuff not lying. Anything that changes over time can be called evolution. The evolution of blood in our blood stream, the evolution of hydrogen into helium inside a star.. honestly no limit to it's use. But certainly an attempt to repeat ad naseum that life can be made in a tube, evolution is fact, and God didn't do it.

I'm not a creationist Evolution does happen. The Evolution vs 6 day Creationist debate is just encouraged to undermine the Christian communities appeal to intellect. Like show casing Americans, and all the interviews are of hillbillies and cowboys. the point is Evolution is being used to describe everything that undergoes any change over time. And these articles appeal to the masses ignorance to convince them Scientist have created LIFE in a test tube.

Take the article titled ""Frankenstein" lab creates life in a test tube" The opening sentence of the article is A CONTROVERSIAL geneticist has "gone towards the role of a god" by becoming the first person to create "synthetic life". And of course the TRUTH is not even close to the hype. The geneticist successfully implanted X-Y (non-natural nucleotides) into bacteria. He didn't make the bacteria or chimera the bacteria to plant life.. no. He added artificial information to the natural system that was read and operated on by the natural system. Still landmark achievement but not Scientist create Life, God fake.

Which is silly because if Scientist manufacture Life in a tube through precise and careful manipulations... then that is evidence life emerges by way of intelligent manufacturing not random natural processes. At any point it doesn't confirm God doesn't exist. They are unrelated in conditions.

So we see Athiest's duplicitous proselytizing.

Let me paraphrase that:

"Atheistic click bait exists"!

Well done for noticing that. *slow clap*

Anyway, you theists aren't much better either:

http://witscience.org...

http://www.news24.com...

https://realtruth.org...

Click bait is aimed at everyone, including atheists. Grow up.

Are you saying because it is sensational to drive traffic, it means it is not bias or promoting a particular ideology?

Yes, because it's click bait, like I said, and journalism is no stranger to it. It can be directed at anyone.

You can just say concede and say yes that is what it is.

There may be bias, but again, this is journalism, and journalists have their own ideologies and beliefs or lack thereof, which is often reflected in their articles (along with some click bait of course).
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
Accipiter
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 4:15:10 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 6:54:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Articles written by Scientific Journals often over exaggerate the findings of an experiment, or even a conjecture to promote and endorse an militant Atheist ideology.

Take the title from some articles "Physicist "Prove" God didn't create the Universe". The quotations around Prove, I imagine had to be present lest they be legally obligated to abandon honest journalism. The idea is a theoretical conjecture of a zero-point universe. Similar to the hypothesis already presented by Krauss and other free lunch advocates. Just like how virtual particles emerge from :nothing" then the universe emerges as well.

Now while I do have my contentions about the theories themselves, such as virtual particles come from space-time and the universe encapsulates spacetime, so any free lunch must assert the existence of another meta-verse this universe sprung from. @ models exist a nested version or an ever expansive one.

But notice "prove"is a strong word, practically flat out lying. The only venture of the scientist involved were to assemble different hypothetical conjectures and say this works as a way the universe could spring from nothing. They haven't gone from chalk on the black board to cheese on the table.

Scientific America wrote an article titled "First Life with "Alien" DNA Created in Lab". Familiar quotes around Alien. Now Alien is not mutually exclusive to religion of a God, but many would have their faith shaken if Aliens were to visit Earth.

The Daily Galaxy ""Evolution in a Test Tube" -Scientists Create Immortal Genetic Molecule" This might have been another Scientist make "life" in test tube story if it weren't for the original scientist encouragement. But that okay for the Agenda, use the word Evolution a concept most people apply to animals and species changing to a chemical process. How is this stuff not lying. Anything that changes over time can be called evolution. The evolution of blood in our blood stream, the evolution of hydrogen into helium inside a star.. honestly no limit to it's use. But certainly an attempt to repeat ad naseum that life can be made in a tube, evolution is fact, and God didn't do it.

I'm not a creationist Evolution does happen. The Evolution vs 6 day Creationist debate is just encouraged to undermine the Christian communities appeal to intellect. Like show casing Americans, and all the interviews are of hillbillies and cowboys. the point is Evolution is being used to describe everything that undergoes any change over time. And these articles appeal to the masses ignorance to convince them Scientist have created LIFE in a test tube.

Take the article titled ""Frankenstein" lab creates life in a test tube" The opening sentence of the article is A CONTROVERSIAL geneticist has "gone towards the role of a god" by becoming the first person to create "synthetic life". And of course the TRUTH is not even close to the hype. The geneticist successfully implanted X-Y (non-natural nucleotides) into bacteria. He didn't make the bacteria or chimera the bacteria to plant life.. no. He added artificial information to the natural system that was read and operated on by the natural system. Still landmark achievement but not Scientist create Life, God fake.

Which is silly because if Scientist manufacture Life in a tube through precise and careful manipulations... then that is evidence life emerges by way of intelligent manufacturing not random natural processes. At any point it doesn't confirm God doesn't exist. They are unrelated in conditions.

So we see Athiest's duplicitous proselytizing.

One does not need scientific literature to recognize something that is ridiculous.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 3:24:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 1:32:21 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Articles written by Scientific Journals often over exaggerate the findings of an experiment, or even a conjecture to promote and endorse an militant Atheist ideology.

Take the title from some articles "Physicist "Prove" God didn't create the Universe". The quotations around Prove, I imagine had to be present lest they be legally obligated to abandon honest journalism. The idea is a theoretical conjecture of a zero-point universe. Similar to the hypothesis already presented by Krauss and other free lunch advocates. Just like how virtual particles emerge from :nothing" then the universe emerges as well.

Now while I do have my contentions about the theories themselves, such as virtual particles come from space-time and the universe encapsulates spacetime, so any free lunch must assert the existence of another meta-verse this universe sprung from. @ models exist a nested version or an ever expansive one.

But notice "prove"is a strong word, practically flat out lying. The only venture of the scientist involved were to assemble different hypothetical conjectures and say this works as a way the universe could spring from nothing. They haven't gone from chalk on the black board to cheese on the table.

Scientific America wrote an article titled "First Life with "Alien" DNA Created in Lab". Familiar quotes around Alien. Now Alien is not mutually exclusive to religion of a God, but many would have their faith shaken if Aliens were to visit Earth.

The Daily Galaxy ""Evolution in a Test Tube" -Scientists Create Immortal Genetic Molecule" This might have been another Scientist make "life" in test tube story if it weren't for the original scientist encouragement. But that okay for the Agenda, use the word Evolution a concept most people apply to animals and species changing to a chemical process. How is this stuff not lying. Anything that changes over time can be called evolution. The evolution of blood in our blood stream, the evolution of hydrogen into helium inside a star.. honestly no limit to it's use. But certainly an attempt to repeat ad naseum that life can be made in a tube, evolution is fact, and God didn't do it.

I'm not a creationist Evolution does happen. The Evolution vs 6 day Creationist debate is just encouraged to undermine the Christian communities appeal to intellect. Like show casing Americans, and all the interviews are of hillbillies and cowboys. the point is Evolution is being used to describe everything that undergoes any change over time. And these articles appeal to the masses ignorance to convince them Scientist have created LIFE in a test tube.

Take the article titled ""Frankenstein" lab creates life in a test tube" The opening sentence of the article is A CONTROVERSIAL geneticist has "gone towards the role of a god" by becoming the first person to create "synthetic life". And of course the TRUTH is not even close to the hype. The geneticist successfully implanted X-Y (non-natural nucleotides) into bacteria. He didn't make the bacteria or chimera the bacteria to plant life.. no. He added artificial information to the natural system that was read and operated on by the natural system. Still landmark achievement but not Scientist create Life, God fake.

Which is silly because if Scientist manufacture Life in a tube through precise and careful manipulations... then that is evidence life emerges by way of intelligent manufacturing not random natural processes. At any point it doesn't confirm God doesn't exist. They are unrelated in conditions.

So we see Athiest's duplicitous proselytizing.

- Science, itself, is a product of bias. As al-Ghazali have postulated, the three reasons why humans are interested in investigating the world are: Necessity, Bias, & Curiosity/Obsession.

But, al-Ghazali was not referring to Science, he was referring to Islamic Jurisprudence and Islamic Theology.

The Scientific Method is, by design, an instrument of confirming bias, for the the hypothesis therein are all born from biased views of the world, based on previous prejudice. Given that scientists are the agents of this Scientific Method, the resulted biased Science would heavily depend on the predominant prejudices of these scientists. If most of them are theists, it's likely the resulting Scientific Model would relate to that worldview, idem for if most are atheists.

Would you be interested in a few links explaining how the Scientific Method works, it appears you have no clue.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 6:03:03 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 8:43:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/13/2016 8:24:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Articles written by Scientific Journals often over exaggerate the findings of an experiment, or even a conjecture to promote and endorse an militant Atheist ideology.
Mhykiel, you linked no independent citations supporting your contention that science has an atheist bias. Nor is your contention clear on when this bias was supposed to have appeared, why it appeared, or why it hasn't been more readily detected and contested in science, as other biases at times, have.
Not only does your post appear to be wild-eyed tinfoil-hat opinion, I can't readily see whose opinion it is, or how it was formed, or how it was tested (if at all) before you posted it.
I don't think it needs rebuttal so much as evidentiary root canal therapy. :p
i didn't say Scientist but Scientific Journalism.
Actually, your heading said 'Scientific literature', which for me conjured papers written by scientists for scientists. And then you wrote 'scientific journals' instead of 'popular science magazines' in your main body, which didn't help my misunderstanding. You mentioned Scientific American, but SciAm frequently reports the contents of peer-reviewed scientific papers, so that didn't really clear things up.

But I now I (think I) understand you to mean Scientific American, New Scientist, popular science journals like that. But you're specifically excluding peer-reviewed journals like Nature publishing scientific papers, yes?

The propaganda is an attempt to instill strong Atheist ideology onto the readers by hyperbole and duplicitous reporting.
You've spotted their sometime abuse of metaphor and hyperbole, and tendency to beat up results to make them sound exciting and dramatic. (I agree -- they do; some more than others.)

From that you've inferred that these devices are principally to encourage the rejection of presuppositionalist religious dogma, and asserted that any such encouragement is an act of deliberate antireligious bias?

There are lots of popular science mags around, Mhykiel, and I don't read many of them -- in part because I generally don't think much of science journalism. I have a New Scientist subscription I peruse from time to time and that's about it. But if I'm interested in a specific scientific result I tend to read the original papers.

But you're right that the reportage can get sensationalistic, and while I understand the need to entertain with dry material, the scientist in me cringes when the reporting gets the results wrong or misleading (many science journalists seem not to understand much science), while the writer in me winces at the excessive whimsy that sometimes borders on idealistic reverence (scientists don't generally revere their results, or encourage such reverence, and I don't see why reporters or readers should.)

Perhaps that's what you're picking up on?

The propaganda is an attempt to instill strong Atheist ideology onto the readers by hyperbole and duplicitous reporting.
Firstly, the major popular science journals aren't the organs of any identifiable atheist institutions. Scientific American, for example, is owned by the Nature Group, which publishes Nature as its flagship. That's owned by US science publisher Springer Nature, which is owned in turn by private German science publisher Holtzbrinck. But throughout that hierarchy, the focus is very much on scientific product. Not only do non-scientist atheists like (say) Christopher Hitchens not turn up in a SciAm search, I also couldn't get a match on Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Peter Atkins even though they're all scientists.

As another comparison point, New Scientist is published by UK-domiciled Reed Business Information, owned in turn by the multinational RELX Group which focuses on information, data analytics, academic and business publishing and exhibitions. In New Scientist, Dawkins gets a regular mention (he's a famous British scientist), as does Atkins (ditto), but Sam Harris (a scientist, but not a Brit) gets only thirteen mentions, while Hitchens (a Brit, but not a scientist) gets only five.

I think this illustrates that their focus isn't on promoting atheism. I think it's on what they say it is: science and scientific product.

But the question then is how it's presented... and I agree with you that it's sometimes beaten-up, glamourised, sensationalised and dramatised (especially in SciAm, which often irritates me.) There is sometimes a sort of rational materialist feel to it, which I understand may look like atheism to you. Yet sometimes there's an almost idealistic implication that whatever problems there are, science can solve them -- which may also look like atheism to you, for all I know.

In both cases though, I don't like it myself. I dislike rational materialism because I think it's insensitive to the real epistemological challenges scientists wrestle with every day -- it's an answer looking for evidence it can never find. I like respect for scientific methods because they work, but dislike reverence for them because they're constantly under revision -- and reverence is both misleading and a hindrance to effective critical thought.

So here's an atheist scientist agreeing with you that he doesn't like (a lot of) popular science reporting, Mhykiel. :)

A subordinate question is how religion is presented in science journalism. Informally, I think there are generally two streams: one is religion as psychology or sociology, where it's treated as a psychosocial subject (which legitimately it is.) The other is science vs religious antiscience, where religious antiscience is generally disparaged, along with mystical antiscience and pseudoscience -- as you'd expect in a popular science mag.

Since not all religion is antiscientific, I think the only parts of religious faith that need be concerned by that, are the parts that are. And if they are, they have a conflict of interest already about science journalism.

I presented a few examples. The attempt of which is to instill a concept that "Scientist have "proven" no god", that "Scientist have made "Life", and that the word evolution is generously sprinkled about to describe any change over time.
I didn't fully realise before today the extent to which you find the word 'evolution' offensive, Mhykiel.

While I'm sorry that its use distresses you, I also regret to tell you that evolution has been an accepted and uncontroversial scientific result for around fifty years. Consequently, it has become not just a subject of continuing research, but also a paradigm for understanding other things.

That's not a conspiracy; it's just how people deal with knowledge: they reuse it for communication and reflection about other things.

There is a public relations campaign to manufacture controversy and try and undo the last hundred and fifty years of biological research, but it's tiny, too publicly exposed to be called a conspiracy, has produced no significant peer-reviewed results, and is riddled with pseudoscience and academic dishonesty. Science can't take it seriously because it falls below the epistemological bar for legitimate scientific conjecture; and science journalism doesn't either, except to occasionally pick it up as a challenge for better science communication.

Presupposing that it should be taken seriously does not entail that refusing to do so is a conspiracy. A more likely explanation is that bias has manufactured conspiracy to justify belief.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 7:10:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 6:03:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/13/2016 8:43:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/13/2016 8:24:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
...
So here's an atheist scientist agreeing with you that he doesn't like (a lot of) popular science reporting, Mhykiel. :)

Thank you.


A subordinate question is how religion is presented in science journalism. Informally, I think there are generally two streams: one is religion as psychology or sociology, where it's treated as a psychosocial subject (which legitimately it is.) The other is science vs religious antiscience, where religious antiscience is generally disparaged, along with mystical antiscience and pseudoscience -- as you'd expect in a popular science mag.

Since not all religion is antiscientific, I think the only parts of religious faith that need be concerned by that, are the parts that are. And if they are, they have a conflict of interest already about science journalism.

I presented a few examples. The attempt of which is to instill a concept that "Scientist have "proven" no god", that "Scientist have made "Life", and that the word evolution is generously sprinkled about to describe any change over time.
I didn't fully realise before today the extent to which you find the word 'evolution' offensive, Mhykiel.

While I'm sorry that its use distresses you, I also regret to tell you that evolution has been an accepted and uncontroversial scientific result for around fifty years. Consequently, it has become not just a subject of continuing research, but also a paradigm for understanding other things.

That's not a conspiracy; it's just how people deal with knowledge: they reuse it for communication and reflection about other things.

There is a public relations campaign to manufacture controversy and try and undo the last hundred and fifty years of biological research, but it's tiny, too publicly exposed to be called a conspiracy, has produced no significant peer-reviewed results, and is riddled with pseudoscience and academic dishonesty. Science can't take it seriously because it falls below the epistemological bar for legitimate scientific conjecture; and science journalism doesn't either, except to occasionally pick it up as a challenge for better science communication.

Presupposing that it should be taken seriously does not entail that refusing to do so is a conspiracy. A more likely explanation is that bias has manufactured conspiracy to justify belief.

I accept Evolution theory as fact.

You have an audience that reads the word "Evolution" and defines it as change from one species to another.

But we see it is used to describe the idea of RNA molecules undergoing chemical interactions. That is akin to saying the electroplating is evidence for biological evolution. Consistently we see molecules undergoing change through chemical and physical properties as exhibiting "mutation" and "natural selection".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Then you have an experiment in which a hole is put into a Vesicle, the internals rush out and propel the vesicle around like a balloon with a hole in it. And this is passed of as "Oil droplets that creep purposefully through their watery environment, metabolize fuel, sense their surroundings and perhaps even replicate " could these be precursors to life?"

Purposefully? Is this like lightning purposefully finds the path of least resistance?

Metabolizes fuel? So a hole in a jug of water, the jug is metabolizing water. (yes I'm over simplifying for sake of the reader. The propulsive force from the cell was formed from an internal reaction that was fueled by fresh material entering it)

A bubble of oil "senses" it's environment despite the lack of sensory organs?

A balloon with a hole in has all the properties of life.
http://www.nature.com...

And that is in Nature.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 9:13:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 7:10:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:03:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
There is a public relations campaign to manufacture controversy and try and undo the last hundred and fifty years of biological research, but it's tiny, too publicly exposed to be called a conspiracy, has produced no significant peer-reviewed results, and is riddled with pseudoscience and academic dishonesty. Science can't take it seriously because it falls below the epistemological bar for legitimate scientific conjecture; and science journalism doesn't either, except to occasionally pick it up as a challenge for better science communication.
Presupposing that it should be taken seriously does not entail that refusing to do so is a conspiracy. A more likely explanation is that bias has manufactured conspiracy to justify belief.
I accept Evolution theory as fact.
To be clear, when biology talks about evolution it's not simply talking about the adaptation of species to environment, but the mechanisms by which speciation occurs at all levels. The mystery of the appearance and disappearance of species underpinned the investigations that precipitated the theory in the first place. To say that the theory doesn't address that question would miss the criteria by which the theory was framed and has subsequently been evaluated for over a century.

So if you accept the theory, that's the only frame under which it's acceptable. To reject evolution as the set of key mechanisms for speciation is to reject evolution as invalid, and substitute something else, which would then be misleadingly called the same theory.

There can be no honest benefit from doing so, and hence no circumstances under which that conflation should be tolerated. So if you say you accept evolution as fact, then I understand you to be saying you accept the likelihood common ancestry and the validity of speciation mechanisms forming clades.

On the other hand, there's the paradigm, which derives from the theory's insights. It has application beyond the theory, and I think that's the subject of your thread.

You have an audience that reads the word "Evolution" and defines it as change from one species to another.
Yep, that's the frame.

But we see it is used to describe the idea of RNA molecules undergoing chemical interactions.
That's the broader paradigm at work -- specifically, that natural processes may over time skew statistically toward specialised structures that both perpetuate their own likelihood and may simultaneously adapt themselves toward perpetuation.

That's not a scientific result we'd ever seen before the empirical testing that validated and verified Darwin's ideas. That it was inferred from broad observation of similar species, and anticipated as a natural mechanism at all, is quite remarkable. But having identified it, the principle can be sought and detected elsewhere.

Similar paradigmatic shifts occurred with Newton's laws of motion, or the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics. Having found a new predictive paradigm, scientists began to look for places where the paradigm could be repeated.

Consistently we see molecules undergoing change through chemical and physical properties as exhibiting "mutation" and "natural selection".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Yes; that's paradigmatic. There is a potential validity issue associated with paradigms though, so you're not wrong to question them. To see how bad it can get, one need only look at Deepak Chopra's cynical, commercialised pseudoscience which simultaneously misappropriates and misrepresents paradigms of quantum mechanics, abuses them to validate his own unfalsifiable conjectures, then criticises science philosophically for being too 'blind' to see his own circular, unaccountable genius. :p

However, that's not an issue with the RNA world hypothesis you linked.

RNA world hypothecates that under the right circumstances, RNA mechanisms could exhibit diversification and specialisation patterns similar to those also seen in cellular life. As an hypothesis, it explores whether the speciation paradigm works in a promising part of molecular biology, and so it's potentially falsifiable provided that the mechanisms are transparent and testable -- which in this paper, they are.

That's only one hypothesis, and should those mechanisms be falsified, other mechanisms might be tested instead, but there is in science as there is not in pseudoscience, a point at which either a candidate mechanism is verified, or else all reasonable mechanisms are refuted and exhausted, and a line of inquiry is abandoned in favour of more promising approaches.

Then you have an experiment in which a hole is put into a Vesicle, the internals rush out and propel the vesicle around like a balloon with a hole in it. And this is passed of as "Oil droplets that creep purposefully through their watery environment, metabolize fuel, sense their surroundings and perhaps even replicate " could these be precursors to life?"
We've already agreed on our distaste for that sort of language, though I'm okay with it in an article's lede as a trigger to intuition, as long as the article itself focuses on the mechanical specifics.

Purposefully? Is this like lightning purposefully finds the path of least resistance?
Human brains are prone to ask stupid questions, like 'why do we exist'? Because they're disposed to asking why questions about how problems, they also respond well when 'how' answers are translated into 'why' motivations. :p It's not good epistemology, but journalists and some science communicators exploit our propensity for figurative (poetic) imagery in imagination.

Metabolizes fuel? So a hole in a jug of water, the jug is metabolizing water. (yes I'm over simplifying for sake of the reader. The propulsive force from the cell was formed from an internal reaction that was fueled by fresh material entering it)
I shall not gainsay you on the imprecision and epistemological nonsense in such extended metaphor. :D However I note without defending it that for some readers, it helps their intuitions to tell stories about molecules as though they were self-motivated actors.

I can say this with painful personal knowledge because I once sat with my then-girlfriend and now wife as she studied biochemical pathways night after night for a biochemistry exam. This is a huge body of rote knowledge in which a dense chart of molecular interactions can occupy a whole living-room wall (see diagram: [http://www.visualcomplexity.com...]) -- and biochemists are expected to know it perfectly. The only way she could wade through that immense volume of unmotivated detail night after night was to tell herself stories about key molecules and their peregrinations. I still recall the adventures of succinyl coA in the body's hunt for energy. (And if you doubt how dry is the life of succinyl coA, here's its Wikipedia page [https://en.wikipedia.org...])

A bubble of oil "senses" it's environment despite the lack of sensory organs?
A balloon with a hole in has all the properties of life.
http://www.nature.com...
And that is in Nature.
To be fair, it's in a lede in a news-report meant for non-specialists to read. It's clearly presented as a metaphor, and the point of the metaphor is to capture the 'so what' -- the scientific implications -- intuitively and early so you understand why this is newsworthy at all.

It might be possible to communicate it better. You and I might prefer it was done differently, but there are readers who (like my poor wife when she was studying the rat's nest of biochemical pathways) may appreciate the metaphor leading with an intuitive 'so what'. :D

Both your linked examples could be critiqued for clarity, but I think they're fine for honesty and balance.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 1:50:21 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 9:13:10 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:10:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:03:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
...
To be fair, it's in a lede in a news-report meant for non-specialists to read. It's clearly presented as a metaphor, and the point of the metaphor is to capture the 'so what' -- the scientific implications -- intuitively and early so you understand why this is newsworthy at all.

So the answer is it is metaphorical, even though it is in a scientific journal, it is not to be taken literally.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 2:03:00 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 3:24:22 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

But, al-Ghazali was not referring to Science, he was referring to Islamic Jurisprudence and Islamic Theology.

- LOL! NO. & what made you think you could always get away with saying stuff you're clueless about!!! Damn! I mean, this must be utterly embarrassing. Just say, 'I don't know', no need to lie your way through it just to make an imaginary point.

Would you be interested in a few links explaining how the Scientific Method works, it appears you have no clue.

- We've established countless times how utterly clueless of Science & the Philosophy of Science (& other subjects) you are. Thank you for confirming, once again, this already established finding.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 2:19:37 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 1:50:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/14/2016 9:13:10 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:10:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:03:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
To be fair, it's in a lede in a news-report meant for non-specialists to read. It's clearly presented as a metaphor, and the point of the metaphor is to capture the 'so what' -- the scientific implications -- intuitively and early so you understand why this is newsworthy at all.

So the answer is it is metaphorical, even though it is in a scientific journal, it is not to be taken literally.

Yes. There are two communications occurring in parallel in that article, Mhykiel:
1) an informative factual account of who, what, how, why, where and when; and
2) an entertaining metaphorical account of significance designed to register on popular intuitions.

Certain temperaments (yours perhaps and certainly mine) strongly prefer to start with 1) and infer 2) ourselves. We want any significance to appear as a rational conclusion of the facts in the relevant context. But that particular temperament is a minority. Many casual science readers prefer the theatre and skim the facts, trusting the research and fact-checking to have been done for them. And at the water-cooler or dinner-table, they'll barely be able to cite most of the facts they read -- they'll simply explain the metaphor they learned.

Thus the concern you expressed is legitimate, though it's a product of populism in this case: there's always a concern that in using 2) without adequate recourse to 1), rhetoric will overtake accurate reportage. This can happen when journalists or science communicators don't understand the science well, haven't researched diligently or haven't asked the right questions. It can also happen when science communicators who aren't as good as they think, get purple with their prose and pick poor metaphors.

On the other hand, metaphor helps make science more accessible at dinner-tables and water-coolers, so while it always disquietens and sometimes irritates me, I also must recognise that I'm in a corner of the bell-curve on this, and tolerate it. :p

But yes -- the Nature report you cited is labelled 'News'; it's likely the product of a free-lance science journalist working under the supervision of some science sub-editor employed by the journal, and isn't itself a peer-reviewed scientific paper written by a scientist for scientists (though such papers are normally cited in the references. :p)
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 2:37:34 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 2:19:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/15/2016 1:50:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/14/2016 9:13:10 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:10:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:03:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
To be fair, it's in a lede in a news-report meant for non-specialists to read. It's clearly presented as a metaphor, and the point of the metaphor is to capture the 'so what' -- the scientific implications -- intuitively and early so you understand why this is newsworthy at all.

So the answer is it is metaphorical, even though it is in a scientific journal, it is not to be taken literally.

Yes. There are two communications occurring in parallel in that article, Mhykiel:
1) an informative factual account of who, what, how, why, where and when; and
2) an entertaining metaphorical account of significance designed to register on popular intuitions.

Certain temperaments (yours perhaps and certainly mine) strongly prefer to start with 1) and infer 2) ourselves. We want any significance to appear as a rational conclusion of the facts in the relevant context. But that particular temperament is a minority. Many casual science readers prefer the theatre and skim the facts, trusting the research and fact-checking to have been done for them. And at the water-cooler or dinner-table, they'll barely be able to cite most of the facts they read -- they'll simply explain the metaphor they learned.

Thus the concern you expressed is legitimate, though it's a product of populism in this case: there's always a concern that in using 2) without adequate recourse to 1), rhetoric will overtake accurate reportage. This can happen when journalists or science communicators don't understand the science well, haven't researched diligently or haven't asked the right questions. It can also happen when science communicators who aren't as good as they think, get purple with their prose and pick poor metaphors.

On the other hand, metaphor helps make science more accessible at dinner-tables and water-coolers, so while it always disquietens and sometimes irritates me, I also must recognise that I'm in a corner of the bell-curve on this, and tolerate it. :p

But yes -- the Nature report you cited is labelled 'News'; it's likely the product of a free-lance science journalist working under the supervision of some science sub-editor employed by the journal, and isn't itself a peer-reviewed scientific paper written by a scientist for scientists (though such papers are normally cited in the references. :p)

If the metaphor is for entertainment and digestion by an audience. Given the examples I cited what plot line do you think they are following?

A plot line of atheist principles.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 4:54:04 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 6:54:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Articles written by Scientific Journals often over exaggerate the findings of an experiment, or even a conjecture to promote and endorse an militant Atheist ideology.

I bolded the part you where you mentioned scientific journals.

Take the title from some articles "Physicist "Prove" God didn't create the Universe"....

is not from a scientific Journal. The only reference I could find wasn't even a scientific magazine, but a general newspaper!

Scientific America wrote..

Not a scientific Journal.

The Daily Galaxy

Not a scientific Journal.

Take the article titled ""Frankenstein" lab creates life in a test tube"...

.. Is not from a scientific Journal; again, it doesn't even seem to be from a science magazine at all

But, you then made the claim that "the scientific media" in general has an "Atheistic Bias".

Some, I suspect definitely. All? That is a bit of a stretch; especially as I assume you haven't even bothered to perform a rudimentary counter search of positive (or non-negative examples). Let me show you the results of five minutes of searching.

New scientist ran an issue relating to God, with a whole wealth of articles on God; including things like "God is a testable Hypothesis".
https://www.newscientist.com...

You have the science Mag
http://www.sciencemag.org...
http://science.sciencemag.org...

Popsci God and religious tags seems to show slightly positive, and no negative examples of references to God.
http://www.popsci.com...
http://www.popsci.com...

Discover Magazine:
http://discovermagazine.com...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...

There seems to be an awful lot of articles and posts that don't seem to be generally negative against religion and God, nor Pro-Atheism. Especially with topics like "The World According to Intolerant Atheists (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...)

Even the NCSE; the most flagrantly pro-evolution; anti-creationism seems fairly focused:
http://ncse.com...

So, thus far you have produced 2 scientific magazines that show atheist bias, and I believe I have linked 5 that do not seem to have an appreciable anti-god pro-atheism stance; though many of them have both positive and negative articles.

So we see Athiest's duplicitous proselytizing.

Duplicitous proselytizing such as claiming that scientific journals are biased against God.... Then citing a bunch of examples, 0% from scientific journals, and only 50% from scientific magazines at all; and a basic google search on the issue indicates that many scientific magazines do not seem to be promoting the "Militant Atheist Ideology".

I think I can summarize my point as follows Mhykiel.

Truth
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Donald Trump
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
You are here.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 6:13:47 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 2:37:34 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/15/2016 2:19:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/15/2016 1:50:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/14/2016 9:13:10 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:10:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:03:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
To be fair, it's in a lede in a news-report meant for non-specialists to read. It's clearly presented as a metaphor, and the point of the metaphor is to capture the 'so what' -- the scientific implications -- intuitively and early so you understand why this is newsworthy at all.

So the answer is it is metaphorical, even though it is in a scientific journal, it is not to be taken literally.

Yes. There are two communications occurring in parallel in that article, Mhykiel:
1) an informative factual account of who, what, how, why, where and when; and
2) an entertaining metaphorical account of significance designed to register on popular intuitions.

Certain temperaments (yours perhaps and certainly mine) strongly prefer to start with 1) and infer 2) ourselves. We want any significance to appear as a rational conclusion of the facts in the relevant context. But that particular temperament is a minority. Many casual science readers prefer the theatre and skim the facts, trusting the research and fact-checking to have been done for them. And at the water-cooler or dinner-table, they'll barely be able to cite most of the facts they read -- they'll simply explain the metaphor they learned.

Thus the concern you expressed is legitimate, though it's a product of populism in this case: there's always a concern that in using 2) without adequate recourse to 1), rhetoric will overtake accurate reportage. This can happen when journalists or science communicators don't understand the science well, haven't researched diligently or haven't asked the right questions. It can also happen when science communicators who aren't as good as they think, get purple with their prose and pick poor metaphors.

On the other hand, metaphor helps make science more accessible at dinner-tables and water-coolers, so while it always disquietens and sometimes irritates me, I also must recognise that I'm in a corner of the bell-curve on this, and tolerate it. :p

But yes -- the Nature report you cited is labelled 'News'; it's likely the product of a free-lance science journalist working under the supervision of some science sub-editor employed by the journal, and isn't itself a peer-reviewed scientific paper written by a scientist for scientists (though such papers are normally cited in the references. :p)

If the metaphor is for entertainment and digestion by an audience. Given the examples I cited what plot line do you think they are following?
I think they're using a paradigm established by evolution, confirmed by genetics and accepted in science -- the idea of self-organising chemical systems.

A plot line of atheist principles.
I don't understand why this metaphor in particular should be atheistic. Are Newton's laws of motion atheistic too? Is meteorology atheistic if it doesn't need angels to blow clouds around the sky?

Let's return to the deficiencies in your original claim, Mhykiel, which I pointed out in my first response, and which you ignored:

What atheist principles, formulated by whom, when, documented where, and propagated how?

And are you aware that there is nothing in evolution preventing a universe being created by whatever might create one?

All it contradicts are some rather ignorant biological conjectures by ancient theologians whose other documented conjectures (like a geocentric cosmogenesis) were also debunked.

So is your real complaint not that it's atheistic but that you feel its unabrahamic?

And do you really believe a metaphor was deliberately constructed for specifically unabrahamic purposes?
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:46:04 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 2:37:34 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/15/2016 2:19:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/15/2016 1:50:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/14/2016 9:13:10 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:10:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:03:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
To be fair, it's in a lede in a news-report meant for non-specialists to read. It's clearly presented as a metaphor, and the point of the metaphor is to capture the 'so what' -- the scientific implications -- intuitively and early so you understand why this is newsworthy at all.

So the answer is it is metaphorical, even though it is in a scientific journal, it is not to be taken literally.

Yes. There are two communications occurring in parallel in that article, Mhykiel:
1) an informative factual account of who, what, how, why, where and when; and
2) an entertaining metaphorical account of significance designed to register on popular intuitions.

Certain temperaments (yours perhaps and certainly mine) strongly prefer to start with 1) and infer 2) ourselves. We want any significance to appear as a rational conclusion of the facts in the relevant context. But that particular temperament is a minority. Many casual science readers prefer the theatre and skim the facts, trusting the research and fact-checking to have been done for them. And at the water-cooler or dinner-table, they'll barely be able to cite most of the facts they read -- they'll simply explain the metaphor they learned.

Thus the concern you expressed is legitimate, though it's a product of populism in this case: there's always a concern that in using 2) without adequate recourse to 1), rhetoric will overtake accurate reportage. This can happen when journalists or science communicators don't understand the science well, haven't researched diligently or haven't asked the right questions. It can also happen when science communicators who aren't as good as they think, get purple with their prose and pick poor metaphors.

On the other hand, metaphor helps make science more accessible at dinner-tables and water-coolers, so while it always disquietens and sometimes irritates me, I also must recognise that I'm in a corner of the bell-curve on this, and tolerate it. :p

But yes -- the Nature report you cited is labelled 'News'; it's likely the product of a free-lance science journalist working under the supervision of some science sub-editor employed by the journal, and isn't itself a peer-reviewed scientific paper written by a scientist for scientists (though such papers are normally cited in the references. :p)

If the metaphor is for entertainment and digestion by an audience. Given the examples I cited what plot line do you think they are following?

A plot line of atheist principles.

While the the more balanced atheists here will run to cast the blame on the scientific press, we can pull up what scientists have said themselves. They are just as likely to over-state what is happening towards an atheist bias.

Almost all major scientific fraud has been perpetrated by scientists. They overstate and mislead quite often. Anything less would offend the PC science police.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:52:06 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 12:46:04 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 2:37:34 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/15/2016 2:19:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/15/2016 1:50:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/14/2016 9:13:10 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:10:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:03:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
To be fair, it's in a lede in a news-report meant for non-specialists to read. It's clearly presented as a metaphor, and the point of the metaphor is to capture the 'so what' -- the scientific implications -- intuitively and early so you understand why this is newsworthy at all.

So the answer is it is metaphorical, even though it is in a scientific journal, it is not to be taken literally.

Yes. There are two communications occurring in parallel in that article, Mhykiel:
1) an informative factual account of who, what, how, why, where and when; and
2) an entertaining metaphorical account of significance designed to register on popular intuitions.

Certain temperaments (yours perhaps and certainly mine) strongly prefer to start with 1) and infer 2) ourselves. We want any significance to appear as a rational conclusion of the facts in the relevant context. But that particular temperament is a minority. Many casual science readers prefer the theatre and skim the facts, trusting the research and fact-checking to have been done for them. And at the water-cooler or dinner-table, they'll barely be able to cite most of the facts they read -- they'll simply explain the metaphor they learned.

Thus the concern you expressed is legitimate, though it's a product of populism in this case: there's always a concern that in using 2) without adequate recourse to 1), rhetoric will overtake accurate reportage. This can happen when journalists or science communicators don't understand the science well, haven't researched diligently or haven't asked the right questions. It can also happen when science communicators who aren't as good as they think, get purple with their prose and pick poor metaphors.

On the other hand, metaphor helps make science more accessible at dinner-tables and water-coolers, so while it always disquietens and sometimes irritates me, I also must recognise that I'm in a corner of the bell-curve on this, and tolerate it. :p

But yes -- the Nature report you cited is labelled 'News'; it's likely the product of a free-lance science journalist working under the supervision of some science sub-editor employed by the journal, and isn't itself a peer-reviewed scientific paper written by a scientist for scientists (though such papers are normally cited in the references. :p)

If the metaphor is for entertainment and digestion by an audience. Given the examples I cited what plot line do you think they are following?

A plot line of atheist principles.

While the the more balanced atheists here will run to cast the blame on the scientific press, we can pull up what scientists have said themselves. They are just as likely to over-state what is happening towards an atheist bias.

Almost all major scientific fraud has been perpetrated by scientists. They overstate and mislead quite often. Anything less would offend the PC science police.

Pull them up and publish them.

Almost all scientific fraud has been detected and debunked by scientists. The beauty of the scientific method.