Intelligent Space Zebras

Can you provide some evidence that gods are impossible? Sure and you can do the math yourself if you follow the template of ID (so you can thank the Discovery Institute for helping to dispose of gods).

The problem with gods is parsimony.  When you are addressing issues or solving problems, by necessity you cannot create more problems than you solve and consider it effective.  You can't "throw the baby out with the bathwater", for example because the resulting dead baby would be a bigger problem than dirty bath water.  Inserting gods creates the exact same problem (you create bigger problems than the god solution can solve).

But like I mentioned, ID really drives the point home.  Basically they say - "we don't care who the designer is, it could be a bunch of intelligent space zebras".  Essentially then if you replace any instance of god with "intelligent space zebras" you can see exactly how absurd the idea of god is.  

And lets be clear, ID has gone to extra lengths to show that it could be "any intelligent agent" secretly betting that their followers have already picked an intelligent agent and hoped no one would ask (how many times did I have to repeat my argument before anyone asked?  Maybe 100).  Gods can always be effectively replaced by intelligent space zebras as shown by the entire "field" of ID.

The reason a person doesn't notice they are making the problems worse is that they are biased against asking questions about god.  Where did god come from?  Why does he have nipples?  Was he just lonely?  Sticking god in and discounting questions about god makes it SEEM like you have solved the problem, but in fact, you just made it worse and you are only ignoring the new problems you have created.

It's easier to see the issue if you follow the IDots idea and instead of god, stick in the intelligent space zebras.  Not only are they a completely effective replacement for god, but they are obviously ridiculous and much easier to get past the bias against asking questions.  Why would space zebras make a universe?  Why would they design intelligent monkeys?  Where did they come from?  What kind of music do they like?  What are their politics?

The only reason anyone ever inserts a god and then THINKS they have created parsimony, is because they have convinced themselves they can't ask questions about the god.  If you start asking questions about god, you completely destroy the parsimony the god "solution" provided and you essentially throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It is Occam's razor then that kills all gods.  When it rains, its just a natural occurrence, its not intelligent space zebras spraying water all over the place.  When there is a big bang, its just a natural occurrence, its not because intelligent space zebras crashed their space car.  When self replicating chemicals evolve into a primitive life form, its just a natural occurrence, not because intelligent space zebras have set up a terrarium.

In fact, intelligent space zebras are LESS absurd than any god because there is evidence that other intelligent life COULD live in the universe.  There is however, absolutely no evidence for any god at all.

Scientific Models

"We can't observe the position of Pluto in the sky? This is news to me.

We can also observe the action of atoms in the large hadron collider. This is also repeatable and testable to help build better models.

There is no consensus in science when it comes to the origin of life or of the universe."

Andrew Amundrud
------

Pluto was discovered 80 years ago and its orbit is 100 plus years - No one has observed an entire orbit - it does however conform to models of gravity.

No one at the large hadron collider has ever seen a particle - only reactions that conform to models of particles.

This is how science ACTUALLY works.

Every living thing conforms to the evolutionary model in millions of different ways. There is no more successful model than evolution.

Also, it has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Was the idea of common descent perverse the first time it was brought forward?

The only thing that is certain is that the scientific method's efficacy is unrivaled. Everything else is basically up for grabs. Theory, hypothesis, fact are all at least a little pliable, but generally Theory is an overarching idea that explains a bunch of facts and a hypothesis is a precursor to a theory.

However, its a little more subjective than that. The math of "String Theory" is so impressive it's practically been elevated to the status of theory, but in reality it is still just a hypothesis.

It is fair then to say a physical phenomenon is a fact if it is uncontroversial. Evolution is not at all controversial. In the USA, people think they are educated and at the same time deny evolution, but basically in the rest of the world, you cannot be considered educated unless you are educated enough to understand that evolution is uncontroversial.

So a lot of it is perspective. The fact of shared ERVs and their power to show ancestry is impossible for an educated person to deny and really is an aspect of evolution that can safely be considered perverse when people who understand ERV's then deny common ancestry.

For someone with a high school education to deny evolution it can only be described as a literal perversion of the educational system and it seems fit for calling it perverse.

In fact this is the very goal of "creation science" which could not ever have anything to do with science - to pervert science and education.

Refuting Adulthood

"Show me a child growing into a old man before I will accept adulthood. No those are just pictures of a baby, a toddler, a child, a teenager, a young man, an a middle aged man, and an elderly man. Where are the transitional forms?" - Bil Wight

https://www.facebook.com/bil.wight

https://www.facebook.com/groups/CreationEvolutionDebate/

Impossible Souls?

Thermodynamics renders the soul impossible which kind of cuts the nuts right off every religion. If I were religion, I would be pissed.

Science - Under Assault

I see it everyday, science is under a direct and well funded assault.  It's a shame really, the study of nature (science) intends nothing more than to be a path to knowledge.   Illuminating knowledge is something for which science has far and above the best track record in human history.  For this sin, it must be destroyed.

It's old news that science education in the USA suffers disgrace, especially if you live in Mississippi, Oklahoma, or many southern states [LiveScience].  However, the real reason science education has faltered seems to be akin to a family secret that is impolite to talk about.  Creationists are trying to kill science.



To understand the threat to science you first have to understand science, but if you were born in the USA, you probably don't even know what science really is.  The real shame then is all of the charlatans who use the word "science" and have nothing at all to do with science mislead a sizable portion of the public.  I will post a series describing some science fundamentals that people largely don't know or don't understand to arm you against these science charlitains.

In the meantime, run and visit sciences unsung heros at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).  They are the "behind the scenes champion" that fight daily to protect science education in the USA from those who are trying to destroy it.  They engineered the Dover Trial victory, which is well represented in an excellent Nova documentary available for free to watch online.

R.R. Edwards