Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Go Back   Dallas-Mavs.com Forums > Everything Else > Political Arena

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-19-2012, 09:52 PM   #1
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default Krugman: Views Differ on Age of Planet

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...BAC147F7D479B0
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 11-20-2012, 09:33 AM   #2
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Just a FYI- (IMO after reading his article)
the guy writing the article is an absolute dumba$$ who has done no actual logic flows or true scientific research and absolutely has an agenda.

Too bad too many others listen to drivel and consider it fact.

Science today is a huge amount of hypothesis that are swayed to get to whatever answer the guy wanting the $$$$ wants it to be.

Prove a hypothesis wrong, and well it isn't wrong unless you have a better option science likes. Use circular logic and well, it must be fact. Utilize a variable and call it a constant and you can get rich. Pure ignorance, IMO.

Too bad so few use their brains anymore for anything but making $$$$.
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson

Last edited by dalmations202; 11-20-2012 at 09:33 AM.
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 09:57 PM   #3
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202 View Post
Just a FYI- (IMO after reading his article)
the guy writing the article is an absolute dumba$$ who has done no actual logic flows or true scientific research and absolutely has an agenda.

Too bad too many others listen to drivel and consider it fact.

Science today is a huge amount of hypothesis that are swayed to get to whatever answer the guy wanting the $$$$ wants it to be.

Prove a hypothesis wrong, and well it isn't wrong unless you have a better option science likes. Use circular logic and well, it must be fact. Utilize a variable and call it a constant and you can get rich. Pure ignorance, IMO.

Too bad so few use their brains anymore for anything but making $$$$.
Scientific research is one big conspiracy right? [takes off tin foil helmet]

Your post is why people view the conservative movement as the anti-science neanderthal movement.

Last edited by SeanL; 11-20-2012 at 09:58 PM.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 10:57 PM   #4
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202 View Post
Prove a hypothesis wrong, and well it isn't wrong unless you have a better option science likes.
You are barking up the wrong tree here. Proving hypotheses wrong and then going in another direction is what scientists do all day, every day.

Quote:
Use circular logic and well, it must be fact.
If a scientist used circular logic to make a claim, there would be a thousand other scientists call him on it. It's...sorta the way the whole thing works.

Quote:
Utilize a variable and call it a constant and you can get rich.
Not sure exactly what you are getting at here.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 10:21 AM   #5
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Really ---......I want you to tell me some FACTS then since apparently my background doesn't seem to keep me informed. LOL

How old are the dinosaurs? How old is each layer of the earth?
Scientific circular logic --- these dinosaur bones are this old -- because they were found in this layer of ground. This layer of ground is this old because these fossils were found in the layer. Circular logic. Look it up if you would like. It has been happening for years. Please research carbon dating before you start telling me about scientist using it instead of using the layers to date.

Please lets don't go into why macro evolution is not even close to correct. If you do even a small amount of study you will realize that macro evolution was PROVEN incorrect via science long ago. No one has a better (hypothesis) though that does not make man created by a higher being -- which means he made us and we are his -- not the other way around. God created man, not man created God. We are his to do with as he sees fit, not we are in control of everything. Funny how man is so stuck on himself that he doesn't want to answer to anyone -- and with most, I can understand why.

Want a fun read, that you can think a little about and still get a good sci-fi read....Read Logics End by Keith A Robinson. It is a book about a scientist going into outer space and getting to another planet. Fun read, and at least takes a logical look into evolution.


You do realize that science has changed the age of the earth by billions of years over the last 50 years right.
You do realize that science said that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not be able to be lived in due to radiation for at least 400 years, right. Even though they were started to be rebuilt within 5 years. Well, till they found out about exponential decay anyway.

You do realize that the Chernobyl area was not suppose to be lived in for at least 500 years correct, and yet there are animals today in that area living just fine. (and this happened in my lifetime it happened in 1986) Four hundred times more radioactive material was released than had been by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. In the most affected areas of Ukraine, levels of radioactivity (particularly from radionuclides 131I, 137Cs and 90Sr) in drinking water caused concern during the weeks and months after the accident, though officially it was stated that all contaminants had settled to the bottom "in an insoluble phase" and would not dissolve for 800–1,000 years.

You do realize that science used the speed of light as a constant -- which they use for many calculations -- but they can also bend light via vacuum and know about black holes bending light -- yet still keep the idea of the speed of light being constant because we just flat cannot prove any difference and it would cause the scientific world to change everything.

No -- I have little faith in most science. Not that science itself is wrong, just peoples assumptions when they have something to gain from it.

I am not saying that micro-evolution didn't happen -- ie somewhere long ago a fox, coyote, dog, wolf were related -- but they were all still canine. Just saying that today $$$$ is the driving factor and that "science" tends to skew its data to where they can get funded to "prove" this or that --- meaning they have the answer they want and fix it to where they get the process leading up to it.

I also realize that some think it is a neanderthal movement. None of which have taken the time to figure it out, research, or scientifically prove/disprove anything. All have an agenda of not wanting to answer to anyone -- heck I spend the first 30 years of my life just like you. Only one day, I figured that since my father was a science teacher, I might want to figure out why he didn't think that the books were correct. I spent about 5 years reading, studying -- the bible, the Koran, the book of Morman, science books, and massive amounts of quiet time just trying to figure it out. The book Logics End is just a logical destruction of the evolution theory. Maybe some don't like logic, but it would be hard to read that book and still think that MacroEvolution is even a possibility in any sane scientist mind -- and yet I just sent a couple kids to college and they have college profs teaching it. So no, I don't see the "thousand other scientists calling him on it". It has to do with $$$$$ and agenda.

Welcome to the world we live in.

And then someone has the audacity to tell me that there was nothing that a big bang happened causing everything and somewhere over time both logic and emotion developed. Wow -- talk about the need for "belief". Sorry -- I have my belief and it is not in man (science) because I don't have the fear of having to answer to another.

Research it -- spend a little time working through it logically -- do a little scientific hypothesis testing -- eventually you will get there. Close your mind and say -- well they don't have the proof, so I think this is right.......and all you have is a closed mind.

Why do you think that so many people have tried to prove the Bible wrong?
Hard to admit that something besides man is in control isn't it.
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 12:16 PM   #6
EricaLubarsky
Inactive.
 
EricaLubarsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 41,687
EricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
No -- I have little faith in most science.
I never got this idea. We have a robot on Mars vaporizing rocks and doing mass spectroscopy. We have cures for hundreds of diseases based on the very idea of gene sequencing and evolution-- it's the reason we have flu shots. We have a space station orbiting the Earth. We have phones that talk to satellites. I guess it's easy to question smaller details of science but to say you have little faith in science is bewildering to me.

Just because Isaac Newton got some details wrong that Einstein corrected and Einstein is being proven wrong himself doesn't mean that gravity is up for debate.

If you want to believe in religion, then do that. It's just not going to be justified by science if it retains it's fundamentalist views. The Earth is not flat as they believed it was in Jesus' time. The earth isn't the center of the universe. Science isn't replacing God-- it's just discovering things about the world that paint God in a different light. If you are fighting science, I believe you are on the same side as the Catholic church that banned the teachings of Galileo. The church eventually realized that they couldn't pretend that Galileo was wrong anymore and moved on-- much like most of the religious leaders in the world-- just not in the US for some reason even though we are at the forefront of many scientific fields.

Either God changes to adapt to the new paradigm live a unified spiritual existence (as he did when we realized that the Earth was not the center of the universe nor the center of the solar system), or you can dismiss science and live in two different worlds-- where you live your everyday life as if you are rational (getting immunized, depending on gravity, etc) but worship on a completely non-rational plane. Belief in God was never supposed to be a rational endeavor, so I don't believe either one of those is necessarily superior, but I would just personally be concerned that my religious faith was always in conflict with how the world is.

And for the record, I think it's absolutely silly to believe that scientists are motivated by a desire to disprove the bible. Most of the greatest scientific discoveries that flew in the face of church dogma were discovered by accident-- and many by religious men. Scientists want to know the truth. Religious people think they know the truth so they don't want to listen when scientists find evidence that begins to tell a story contrary to fringe elements of their faith. The Bible never says how old the Earth is literally and evolution does not mean that God doesn't exist the same way that the Earth being a small spec in the universe never convinced a single person that Jesus' teachings were wrong or that there is no God. Why does it matter?

Does it even matter that Jesus speaks of evolution in a parable when he identifies dominant (black fur) and recessive (white fur) genetic traits in sheep and breeding to keep some traits from showing themselves in a population? Does it matter that after Jesus' parable all you have to do is let the sheep wander the country side for a million years and you have evolution as Darwin knew it?

Last edited by EricaLubarsky; 11-21-2012 at 12:34 PM.
EricaLubarsky is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 12:53 PM   #7
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202 View Post
How old are the dinosaurs? How old is each layer of the earth?
Scientific circular logic --- these dinosaur bones are this old -- because they were found in this layer of ground. This layer of ground is this old because these fossils were found in the layer. Circular logic. Look it up if you would like. It has been happening for years. Please research carbon dating before you start telling me about scientist using it instead of using the layers to date.
Or perhaps we know enough about both bone decay and geology that the two properties of new discoveries mutually confirm each other?

Quote:
Please lets don't go into why macro evolution is not even close to correct. If you do even a small amount of study you will realize that macro evolution was PROVEN incorrect via science long ago. No one has a better (hypothesis) though that does not make man created by a higher being -- which means he made us and we are his -- not the other way around. God created man, not man created God. We are his to do with as he sees fit, not we are in control of everything. Funny how man is so stuck on himself that he doesn't want to answer to anyone -- and with most, I can understand why.
Let's not go into it because you brought a big empty bag with that claim. There's no distinction between "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution" other than time.

As for the God non-sequitur... well, let's not pretend the supernatural claim is somehow more scientific than the natural one. If you pay close attention, you'll discover that God arguments boil down to no more than God-of-the-gaps arguments; that is, you suggest God did it because you lack an explanation, not because you provide a sufficient explanation. I don't see how this qualifies as an exception.

Quote:
You do realize that science used the speed of light as a constant -- which they use for many calculations -- but they can also bend light via vacuum and know about black holes bending light -- yet still keep the idea of the speed of light being constant because we just flat cannot prove any difference and it would cause the scientific world to change everything.
Speed C specifically refers to the speed of light in a vacuum. So when light travels through a medium, let's say water, it goes at a speed less than C. It's not that complicated.

Besides, nothing has flipped science on its head more than Einstein's relativity, which is little more than the logical extrapolation of the acknowledgement that speed C is a constant. And you're talking as if this is an example of science merely clinging to a safe assumption because it fears a revolution!

Quote:
I also realize that some think it is a neanderthal movement. None of which have taken the time to figure it out, research, or scientifically prove/disprove anything. All have an agenda of not wanting to answer to anyone -- heck I spend the first 30 years of my life just like you. Only one day, I figured that since my father was a science teacher, I might want to figure out why he didn't think that the books were correct. I spent about 5 years reading, studying -- the bible, the Koran, the book of Morman, science books, and massive amounts of quiet time just trying to figure it out. The book Logics End is just a logical destruction of the evolution theory. Maybe some don't like logic, but it would be hard to read that book and still think that MacroEvolution is even a possibility in any sane scientist mind -- and yet I just sent a couple kids to college and they have college profs teaching it. So no, I don't see the "thousand other scientists calling him on it". It has to do with $$$$$ and agenda.

Welcome to the world we live in.
Believe it or not, "science" is not a single, conspiratorial entity. The thousands of scientists Chum is referring to answer to each other, and not to us, because they are the only ones qualified to review each other's work, not us.

Quote:
And then someone has the audacity to tell me that there was nothing that a big bang happened causing everything and somewhere over time both logic and emotion developed. Wow -- talk about the need for "belief". Sorry -- I have my belief and it is not in man (science) because I don't have the fear of having to answer to another.
Let's see who has this "need for belief"...

Quote:
Why do you think that so many people have tried to prove the Bible wrong?
Hard to admit that something besides man is in control isn't it.
It's not about "proving the Bible wrong", it's about finding the only way to make sense out of the damn thing. Here is an example:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 20:10-18
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.
Trying to justify this passage as a holy and divinely inspired commandment will inevitably lead to strange and abhorrent drivel. But reread the passage, this time replacing the phrase "the Lord your God" with "the tribe leader". You will instantly expose the man behind the curtain as well as the motivation behind the passage.

Now, are you really going to reread the passage in the manner I just described, and objectively examine the ramifications? Or do you have some beliefs of your own that you're just a bit too eager to protect?

Last edited by Dirkadirkastan; 11-21-2012 at 12:54 PM.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 12:55 PM   #8
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky View Post
I never got this idea. We have a robot on Mars vaporizing rocks and doing mass spectroscopy. We have cures for hundreds of diseases based on the very idea of gene sequencing and evolution-- it's the reason we have flu shots. We have a space station orbiting the Earth. We have phones that talk to satellites. I guess it's easy to question smaller details of science but to say you have little faith in science is bewildering to me.

Just because Isaac Newton got some details wrong that Einstein corrected and Einstein is being proven wrong himself doesn't mean that gravity is up for debate.

If you want to believe in religion, then do that. It's just not going to be justified by science if it retains it's fundamentalist views. The Earth is not flat as they believed it was in Jesus' time. The earth isn't the center of the universe. Science isn't replacing God-- it's just discovering things about the world that paint God in a different light. If you are fighting science, I believe you are on the same side as the Catholic church that banned the teachings of Galileo. The church eventually realized that they couldn't pretend that Galileo was wrong anymore and moved on-- much like most of the religious leaders in the world-- just not in the US for some reason even though we are at the forefront of many scientific fields.
Much of what you are writing is true.

The problem is that science is wrong more often than not and that it is OK because we will just change it later.
Many people seem to think that science is God.

I am not fighting science. In fact, I believe that the basis of science is to figure out how things work.

I am not about evolution though -- and that is the current science hypothesis that was thoroughly destroyed by science, but still left being taught.
I just don't understand why some must have it "all the way".

As I stated, my father is a retired science teacher. I spent lots of time with lots of science books, and did lots of experiments. I have read massive amounts on peoples beliefs in "the origins".

The Origin of life is the "Big" question.

If we came from nothingness, and there is no future "afterlife", then why do things matter at all. Why offer my life to defend someone else -- if there is no "good or bad". Why is there Love and who can explain it? There can be no soul.

The ability of inventors to build things or understand is great "science", but it doesn't really explain anything.

IF God created man -- then he can make the rules, and you can have an afterlife, and you should act a certain way, and etc etc etc. It can explain the origin of life. It can explain emotions, love, and logical existence.

IF Man was created via nothingness then -- man makes the rules, and might makes right. There is no right or wrong, only what man thinks. You should never wake up wondering what happened when you killed someone -- because everyone will die anyway and it ends there. Hiding it from man is the only consequence. Rape, Theft, beating, and killing are just the way things are -- much like in the world of all other animals. Why are things different in the human world? How did logic evolve? How did Love evolve? What is true love?

Why do women have rights in America? Why aren't people kept as slaves? What changes the way that is "right and wrong"?

I know the answer, and will go to my grave for it.

Now back to the science vs religion. Science thought the earth was flat as well in Jesus day. Science changed, but so did religion to an extent. The earth isn't the center of the universe, but unless you are talking a specific religion ie Catholicism that I am not well versed in -- then I have never heard religion say earth was the center of the universe.

Have people done absolutely crazy things in the name of religion --- YES. The Crusades, Muslim terrorism, etc are easy to show that religion can be skewed just as much if not more than science. What is the difference in religion and a true Christian. Religion says you need to XXXXX -- A true Christian says -- It is done.

The problem with much science today --- in many cases -- is that they have an answer they are working towards, not trying to find the answer.

Not believing in God is a religion of its own. It is one called believing in Man and Science. I just don't have enough "Faith" in man -- because he keeps changing it to his own will of whatever fits "me" today.

IMO, it takes more outright Faith to believe their isn't a God than it does to be able to show that he exists. Now I am back to -- If there is a God -- and we were created by him --- then isn't he the one who gets to make the rules?
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 01:42 PM   #9
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202 View Post
Many people seem to think that science is God.
Science is the nature of God, mathematics is the language of God... There's nothing in the Bible that contradicts that.
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 01:46 PM   #10
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202 View Post
If we came from nothingness, and there is no future "afterlife", then why do things matter at all. Why offer my life to defend someone else -- if there is no "good or bad". Why is there Love and who can explain it? There can be no soul.
Gosh, if this life is all I have, then it is the only thing that has importance at all. If we have time later for some divine agent to sort everything out, all this won't matter in the long run.

Quote:
IF God created man -- then he can make the rules, and you can have an afterlife, and you should act a certain way, and etc etc etc. It can explain the origin of life. It can explain emotions, love, and logical existence.
If you're merely doing as you're told, then you cannot receive credit for any moral act. Divine command actually TAKES AWAY from morality, since your motivation is not genuine.

Quote:
IF Man was created via nothingness then -- man makes the rules, and might makes right. There is no right or wrong, only what man thinks. You should never wake up wondering what happened when you killed someone -- because everyone will die anyway and it ends there. Hiding it from man is the only consequence. Rape, Theft, beating, and killing are just the way things are -- much like in the world of all other animals. Why are things different in the human world? How did logic evolve? How did Love evolve? What is true love?
Why are you such a fan of the bible then? Rape and slavery are ordinary commands. Logic is nowhere to be found.

Quote:
Why do women have rights in America? Why aren't people kept as slaves? What changes the way that is "right and wrong"?
See above. Women certainly did not get their rights from the bible.

Quote:
Have people done absolutely crazy things in the name of religion --- YES. The Crusades, Muslim terrorism, etc are easy to show that religion can be skewed just as much if not more than science. What is the difference in religion and a true Christian. Religion says you need to XXXXX -- A true Christian says -- It is done.
No True Scotsman, eh?

Quote:
The problem with much science today --- in many cases -- is that they have an answer they are working towards, not trying to find the answer.

Not believing in God is a religion of its own. It is one called believing in Man and Science. I just don't have enough "Faith" in man -- because he keeps changing it to his own will of whatever fits "me" today.
I don't see that at all. Why would anyone have the burning desire to prove we evolved from apes? What's so inspiring about the eventual heat death of the universe? There's nothing about these ideas that seem contrived or would even fit a particular agenda.

On the flip side, I can certainly see the bias in wanting to believe we were divinely ordained as caretakers of the universe.

Quote:
IMO, it takes more outright Faith to believe their isn't a God than it does to be able to show that he exists. Now I am back to -- If there is a God -- and we were created by him --- then isn't he the one who gets to make the rules?
You seem fully convinced that everyone just already knows deep down that God is watching them, so those that outwardly reject this universally known fact are simply in denial due to their personal desire to be "in control" and morally irresponsible.

Once you learn the truth, that many people genuinely do not believe a supernatural watchman/dictator exists, then hopefully you will start to take their arguments more seriously.

Last edited by Dirkadirkastan; 11-21-2012 at 01:46 PM.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 07:43 PM   #11
EricaLubarsky
Inactive.
 
EricaLubarsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 41,687
EricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond repute
Default

On the other hand, I believe Krugman went too far. Just because someone flexes their spiritual (and therefor irrational) side, doesn't mean they are wholly incapable of making decisions. It's insulting to me that someone would paint a human in such broad strokes.
EricaLubarsky is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 11:21 AM   #12
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Good stuff Dirk and Erica -- I don't have time presently, but will get back to this "discussion" and my irrationality soon.
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 05:47 PM   #13
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202 View Post
Really ---......I want you to tell me some FACTS then since apparently my background doesn't seem to keep me informed. LOL

How old are the dinosaurs? How old is each layer of the earth?
Scientific circular logic --- these dinosaur bones are this old -- because they were found in this layer of ground. This layer of ground is this old because these fossils were found in the layer. Circular logic. Look it up if you would like. It has been happening for years. Please research carbon dating before you start telling me about scientist using it instead of using the layers to date.

Please lets don't go into why macro evolution is not even close to correct. If you do even a small amount of study you will realize that macro evolution was PROVEN incorrect via science long ago. No one has a better (hypothesis) though that does not make man created by a higher being -- which means he made us and we are his -- not the other way around. God created man, not man created God. We are his to do with as he sees fit, not we are in control of everything. Funny how man is so stuck on himself that he doesn't want to answer to anyone -- and with most, I can understand why.

Want a fun read, that you can think a little about and still get a good sci-fi read....Read Logics End by Keith A Robinson. It is a book about a scientist going into outer space and getting to another planet. Fun read, and at least takes a logical look into evolution.


You do realize that science has changed the age of the earth by billions of years over the last 50 years right.
You do realize that science said that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not be able to be lived in due to radiation for at least 400 years, right. Even though they were started to be rebuilt within 5 years. Well, till they found out about exponential decay anyway.

You do realize that the Chernobyl area was not suppose to be lived in for at least 500 years correct, and yet there are animals today in that area living just fine. (and this happened in my lifetime it happened in 1986) Four hundred times more radioactive material was released than had been by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. In the most affected areas of Ukraine, levels of radioactivity (particularly from radionuclides 131I, 137Cs and 90Sr) in drinking water caused concern during the weeks and months after the accident, though officially it was stated that all contaminants had settled to the bottom "in an insoluble phase" and would not dissolve for 800–1,000 years.

You do realize that science used the speed of light as a constant -- which they use for many calculations -- but they can also bend light via vacuum and know about black holes bending light -- yet still keep the idea of the speed of light being constant because we just flat cannot prove any difference and it would cause the scientific world to change everything.

No -- I have little faith in most science. Not that science itself is wrong, just peoples assumptions when they have something to gain from it.

I am not saying that micro-evolution didn't happen -- ie somewhere long ago a fox, coyote, dog, wolf were related -- but they were all still canine. Just saying that today $$$$ is the driving factor and that "science" tends to skew its data to where they can get funded to "prove" this or that --- meaning they have the answer they want and fix it to where they get the process leading up to it.

I also realize that some think it is a neanderthal movement. None of which have taken the time to figure it out, research, or scientifically prove/disprove anything. All have an agenda of not wanting to answer to anyone -- heck I spend the first 30 years of my life just like you. Only one day, I figured that since my father was a science teacher, I might want to figure out why he didn't think that the books were correct. I spent about 5 years reading, studying -- the bible, the Koran, the book of Morman, science books, and massive amounts of quiet time just trying to figure it out. The book Logics End is just a logical destruction of the evolution theory. Maybe some don't like logic, but it would be hard to read that book and still think that MacroEvolution is even a possibility in any sane scientist mind -- and yet I just sent a couple kids to college and they have college profs teaching it. So no, I don't see the "thousand other scientists calling him on it". It has to do with $$$$$ and agenda.

Welcome to the world we live in.

And then someone has the audacity to tell me that there was nothing that a big bang happened causing everything and somewhere over time both logic and emotion developed. Wow -- talk about the need for "belief". Sorry -- I have my belief and it is not in man (science) because I don't have the fear of having to answer to another.

Research it -- spend a little time working through it logically -- do a little scientific hypothesis testing -- eventually you will get there. Close your mind and say -- well they don't have the proof, so I think this is right.......and all you have is a closed mind.

Why do you think that so many people have tried to prove the Bible wrong?
Hard to admit that something besides man is in control isn't it.
It is a scientific fact that the earth is on the order of billions of years old. Suggesting otherwise only makes you look silly and crazy.

And your belief is in man. God never came down from his space cloud and told you he existed. You believe he exists because your mommy and daddy told you he existed. If you grew up in a hindu family then you would believe in multiple gods because that is what your mommy and daddy told you. Your faith is not in god, but in man (your mommy).

Last edited by SeanL; 11-22-2012 at 05:48 PM.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 09:02 PM   #14
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
It is a scientific fact that the earth is on the order of billions of years old. Suggesting otherwise only makes you look silly and crazy.
Any scientist would tell you that's a theory, not a fact - science isn't so quick to declare absolutes, don't treat it like a religion.
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 09:18 PM   #15
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
Any scientist would tell you that's a theory, not a fact - science isn't so quick to declare absolutes, don't treat it like a religion.
A theory is not a guess. It is a hypothesis that has been confirmed through sufficient testing.

The hypothesis that the earth is only thousands of years old is not a theory, and there is no evidence to support such a claim.

There is uncertainty in the age of the earth within a few million years (which is not much when we're talking billions), but the evidence is strong enough such that to believe the age of the earth falls anywhere outside the relatively small range currently held by science is baseless and irrational.

Yes, there's always a footnote in science that new evidence could conceivably come up that would challenge the theory. But a new hypothesis would have to be worked out to explain both the old and the new evidence, then be thoroughly tested before it could graduate to the level of a revised theory. Some old book will hold zero weight in the discussion regardless.

Last edited by Dirkadirkastan; 11-22-2012 at 09:21 PM.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 10:21 PM   #16
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
And your belief is in man.
Spot-on-balls-accurate. It all comes down to that, plainly and simply.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 10:45 PM   #17
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
A theory is not a guess. It is a hypothesis that has been confirmed through sufficient testing.

The hypothesis that the earth is only thousands of years old is not a theory, and there is no evidence to support such a claim.

There is uncertainty in the age of the earth within a few million years (which is not much when we're talking billions), but the evidence is strong enough such that to believe the age of the earth falls anywhere outside the relatively small range currently held by science is baseless and irrational.

Yes, there's always a footnote in science that new evidence could conceivably come up that would challenge the theory. But a new hypothesis would have to be worked out to explain both the old and the new evidence, then be thoroughly tested before it could graduate to the level of a revised theory. Some old book will hold zero weight in the discussion regardless.
I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just pointing out that a majority of people are fairly ignorant when it comes to science and they take everything that a scientist says at face value, no different than how most people are fairly ignorant about spirituality (place/significance in the universe) and take everything that a cleric says at face value... A theory is not a hypothesis, but its not a law either - most people don't (can't?) make the distinction... They tend to fall back on belief instead of trusting in scientific rigor, but I guess even scientists can get sick of answering the question "why?" over and over - especially since there's more grant money in answers than questions (hello, peak oil and global warming debates?)

A potent mixture of greed and ignorance is turning science into another religion, which is diluting its ultimate purpose: the search for truth (which happens to be the same place where religion started...)

Maybe our current theories about our origins are correct, but there's a pretty decent chance that whatever the actual truth is will make those theories look as ridiculous as anything you can find in a religious text... Claiming that we KNOW anything at this point is a belief, and any responsible scientist can admit that... Hell, we don't even know how consciousness works - how can we pretend to know how the universe works??
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.

Last edited by Underdog; 11-22-2012 at 10:55 PM.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 11:44 PM   #18
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
Any scientist would tell you that's a theory, not a fact - science isn't so quick to declare absolutes, don't treat it like a religion.
Gravity is a theory. I dare you to jump off a cliff. I don't think you know what a scientific theory means.

Maybe you are referring to a hypothesis.

Last edited by SeanL; 11-22-2012 at 11:45 PM.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 11:52 PM   #19
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
A potent mixture of greed and ignorance is turning science into another religion...
Wow...that is a wild, wild claim. And it certainly does not mesh at all with my experience. What are you working off here?
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 03:36 AM   #20
blubber
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1
blubber is on a distinguished road
Default

A scientific theory is just a model we have. The model that explains the most phenomena will be the one favored by the majority of scientist. It also helps if the theory isn't excessively complex (like the gear-theory for explaining planet motions). And of course it must make predictions that can be tested. I.e. it must explain more than an alredy established theory. And last but not least it must be falsifiable.

Young-earth does not satisfy all these criteria. It certainly doesn't make new predictions. It is excessively complicated in order to explain all phenomena. It has to be constantly adapted to comply with new stuff we uncover. It implies that there is a creator / god. Since the existence of god can not be disproven, this part renders it inherently non-falsifiable - ergo not a scientific theory. There is just no purely rational reason to favor young-earth over big-bang, or creationism over evolution.

That said. I do agree with one thing: Science does have it's problems. Science today is very complex. And it will get more complex still. Today there are no more true universalist, people that have a comprehensive understanding of all branches of science. In todays scientific world you have to specialize to survive, to contribute on a meaningful level.
On the other hand popular science is getting more and more common. Scientist are under pressure to simplify their findings so laymen or even fellow scientist from a different branch can understand them on even a rudimentary level. Obviously these simplified versions are not complete and are not in and of themselves scientific.
All that means, that we have to rely more and more on the integrity of the scientific community (and on mechanisms like peer-reviewed publications). This of course introduces a certain level of trust or "believe" in this scientific system (even more so for complete laymen). This is unfortunate, but there really is no alternative. Of course this opens up science to all levels of skeptisism and even mistrust. But that is not a bad thing per se.
blubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 04:16 AM   #21
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Scientists go to great lengths to make sure they are understood. If you can't understand them, you aren't offering anything to mankind going forward.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 09:37 AM   #22
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
Gravity is a theory. I dare you to jump off a cliff. I don't think you know what a scientific theory means.

Maybe you are referring to a hypothesis.
Newton's LAW of Universal Gravitation is not a theory, it's a fact... Do you know what a theory is?
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.

Last edited by Underdog; 11-23-2012 at 09:40 AM.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 09:44 AM   #23
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg View Post
Scientists go to great lengths to make sure they are understood. If you can't understand them, you aren't offering anything to mankind going forward.
Shhh... Do you hear that? It's string theory laughing in the distance.
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 09:46 AM   #24
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blubber View Post
A scientific theory is just a model we have. The model that explains the most phenomena will be the one favored by the majority of scientist. It also helps if the theory isn't excessively complex (like the gear-theory for explaining planet motions). And of course it must make predictions that can be tested. I.e. it must explain more than an alredy established theory. And last but not least it must be falsifiable.

Young-earth does not satisfy all these criteria. It certainly doesn't make new predictions. It is excessively complicated in order to explain all phenomena. It has to be constantly adapted to comply with new stuff we uncover. It implies that there is a creator / god. Since the existence of god can not be disproven, this part renders it inherently non-falsifiable - ergo not a scientific theory. There is just no purely rational reason to favor young-earth over big-bang, or creationism over evolution.

That said. I do agree with one thing: Science does have it's problems. Science today is very complex. And it will get more complex still. Today there are no more true universalist, people that have a comprehensive understanding of all branches of science. In todays scientific world you have to specialize to survive, to contribute on a meaningful level.
On the other hand popular science is getting more and more common. Scientist are under pressure to simplify their findings so laymen or even fellow scientist from a different branch can understand them on even a rudimentary level. Obviously these simplified versions are not complete and are not in and of themselves scientific.
All that means, that we have to rely more and more on the integrity of the scientific community (and on mechanisms like peer-reviewed publications). This of course introduces a certain level of trust or "believe" in this scientific system (even more so for complete laymen). This is unfortunate, but there really is no alternative. Of course this opens up science to all levels of skeptisism and even mistrust. But that is not a bad thing per se.
I don't know who you are, guy, but you get it...
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 10:24 AM   #25
MavsFTR
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,447
MavsFTR has much to be proud ofMavsFTR has much to be proud ofMavsFTR has much to be proud ofMavsFTR has much to be proud ofMavsFTR has much to be proud ofMavsFTR has much to be proud ofMavsFTR has much to be proud ofMavsFTR has much to be proud ofMavsFTR has much to be proud ofMavsFTR has much to be proud ofMavsFTR has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
Newton's LAW of Universal Gravitation is not a theory, it's a fact... Do you know what a theory is?
We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.
MavsFTR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 10:24 AM   #26
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blubber View Post
A scientific theory is just a model we have. The model that explains the most phenomena will be the one favored by the majority of scientist. It also helps if the theory isn't excessively complex (like the gear-theory for explaining planet motions). And of course it must make predictions that can be tested. I.e. it must explain more than an alredy established theory. And last but not least it must be falsifiable.

Young-earth does not satisfy all these criteria. It certainly doesn't make new predictions. It is excessively complicated in order to explain all phenomena. It has to be constantly adapted to comply with new stuff we uncover. It implies that there is a creator / god. Since the existence of god can not be disproven, this part renders it inherently non-falsifiable - ergo not a scientific theory. There is just no purely rational reason to favor young-earth over big-bang, or creationism over evolution.

That said. I do agree with one thing: Science does have it's problems. Science today is very complex. And it will get more complex still. Today there are no more true universalist, people that have a comprehensive understanding of all branches of science. In todays scientific world you have to specialize to survive, to contribute on a meaningful level.
On the other hand popular science is getting more and more common. Scientist are under pressure to simplify their findings so laymen or even fellow scientist from a different branch can understand them on even a rudimentary level. Obviously these simplified versions are not complete and are not in and of themselves scientific.
All that means, that we have to rely more and more on the integrity of the scientific community (and on mechanisms like peer-reviewed publications). This of course introduces a certain level of trust or "believe" in this scientific system (even more so for complete laymen). This is unfortunate, but there really is no alternative. Of course this opens up science to all levels of skeptisism and even mistrust. But that is not a bad thing per se.
You don't have to trust or believe anything scientists tells you. In any well documented scientific study they lay out their methodology and analysis, and if you wanted to you could repeat their study. And often times that is what happens, scientists repeat experiments from other scientists before they become widely accepted.

And skepticism is not a bad thing, but irrational mistrust and even fear of the scientific community is a bad thing. And this last statement describes conservatives.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 10:28 AM   #27
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
Newton's LAW of Universal Gravitation is not a theory, it's a fact... Do you know what a theory is?
You don't know what you are talking about. Gravity is also a theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita...of_gravitation

And as your article states, "Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity."

Last edited by SeanL; 11-23-2012 at 10:33 AM.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 11:22 AM   #28
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
And skepticism is not a bad thing, but irrational mistrust and even fear of the scientific community is a bad thing.
For my own part, I never claimed to mistrust the scientific community - I'm just pointing out that science is being treated the same way as religion... Most laypeople don't know enough about science to interpret the data for themselves, which is where faith comes into play... And putting your faith into a group of people who claim to have all the answers sounds a lot like a religion to me... It falls more on the heads of the ignorant masses than the scientists, but it certainly does open the door for the same type of corruption that you find in religion.

Which is why we have good, old-fashioned greed is motivating some -- not most -- but some people in the scientific community to stray from scientific rigor in favor of a quick buck (peak oil, tobacco, global warming, even intelligent design)... Which has an affect in the court of popular opinion, not to mention politics (coming full-circle.)
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 11:48 AM   #29
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
You don't know what you are talking about. Gravity is also a theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita...of_gravitation

And as your article states, "Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity."
Yeah, but the reason why you're so damn confident that I'd fall if I stepped off the side of a cliff is because it's an easily measurable/repeatable experiment... You can't explain why I'd fall (the theory), but you know that I will every time I try (the law) - it was your "I dare you to jump off a cliff" statement that created the context here.

The theory of relativity, on the other hand, is not so measurable - you'll just have to rely on faith unless you have a Millennium Falcon, since the stepping stone between theories and laws is tangibility... Which is why most science (especially theoretical science) is dependent on consensus - no different than religion (take a look at how the Talmud was assembled for reference.)
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 12:09 PM   #30
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
Yeah, but the reason why you're so damn confident that I'd fall if I stepped off the side of a cliff is because it's an easily measurable/repeatable experiment... You can't explain why I'd fall (the theory), but you know that I will every time I try (the law) - it was your "I dare you to jump off a cliff" statement that created the context here.

The theory of relativity, on the other hand, is not so measurable - you'll just have to rely on faith unless you have a Millennium Falcon, since the stepping stone between theories and laws is tangibility... Which is why most science (especially theoretical science) is dependent on consensus - no different than religion (take a look at how the Talmud was assembled for reference.)
Actually the theory of relativity is very measurable. Your iPhone would not work without time dilation.

Here is a list of various tests for the theory of relativity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_o...ral_relativity

And back to the topic of the discussion, the age of the earth is very measurable. Saying it is any younger than a couple of billion of years makes you look like an anti-science loon.

Last edited by SeanL; 11-23-2012 at 12:09 PM.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 12:12 PM   #31
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
For my own part, I never claimed to mistrust the scientific community - I'm just pointing out that science is being treated the same way as religion... Most laypeople don't know enough about science to interpret the data for themselves, which is where faith comes into play... And putting your faith into a group of people who claim to have all the answers sounds a lot like a religion to me... It falls more on the heads of the ignorant masses than the scientists, but it certainly does open the door for the same type of corruption that you find in religion.

Which is why we have good, old-fashioned greed is motivating some -- not most -- but some people in the scientific community to stray from scientific rigor in favor of a quick buck (peak oil, tobacco, global warming, even intelligent design)... Which has an affect in the court of popular opinion, not to mention politics (coming full-circle.)
But I'm not putting my faith in them. I require them to present evidence for their claims. Whereas, religious folk ask for no such evidence for the claims in the bible. The only reason why they believe in it is because their mommy and daddy told them it is "the truth" since they were kids.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 12:45 PM   #32
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
Saying it is any younger than a couple of billion of years makes you look like an anti-science loon.
Good thing I never said that...
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 12:55 PM   #33
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
But I'm not putting my faith in them. I require them to present evidence for their claims.
What do you do for a living - are you a scientist? Do you spend every waking moment poring over data from every scientific study on the planet? You must be an amazing individual to have such a vast and comprehensive understanding of science that you can scrutinize every single detail of scientific research for proof instead of having to take a scientist's word at face value like the rest of us...

Quote:
Whereas, religious folk ask for no such evidence for the claims in the bible.
You seem to think that the only religion on the planet is Christianity and that all Christians are fundamentalists who believe that the Bible is to be taken literally... Here's a crazy little fact that you could have discovered through scientific rigor: the Jews, authors of the Old Testament, never intended their work to be taken literally... That's why I mentioned the Talmud, which is the ancient and ongoing debate among the Hebrews about how to translate the meaning of the Torah - it's not exactly the scientific method, but it certainly is a call for evidence.
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.

Last edited by Underdog; 11-23-2012 at 01:28 PM.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 01:27 PM   #34
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
What do you do for a living - are you a scientist? Do you spend every waking moment poring over data from every scientific study on the planet? You must be an amazing individual to have such a vast and comprehensive understanding of science that you can scrutinize every single detail of scientific research for proof instead of having to take a scientist's word at face value like the rest of us...
I'm in the middle of getting my clinical doctorate. I won't be doing research when I get my degree, but in the process of getting my degree I have been involved in a fair amount of research.

Anyhow, the point I am making is that since these scientists have published their methodology and analytical techniques I can, if I desire to, test their findings. And when a scientist does publish his/her findings many people do end up retesting their hypothesis using the said methodology.

There is no such recourse with the bible. It makes a fair amount of extraordinary claims and provides not testable evidence to support any of it. So if I desired to test the claims in the bible I couldn't.

As the saying goes: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
You seem to think that the only religion on the planet is Christianity and that all Christians are fundamentalists who believe that the Bible is to be taken literally... Here's a crazy little fact that yo could have discovered through scientific rigor: the Jews, authors of the Old Testament, don't believe that any of it literally happened.
Actually the Ultra-Orthodox Jews do believe in the literal translation of the old testament. Like any religion Jews have their fundamentalists. All religions have their extremes. The reason why I mentioned the bible is because Christianity is the most common religion here in America. Christianity, however, is no different than Judaism, Hinduism, or Islam.

Last edited by SeanL; 11-23-2012 at 01:30 PM.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 01:31 PM   #35
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
Good thing I never said that...
No but you are defending the logic of those who do, and if you are not then you hijacked this thread.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 01:45 PM   #36
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
Actually the Ultra-Orthodox Jews do believe in the literal translation of the old testament. Like any religion Jews have their fundamentalists. All religions have their extremes. The reason why I mentioned the bible is because Christianity is the most common religion here in America. Christianity is no different than Judaism, Hinduism, or Islam.
Most Jews think Ultra-Orthodox Jews are idiots - you're attributing the beliefs of a fundamentalist minority to the majority... Oversimplified generalizations don't have any place in science.

And you missed the edit in my last post about the Talmud... It's an ancient and ongoing debate among the Hebrews about how to translate the meaning of the Torah - it's not exactly scientific method, but it certainly is a call for evidence. Not every religion is created equally.
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 01:54 PM   #37
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
Most Jews think Ultra-Orthodox Jews are idiots - you're attributing the beliefs of a fundamentalist minority to the majority... Oversimplified generalizations don't have any place in science.

And you missed the edit in my last post about the Talmud... It's an ancient and ongoing debate among the Hebrews about how to translate the meaning of the Torah - it's not exactly scientific method, but it certainly is a call for evidence. Not every religion is created equally.
Actually I come from a Jewish family, and that is not how the ultra-orthodox are viewed. For example, Israel subsidizes the ultra-orthodox to NOT work in Israel so they can spend all day to "study." Yes there are a lot of reform Jews who hate the ultra-orthodox, but most Jews don't think the ultra-orthodox are "idiots."

And the Talmud is more similar to a legal code. Not a scientific journal. It's full of a lot of opinion, but not necessarily facts. Saying sections of the Talmud are equivalent to scientifically performed studies, is like saying the opinion page of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal are the equivalent of scientific studies.

Last edited by SeanL; 11-23-2012 at 01:55 PM.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 02:07 PM   #38
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
No but you are defending the logic of those who do, and if you are not then you hijacked this thread.
No I'm not - the Biblical idea of creationsim is batsh!t crazy... Just because I'm not with you doesn't mean I'm against you.

You're the one making this a Pepsi/Coke debate, rather than giving into the infinite options of scientific rigor... Hell, you're pretty much reinforcing my point about science being another religion, as you've chosen to ignore any kind of scientific method when drawing conclusions about religion, and instead fall back on broad generalizations - your rush to judgement reeks of fundamentalism, albeit scientific fundamentalism. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 02:21 PM   #39
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
Actually I come from a Jewish family
Me too, but I don't buy into any of it - just like most Jews I've ever known (with the exception of a few dingbats)... I also know a lot of Christians (mostly American Catholics) who don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible either.

Quote:
And the Talmud is more similar to a legal code. Not a scientific journal. It's full of a lot of opinion, but not necessarily facts.
I admitted that it wasn't scientific, but at least it was a rudimentary attempt at trying to debate the Torah - not just a bunch of people simply believing what mommy and daddy told them... You can't paint every religion on the planet with an American Fundamentalist Christian brush because that's not even close to how a chunk of the world approaches religion.
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.

Last edited by Underdog; 11-23-2012 at 02:33 PM.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 03:28 PM   #40
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Circumcision is also a pretty batshit crazy idea thanks to the Jews, but it's still largely mainstream. I don't think you can call yourself separate from the crazies until you renounce it.

They even got the whole bad science thing going for them too. What's the sexual disease epidemic of the day? AIDS? Oh sure, circumcision will certainly prevent that. What's that? A lot of older guys get prostate cancer too? If only they had gotten circumcised...
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
nay? really?

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.