STOMP Quotes

Hmmm, I'm going to be shameless in this entry. I'm going to quote myself. LOL.

Anyways, here's some of quotes of the stuff that I wrote that is worth keeping. Stuff, of my opinion, that are better written than my usual sarcastic replies.

On continuous and discontinuous thinking, a conversation with Lucifer78.

For example, we understand history by noting the major events along the timeline. So we study those major events in detail. But that does not mean that in between the major events are nothingness. There's still activities going on which are more mundane/insignificant but they still exist.

When looking at evolutionary history, it's basically the same idea. When we dig out fossils, we get a couple dotted along the timeline. We have A 100 million years before B which is 85 million years before, etc.

We know how evolution works, organisms reproduce, mutations occur, selection acts. We find that it is a continous lineage of descendants from past to present. Logically, reasonably, evidently, we know it is continuous. It's not up for debate.

To conceptualize, we can draw arbitrary lines. But it is still essentially continuous. To claim discontinuity after drawing the lines is dishonest.

I hinted before, we can still draw lines to define without losing the continuity. Each transitional fossil represents a window into our distant past. It reveals the environment our ancestors had to strive in. It reveals the changes anatomically. It can reveal the diet. Etc etc.

Each fossil is given a name for identification to represent the window it represents. That's the only division we have to make. We still know and acknowledge that it is a lineage of organisms leading back into the past. Not broken in any way apart from the scatter of fossils it leaves behind.

Yes, to some extent, this may be difficult to grasp. Before I read Richard Dawkins' books, I never thought this way. But after I did, it was like something lit up in my head and I said to myself: "Wow, I never thought of this before."

[Click here for original post]

A brief version of my agnostic atheistic stance.

I think I mentioned this previously when conversing with Lucifer78. When discussing perception and existence, there are 3 main categories:
1. That which exist and is perceived (The Natural)
2. That which exist and cannot be perceived (The Supernatural)
3. That which does not exist and cannot be perceived (The Non-existent)

Since we're limited by our ability to perceive, we cannot tell apart the Supernatural and the Non-existent. In this sense, it would be highly unrealistic and unpractical to claim knowledge of the supernatural when we cannot tell any differences from that which does not exist.

Perhaps, this real world might be a simulation. But what's the difference? Why dwell on such unrealistic issues?

I think it would be much more pragmatic to learn more about our universe via science and better humanity.

Here's something that I thought was pretty interesting to think about:
If indeed this world is a simulation, the "creator" must be really really really meticulous: Think about our DNA, evolution, common descent, the fossil record... Really detailed stuff...

Oh, I also will not go so far as to say that science is "proven to be unreliable" because it is based on our senses. It is done by many scientists around the world, peer reviewed, reproduced/repeated and produces technology that gives us highly consistent results. This kind of thing is NOT unreliable unless you're using another definition.

I believe absolute certainty is improbable if not outright impossible. But I also think that it is unnecessary. Who needs absolutes anyways (apart from god-fearing people who claim otherwise)?

So, in that sense, I'm an agnostic. An agnostic atheist.

[Click here for original post]

Okay, I give. This is one is, at best, just a sarcastic remark. But I liked it.
It's about Bible VS Evidence.

...If evidence contradicts the bible, the evidence must be wrong.

ERV agreeing with common descent. Must be wrong.

Fossil record in geological order. Must be wrong.

Fossil record shows progressive change. Must be wrong.

Conservation of codons between closely related species agreeing with common descent. Must be wrong.

Presence of numerous transitional forms. Must be wrong.

Evidence of chromosome 2 fusion in humans. Must be wrong.

Embryology. Must be wrong.

Genetics. Must be wrong.

Radiometric dating. Must be wrong.

Bible. Correct.

[Click here for original post]

Last one. On "scientific" verses in holy books.

Verses "hinting" scientific knowledge? Frankly, they are usually distorted or required extremely vague interpretations in order for the verse to make sense scientifically. Such "interpretations" have been done several times over by the devout looking for some anchor in reality for their beliefs. Just search Quranic science on Youtube and you probably get a dozen or more "examples".

For any verse to convince anyone that it hints scientific knowledge, it needs to be flat out obvious to anyone who reads it. And when I say scientific knowledge, I mean something big like a theory rather than a simple fact. Stuff like the "Earth is round" is barely substantial and hardly convincing. If a holy book have an entire chapter dedicated to the Atomic Theory, that would be convincing. However, I may not convert right away, more evidence would be required for a skeptic like me.

Not to mention, such bible science or quran science are usually made AFTER science itself have made the discovery. It is an dishonest attempt to frame the discovery to appear as though the "gods" got there first. It would be much more convincing if it was the holy books which prompted a research in science as opposed to framing the discovery as a religious idea after all the research was done.

However, that being said, evidence of god himself would be more convincing as opposed to hints of scientific knowledge in a 2000 year old book.

[Click here for original post]

There. I'm done being shameless.
Move along now.