Andy Schlafly #fundie

Andy Schlafly #fundie conservapedia.com

Atheistic science is riddled with self-contradictions. A few examples are:

• atheistic science denies the existence of the unseen, while simultaneously admitting that the entire universe began from the unseen.
• atheistic science promotes the implausible existence of black holes with a religious fervor. Disproved by quantum mechanics, black holes have been discredited most recently by Stephen Hawking, but atheistic science soldiers on in denial of basic logic.
• atheistic science has no plausible theory for the origin of the Moon, and the lunar landing disproved all of its prior theories.

39 comments

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"atheistic science denies the existence of the unseen, while simultaneously admitting that the entire universe began from the unseen."

A few examples:

image

IBM written with individual atoms. Electron Microscopes. The unseen, seen.

That old chestnut so beloved of Reality-denying fundies: 'Faith is like Air: unseen'. O RLY? An F-18 attaining Mach 1.

image

What was seen - Air - cannot be unseen.

image

Rainbows. They don't physically exist, but they can be seen.

Black holes' gravitational effects have been demonstrated by astronomers. The lensing effect on stellar bodies beyond such. Which brings me to...:

"the lunar landing disproved all of its prior theories"

The Genesis Rock. Also, a certain Dr. Buzz Aldrin would like a word with you. He's a Conservative Christian. [/hyper-paradox]

Can you prove that Optimus Prime doesn't exist, Andy Schaftafly...?! [/"Transformers: Dark of the Moon"]

old comment by OHP

-False. Science refuses to deal in debating the existence of the truly unobservable and unprovable. All things in our universe have some effect upon the universe around them, however incredibly miniscule and benign that effect may be. If it can't be seen and it can't be observed secondhand through repeatable effects upon other materials or processes (radio waves, for example) then its not in the realm of science. If scientific knowledge directly contradicts the assertions of those basing their arguments on the unobservable and unprovable then it does, indeed trump their assertion by default -- that's a simple matter of evidence versus "a good feeling" -- but science does not directly tackle questions of the spiritual and will not until such time as the existence of the spiritual can actually be reliably and repeatably proven. As for the origin of the universe, we do not currently know enough to more than passingly and halfheartedly theorize on how it began. The more we learn of the universe, however, the further backward we are able to track its development and the more we're able to narrow those theories down.

tl;dr "unseen" is not a synonym for "unseeable". They are two wildly different concepts. All science is composed, to varying extents, of the formerly unseen brought to light.

-Science promotes the known and the plausible. If something falls out of favor due to the evidence for it being disproven or refined to the point that it no longer supports the current theory then it is discarded. I don't recall this grand disproving of black holes you mention (and find using one field of science to try to discredit all others hilarious for its many implications about both yourself and science), but then the scientifically-minded do not, in fact, follow black holes with a religious fervor. Some astrophysicists may have an obsession with them, to be sure, but that's because it pertains directly to their field. I'd expect my dentist to be fascinated with teeth, I'd expect my vet to be a major animal lover and I'd expect an astrophysicist to be big on rare and theoretical occurrences in space.

-The fact that you've never seen an episode of NOVA or attended a second grade science lesson does not mean there is no plausible theory. It means only that you are now lagging behind anyone with a rudimentary education and/or access to free television.

old comment by John

There's no such thing as "atheistic science" - that makes as much sense as an atheistic C chord or atheistic appliance repair. Science is merely an investigation of the universe to find out how it's made and how it works. The fact that it occasionally conflicts with the Bible or someone's particular beliefs about God just suggests those beliefs are wrong; not that some higher power doesn't exist. Just demonstrating that fundamentalist Christianity conflicts with reality doesn't make you an atheist - it just makes the fundamentalist Christian look ignorant and causes scripture to be discredited. That's more or less what Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo ("St. Augustine") warned 1,600 years ago in his essay, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis".

old comment by Swede

It's secular science, silly, not "atheists science". And it denies the non-measurable, non-provable, non-perceptible.
As nothing existed, but the singularity, at the beginning of time and space, then yes, it began from the unseen. There were no eyes to see it.

Science doesn't promote anything, it just describes reality. The religious fervor is the one displayed by cretinists trying to deny reality, in favor of their particular deity.
I call bullshit on Stephen Hawking discrediting the idea of black holes. And, knowing little about both cosmology and quantum mechanics, but quite a bit about the willful ignorance of Schlafly, I also call bullshit on black holes being disproven by q m.

I thought the origin of the moon was thoroughly, even mundanely, scrutinized and explained. If the lunar landing had disproven all prior theories, it would have failed, dismally. As it was a success, some of the theories about the moon must have been correct.

Andy Schlafly is riddled with self-contradictions, I'd say. A few examples are these poor excuses for strawman "arguments".

old comment by dionysus

atheistic science

No such thing. There is only science. In fact, most scientists in history (including cosmologists and evolutionary biologists) were Christian.

denies the existence of the unseen

No. It's skeptical of the unverifiable and untestable. Even something like the multiverse hypothesis is testable. You can't test an uncreated creator who is invisible and answers prayer only when he feels like it which is, oddly enough, the same as chance.

while simultaneously admitting that the entire universe began from the unseen

Unseen (at this point anyway) physical process=/=unseeable, all-powerful, cosmic genie who is his own father. One is just a bit more plausible than the other.

promotes the implausible existence of black holes with a religious fervor

If by "religious fervor" you mean "using actual observations and data".

Disproved by quantum mechanics

Not compatible=/=disproved. Quantum mechanics is not compatible with gravity. Does that mean gravity is false?

discredited most recently by Stephen Hawking

[Citation needed]

has no plausible theory for the origin of the Moon

http://www.space.com/19275-moon-formation.html

Also, even if you were right, how is not having an answer a contradiction? Science openly admits and even celebrates the fact that we don't know everything. In fact, the more we learn the more we understand that we don't know much at all. The Earth used to be the center of the universe. Now we know that there is several billion lightyears to our universe and that the Earth is inconceivably tiny compared to even our own galaxy. We have found planets made of diamond, planets that are near absolute zero, and planets that are bathed in constant radiation from pulsars. And these were all recently discovered.

old comment by Alencon

Err, no, no and no. Andy at least try to LEARN some science before you make claims about it.

1. No, science denies the existence of the supernatural not the unseen. But only due to a lack of evidence. Provide evidence for the supernatural and science will change its mind which is more than I can say for you.
2. Actually, Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes would emit radiation. It was a researcher at UNC Chapel Hill that claims to have shown mathematically that black holes cannot exist. If this is true, science will adjust but based upon evidence and not some 3500 years old myth.
3. Actually the last I looked there were several plausible explanations including capture and the formation from excess space dust.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"atheistic science has no plausible theory for the origin of the Moon, and the lunar landing disproved all of its prior theories."

(On the Moon Landing):

'It is a magnificent testimony to the evolution of humankind'

-Dr. Buzz Aldrin, a Presbyterian Christian, who performed the first religious ceremony (Soon after landing the LEM 'Eagle') on another world.

Fact: Andy Schaftafly is a Young Earth Creationist; also a Bible literalist, re. Genesis, as opposed to Evolution, the latter being anathema to him.

Fact: the Genesis Rock was brought back from the Moon. When analysed, it was found to be exactly the same age as Earth: 4.5 billion years.

Dr. Buzz Aldrin is a Conservative Christian. I doubt even you would dare to so much as think of questioning his perspective on all things NASA, especially the Apollo missions - which said Genesis Rock's journey to Earth was an important part of. Least of all his unique perspective; he's one of a select few who have been there, you haven't Andy, therefore not even you have the right to think of questioning him (the last one who did, got decked by Dr. Aldrin).

Yet, as a space scientist, he hasn't questioned the veracity of the results of said analysis of that 'Genesis Rock' brought back by one of his fellow Apollo astronauts. The fact I've yet to hear him doubt the fact that is the Big Bang proves that he can reconcile his Christian faith with scientific evidence: Astronomical/Cosmological. And, via the above quote, Biological fact too.

Which makes the above link to the page on Conservapoodia about Dr. Aldrin - pointing out that aspect of his actions immediately piloting the LEM 'Eagle' onto the Moon - all the more ironic.

Quite the paradox just that quote by Dr. Aldrin alone creates for you, re. your own doctrine, o Andy Schaftafly. And speaking of proof, clicking on the 'Talk' page of that linked entry:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Buzz_Aldrin&action=edit&redlink=1

'There is currently no text in this page'

...what, no questions? Ideas? 'Opinions'? No. Because you daren't. Like I say: quite the doctrinal paradox he represents, eh Andy Schaftafly?! You daren't even think of anything to say on the 'Talk' page for the entry on Mercury astronaut John Glenn - and he's a Democrat.

If you haven't got the 'Right Stuff' to question their beliefs that don't conform precisely to yours, then you have no right to even your 'beliefs' to the contrary, because Dr. Aldrin destroys yours (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3412241&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=334#post436030782)*. By you not questioning him & his beliefs to his face, you are forced to admit he - and therefore Atheist science - is right, and you're wrong in word, action & thought.

...yet, he's a Conservative Christian.

There's that nasty paradox Dr. Aldrin represents. And it's not going away, neither...! >:D

*- This post in SA perhaps goes some way to explain how, in Fundieville, there are those who claim to be 'Protestants' yet are out-catholicising the Catholics, re. abortion & contraception. Well, they love to cherrypick from the Bible too. After all, for the sake of their 'beliefs' continued existence, they have no choice but to do so.

Even Sedevacantists have convictions. Including those in Scotland.

Andy Schlafly #fundie conservapedia.com

39 comments

Confused?