AVForums South Africa

Chat => Legendary threads => Topic started by: --------- on November 07, 2011, 01:14:28 PM

Title: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 07, 2011, 01:14:28 PM
I recently read a number of surveys, which were conducted in the USA and Europe to determine levels scientific knowledge, and the results are shocking. Almost half of the Americans surveyed believe that the earth (and, by extension, the universe) is less than 10,000 years old (whereas the true figure is 4.6 billion years). Twenty per cent of the people surveyed in Britain believe that: (a) it takes one month for the Earth to go around the sun (the figure is more than 20 per cent for Ireland, Austria, Spain and Denmark); and (b) winter and summer are the result of the earth moving further away or closer to the sun, respectively. In about half of the countries surveyed in Europe, almost a third of the respondents believe that humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs (the figures range from 9 per cent in Sweden and Switzerland to 42 per cent of the respondents in Turkey who believe humans coexisted with dinosaurs). Responses to the proposition that 'human beings developed from earlier species of animals' ranged from 80+ per cent concurring (in Denmark, Sweden, France and Britain) to only about 50 per cent believing that this is true (in Poland, Croatia, Austria, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Cyprus and Turkey). In fact, a majority of the Turkish population believes that evolution is false (this is probably true for much of the Islamic world). It would be really interesting to know how South Africans would score in a similar survey.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 07, 2011, 01:33:43 PM
Interesting post AB. I'm always amazed by how many stupid people there are(stupid meaning people who lack knowledge of a certain subject but disregard the facts).

I don't think Saffas are any cleverer. I like reading the Sci-Tech articles on news24 from time to time and it always amuses me how retarded the commentary are.
Eg. People who have never heard of radio active carbon dating, have no understanding of geology, never read or seen a scientific article/journal or know the bases of how a scientific study is carried out. They'll reject all speculation of how the universe were created or claims of evolution and claim everything is rubbish made up by some mad scientist(read: anti Gracious) in some dodgy lab.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 07, 2011, 01:35:35 PM
Speak to the majority of South African teenagers and you will be shocked by their total lack of knowledge in most areas. This is despite the fact that they think they know everything.

As an example, my inlaws visited some time ago and brought their one 17 year old granddaughter along. The career she is interested in is tourism and when we told her that the sign above Gordons Bay(GB) in fact means General Botha, she proclaimed that she is not interested in this fact, but only in questions asked duriing exams!

Then again there are things our 5 year old daughter knows that most teenagers don't have a clue about - The Moon, Sun, stars, insects, technology, etc, etc.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 07, 2011, 01:38:09 PM
News24 is a breeding ground for some of the most unbalanced characters we have in South Africa...by now this post would have attracted a large portion of them.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Timber_MG on November 07, 2011, 01:41:42 PM
I think that such a survey amongst science teachers might rack up some interresting results, never mind their scholars. Math & Science education is one of the biggest challenges facing SA in my book. It is not even just the curricula, but the formulaic approach pervasive here (the "correct answer" to the question referred to by alphabet) and not learning a different perspective to our world.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 07, 2011, 01:43:44 PM
So who does not believe in evolution? :D
(Why is there a bunch of apes following me?)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: fdlsys on November 07, 2011, 01:47:06 PM
So who does not believe in evolution? :D
Watch Battlestar Galactica; it will all become clear(er)... you... hybrid-clone you...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: ViVoAudio on November 07, 2011, 01:53:24 PM
I'm not a scientist, I just find science topic fascinating.

Can some explain to how this works:
For things older than approximately 50000 years geologist or paleontologist use the fossil index.

1.The sediment layers of the earth is aged/dated by identifying the fossils you find in it and reference it to the fossil index.
2.The age of a fossil is determined by which sediment layer you find it in.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that circular reasoning.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: MorneDJ on November 07, 2011, 01:58:03 PM
News24 is a breeding ground for some of the most unbalanced characters we have in South Africa...by now this post would have attracted a large portion of them.
sudden onset of laughter resulted in a mouth full of soup over my keyboard and screen ... thanks Andrew
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 07, 2011, 02:03:29 PM
I'm not a scientist, I just find science topic fascinating.

Can some explain to how this works:
For things older than approximately 50000 years geologist or paleontologist use the fossil index.

1.The sediment layers of the earth is aged/dated by identifying the fossils you find in it and reference it to the fossil index.
2.The age of a fossil is determined by which sediment layer you find it in.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that circular reasoning.

VivoAudio, like you, I may simply an interested observer. With regard to your question, the method you mention is only one of many used by geologists and paleontologists to date fossils. Among others, dating is done by the known half-life of certain elements such as carbon. (There are numerous websites that explain the various 'clocks' used by scientists). An interesting fact about the fossil record is that nothing found so far contradicts the theory of evolution (i.e. a more 'modern' species found in older sedimentary deposits).
 
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 07, 2011, 02:09:44 PM
Watch Battlestar Galactica; it will all become clear(er)... you... hybrid-clone you...

Ooo! Fellow BG fan! Loved that series!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 07, 2011, 02:11:22 PM
I'm not a scientist, I just find science topic fascinating.

Can some explain to how this works:
For things older than approximately 50000 years geologist or paleontologist use the fossil index.

1.The sediment layers of the earth is aged/dated by identifying the fossils you find in it and reference it to the fossil index.
2.The age of a fossil is determined by which sediment layer you find it in.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that circular reasoning.

Actually point 1 is wrong - various methods exist to determine sedimentary layer age, - including carbon dating. This determination of age can then be applied to fossils and artifacts in that layer if there are no indications of disturbance of the layer subsequent to deposit.

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 07, 2011, 02:11:39 PM
sudden onset of laughter resulted in a mouth full of soup over my keyboard and screen ... thanks Andrew

 ;D I should have said unbalanced and rabid... Makes for interesting reading at times, though.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Moog on November 07, 2011, 02:12:45 PM
I recently read a number of surveys, which were conducted in the USA and Europe to determine levels scientific knowledge, and the results are shocking. Almost half of the Americans surveyed believe that the earth (and, by extension, the universe) is less than 10,000 years old (whereas the true figure is 4.6 billion.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: ViVoAudio on November 07, 2011, 02:16:08 PM
Actually point 1 is wrong - various methods exist to determine sedimentary layer age, - including carbon dating. This determination of age can then be applied to fossils and artifacts in that layer if there are no indications of disturbance of the layer subsequent to deposit.


OK
But Carbon dating is only accurate for  58,000 to 62,000 years
so which are the other methods to determine the age of the sediment?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Moog on November 07, 2011, 02:16:49 PM
I recently read a number of surveys, which were conducted in the USA and Europe to determine levels scientific knowledge, and the results are shocking. Almost half of the Americans surveyed believe that the earth (and, by extension, the universe) is less than 10,000 years old (whereas the true figure is 4.6 billion years).


The age of the universe is almost 14 billion years, and not 4.6 billion years.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 07, 2011, 02:22:00 PM
I think the 4.6 billion is the estimated age of the Earth.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: fdlsys on November 07, 2011, 02:51:57 PM
Ooo! Fellow BG fan! Loved that series!
It's the attribute of highly intelligent & evolved (and modest...) people, most likely inheriting the genome of the advanced species that graced this rock with their presence some 150000 years ago - descendants of Hera Agathon, or as science and some of the religions like to refer to her - "Eve".

(http://media.battlestarwiki.org/images/0/07/Hera.jpg)
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Hera_Agathon#Notes (http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Hera_Agathon#Notes)

I have her curls... and her eyes. How about you my long lost brother Andrew?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 07, 2011, 02:53:50 PM
It's the attribute of highly intelligent & evolved (and modest...) people, most likely inheriting the genome of the advanced species that graced this rock with their presence some 150000 years ago - descendants of Hera Agathon, or as science and some of the religions like to refer to her - "Eve".

(http://media.battlestarwiki.org/images/0/07/Hera.jpg)
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Hera_Agathon#Notes (http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Hera_Agathon#Notes)

I have her curls... and her eyes. How about you my long lost brother Andrew?

Someone is brown nosing for a 1 year AVSA subscription :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: fdlsys on November 07, 2011, 02:55:45 PM
Someone is brown nosing for a 1 year AVSA subscription :D
Wouldn't read that carp if you pay me!

Ooops, I thought this was PM... Sorry Andrew...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 07, 2011, 03:02:01 PM
Lol...  ;D

I inherited the latest Cylon model as my girlfriend.

http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Number_Six

Haters are gonna hate...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 07, 2011, 03:11:15 PM
OK
But Carbon dating is only accurate for  58,000 to 62,000 years
so which are the other methods to determine the age of the sediment?

Different nuclei decay at different rates, so while the type of carbon used to determine age may only have a half-life of 5730 years there are other, longer lived nuclides (uranium-thorium, rubidium-strontium etc.) that can be used to date older objects.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: MorneDJ on November 07, 2011, 03:25:03 PM
OK
But Carbon dating is only accurate for  58,000 to 62,000 years
so which are the other methods to determine the age of the sediment?

Correct, about 50,000 - 60,000 years. As mentioned they use a number of methods to determine age, but it seems as these dating techniques are all grouped under carbon dating. They would use uranium disequilibrium for older stuff (about 400,000 years). For older stuff they go Potassium to argon (10,000 - 3 billion years), etc. There are numerous isotopic techniques.

The oldest one we know of is dendrochronology, which is the dating of tree rings (up to 12,000 years). It is not called carbon dating, and goes with the weird ones like glass hydration and amino acid racemization. The 11 year old giving me the information can think of a few more but I am tired of typing ......

They do not have TV, DSTV, etc, are home schooled and he took a fancy in peaolentology. He can already name most of the extinct dinousaur species, when they lived, etc... benefit of a non-TV lifestyle


Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on November 07, 2011, 03:31:37 PM
Ehm.....I dunno, but the whole concept of evolution, as presented, really stretches the imagination. By a long sequence of highly improbable events, *nothing* exploded and started creating everything and is even now continuing to expand into the great nothingness. Meanwhile, by a major amount of chance coming together, the universe with its intricate laws came into perfect balance. THEN, randomly thrown toghether molecules got together in a very special way to form the building blocks of life. Interestingly, they got together and actually started living, taking in other elemnts and later other forms of life, multiplying, getting more complex untill one day it crawled from a puddle of mud and became the multitude of living beings we now know as fauna. I've heard few things more implausible in my life. For that to make sense, you will need an infinitely long timescale because of the infinitely small probability of that coming together. Which kind of explains why the earth is claimed to be older by a log scale every so many years. If you can believe that theory, putting your life savings into the lotto is a no brainer. Thats a  1/14000000 chance and its only 6 numbers!  ****Anyone willing to hazard a guess as to where that very special nothing that exploded came from? I'm not looking for an argument, but whichever way you spin this, you have have faith in whoever presents this, proof is scarce and at best filled with assumptions and 'wip' knowledge. Going back and checking theories is clearly not an option. The earth used to be flat until some guy managed to sail around it. So....who believes in global warming? ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GECO on November 07, 2011, 03:37:31 PM
Ehm.....I dunno, but the whole concept of evolution, as presented, really stretches the imagination. By a long sequence of highly improbable events, *nothing* exploded and started creating everything and is even now continuing to expand into the great nothingness. Meanwhile, by a major amount of chance coming together, the universe with its intricate laws came into perfect balance. THEN, randomly thrown toghether molecules got together in a very special way to form the building blocks of life. Interestingly, they got together and actually started living, taking in other elemnts and later other forms of life, multiplying, getting more complex untill one day it crawled from a puddle of mud and became the multitude of living beings we now know as fauna. I've heard few things more implausible in my life. For that to make sense, you will need an infinitely long timescale because of the infinitely small probability of that coming together. Which kind of explains why the earth is claimed to be older by a log scale every so many years. If you can believe that theory, putting your life savings into the lotto is a no brainer. Thats a  1/14000000 chance and its only 6 numbers!  ****Anyone willing to hazard a guess as to where that very special nothing that exploded came from? I'm not looking for an argument, but whichever way you spin this, you have have faith in whoever presents this, proof is scarce and at best filled with assumptions and 'wip' knowledge. Going back and checking theories is clearly not an option. The earth used to be flat until some guy managed to sail around it. So....who believes in global warming? ;)

utter crap.   ;)


winedey winedey.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 07, 2011, 03:50:14 PM
Ehm.....I dunno, but the whole concept of evolution, as presented, really stretches the imagination. By a long sequence of highly improbable events, *nothing* exploded and started creating everything and is even now continuing to expand into the great nothingness. Meanwhile, by a major amount of chance coming together, the universe with its intricate laws came into perfect balance. THEN, randomly thrown toghether molecules got together in a very special way to form the building blocks of life. Interestingly, they got together and actually started living, taking in other elemnts and later other forms of life, multiplying, getting more complex untill one day it crawled from a puddle of mud and became the multitude of living beings we now know as fauna. I've heard few things more implausible in my life. For that to make sense, you will need an infinitely long timescale because of the infinitely small probability of that coming together. Which kind of explains why the earth is claimed to be older by a log scale every so many years. If you can believe that theory, putting your life savings into the lotto is a no brainer. Thats a  1/14000000 chance and its only 6 numbers!  ****Anyone willing to hazard a guess as to where that very special nothing that exploded came from? I'm not looking for an argument, but whichever way you spin this, you have have faith in whoever presents this, proof is scarce and at best filled with assumptions and 'wip' knowledge. Going back and checking theories is clearly not an option. The earth used to be flat until some guy managed to sail around it. So....who believes in global warming? ;)
+1
I don't want to go into arguments for or against evolution! but to present the theory of evolution and big bang theory as the final authority on creation, when there are so many unanswered question regarding the theories is counter productive to the scientic mindset the theories presuppose. there are a number of  scientific flaws regarding the theories that to present them as scientific is ludicrous in my opinion.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 07, 2011, 03:53:17 PM
Ehm.....I dunno, but the whole concept of evolution, as presented, really stretches the imagination. By a long sequence of highly improbable events, *nothing* exploded and started creating everything and is even now continuing to expand into the great nothingness. Meanwhile, by a major amount of chance coming together, the universe with its intricate laws came into perfect balance. THEN, randomly thrown toghether molecules got together in a very special way to form the building blocks of life. Interestingly, they got together and actually started living, taking in other elemnts and later other forms of life, multiplying, getting more complex untill one day it crawled from a puddle of mud and became the multitude of living beings we now know as fauna. I've heard few things more implausible in my life. For that to make sense, you will need an infinitely long timescale because of the infinitely small probability of that coming together. Which kind of explains why the earth is claimed to be older by a log scale every so many years. If you can believe that theory, putting your life savings into the lotto is a no brainer. Thats a  1/14000000 chance and its only 6 numbers!  ****Anyone willing to hazard a guess as to where that very special nothing that exploded came from? I'm not looking for an argument, but whichever way you spin this, you have have faith in whoever presents this, proof is scarce and at best filled with assumptions and 'wip' knowledge. Going back and checking theories is clearly not an option.

You have obviously not bothered to put in a stitch of research.

Claiming the chances of this or that being so unlikely is an old creationist tactic. It's fallacious. I'll leave it up to Douglas Adams to illustrate:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 07, 2011, 03:55:37 PM
+1
I don't want to go into arguments for or against evolution! but to present the theory of evolution and big bang theory as the final authority on creation, when there are so many unanswered question regarding the theories is counter productive to the scientic mindset the theories presuppose. there are a number of  scientific flaws regarding the theories that to present them as scientific is ludicrous in my opinion.

Hmm, I don't think the scientific community claims to have the final say on evolution and the Big Bang theory - they openly admit that as new research brings more information to light, that the models change accordingly. It's generally the um, other side who tend to be very much set in their ways as to what is the truth and what isn't (in their view).
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 07, 2011, 03:56:44 PM
Hmm, I don't think the scientific community claims to have the final say on evolution and the Big Bang theory - they openly admit that as new research brings more information to light, that the models change accordingly. It's generally the um, other side who tend to be very much set in their ways as to what is the truth and what isn't (in their view).

Exactly. Sadly they equate science with scripture.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 07, 2011, 04:16:52 PM
Correct, about 50,000 - 60,000 years. As mentioned they use a number of methods to determine age, but it seems as these dating techniques are all grouped under carbon dating. They would use uranium disequilibrium for older stuff (about 400,000 years). For older stuff they go Potassium to argon (10,000 - 3 billion years), etc. There are numerous isotopic techniques. The oldest one we know of is dendrochronology, which is the dating of tree rings (up to 12,000 years). It is not called carbon dating, and goes with the weird ones like glass hydration and amino acid racemization. The 11 year old giving me the information can think of a few more but I am tired of typing ...... They do not have TV, DSTV, etc, are home schooled and he took a fancy in peaolentology. He can already name most of the extinct dinousaur species, when they lived, etc... benefit of a non-TV lifestyle

Ha ha. That is brilliant Morne. You are raising a future generation of scientists - good on you.

Ehm.....I dunno, but the whole concept of evolution, as presented, really stretches the imagination. By a long sequence of highly improbable events, *nothing* exploded and started creating everything and is even now continuing to expand into the great nothingness. Meanwhile, by a major amount of chance coming together, the universe with its intricate laws came into perfect balance. THEN, randomly thrown toghether molecules got together in a very special way to form the building blocks of life. Interestingly, they got together and actually started living, taking in other elemnts and later other forms of life, multiplying, getting more complex untill one day it crawled from a puddle of mud and became the multitude of living beings we now know as fauna. I've heard few things more implausible in my life. For that to make sense, you will need an infinitely long timescale because of the infinitely small probability of that coming together. Which kind of explains why the earth is claimed to be older by a log scale every so many years. If you can believe that theory, putting your life savings into the lotto is a no brainer. Thats a  1/14000000 chance and its only 6 numbers!  ****Anyone willing to hazard a guess as to where that very special nothing that exploded came from? I'm not looking for an argument, but whichever way you spin this, you have have faith in whoever presents this, proof is scarce and at best filled with assumptions and 'wip' knowledge. Going back and checking theories is clearly not an option. The earth used to be flat until some guy managed to sail around it. So....who believes in global warming? ;)

Atjan, while I also have no intention of getting into an argument, allow me to point out that most of the claims you make are completely spurious. For instance, the age of the earth (4.6 billion years) has been settled for some time now and the idea that 'proof is scarce' is simply a mindless mantra repeated ad nauseam by the uninformed. The scientific community is largely agreed on the veracity of evolution. If you are not going to believe science, which proceeds on the basis of research and peer review, what are you going to believe? You clearly do not understand how evolution works and, talking of improbable, is the idea that some supernatural being created everything in six days about 6000 years ago more believable? What really boggles the mind is the fact that the people who are studying these things (e.g. evolutionary biologists and molecular geneticists) have no doubts about the truth of evolution, but people who know next to nothing about this are always the ones to express 'doubts'.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on November 07, 2011, 04:21:32 PM
You have obviously not bothered to put in a stitch of research.

Claiming the chances of this or that being so unlikely is an old creationist tactic. It's fallacious. I'll leave it up to Douglas Adams to illustrate:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"
So you believe there is a fair chance of randomly thrown together elements forming a living creature, however simple?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on November 07, 2011, 04:28:53 PM
Ha ha. That is brilliant Morne. You are raising a future generation of scientists - good on you.

Atjan, while I also have no intention of getting into an argument, allow me to point out that most of the claims you make are completely spurious. For instance, the age of the earth (4.6 billion years) has been settled for some time now and the idea that 'proof is scarce' is simply a mindless mantra repeated ad nauseam by the uninformed. The scientific community is largely agreed on the veracity of evolution. If you are not going to believe science, which proceeds on the basis of research and peer review, what are you going to believe? You clearly do not understand how evolution works and, talking of improbable, is the idea that some supernatural being created everything in six days about 6000 years ago more believable?

I don't believe IN science. To believe in evolution as presented, you believe IN science. Don't get me wrong, I don't say its all nonsense. I'm saying that, looking at it critically brings a few doubts as to how plausible it all is. You're making it about religion, which is a more explosive topic than disussing what weight of vinyl sounds better on Ellies interconnects. :) One should be careful of eating the theory up as a religious fanatic would dogma.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 07, 2011, 04:31:09 PM
why do people think that if you don't believe in evolution and big bang theory you automatically believe that the the biblical account is the truth, both views have limitations, no one has answered the question of creation satisfactorily! unfortunately people think if you don't believe the one, then you must believe the other. for example, can someone explain, how and why, if everything came from an amoeba (which is bollocks in any case) did the amoeba evolve into a chicken in one instance and a worm in another and still a bug in another?! why did the amoeba actually end up as a human being with all of its complex respiratory,excretoy,digestive and all other systems, and then into a completely different organism such as a tree, a mushroom and fish and birds, doesn't make sense does it? why did the amoeba evolve into something with an intellect, memory,feeling etc. why did the amoeba evolve into something that needs, social groups, has a need to be loved and to love and to worship, why did the amoeba evolve into something that enjoys music, movies etc? and remember this amoeba is a result of a big accidental explosion. I invite all the big bang theory adherents to an experiment to verify their claim, let's all put them into a small room or big room, expose them to an explosion and lets see what comes from them ;D if they beleieve their theory, surely they should put their money where their mouths is.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: mahleu on November 07, 2011, 04:35:19 PM
I knew this thread would go this way. I'm sure the OP did too.

Evolution and creation can both have giant holes in them depending on perspective. To stand in one camp and call everyone else stupid is all well and good, until some new evidence appears proving both wrong.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 07, 2011, 04:46:44 PM
So you believe there is a fair chance of randomly thrown together elements forming a living creature, however simple?

Given enough time (billions of years) and the right circumstances (enough energy from the sun, an atmosphere, etc.), absolutely.

I don't believe IN science. To believe in evolution as presented, you believe IN science .... One should be careful of eating the theory up as a religious fanatic would dogma.

There is literally a world of difference between dogma and science. As I said, if you don't believe in science, what other body of knowledge exists that is subject to the same stringent criteria and review?

why do people think that if you don't believe in evolution and big bang theory you automatically believe that the the biblical account is the truth, both views have limitations, no one has answered the question of creation satisfactorily! unfortunately people think if you don't believe the one, then you must believe the other. for example, can someone explain, how and why, if everything came from an amoeba (which is bollocks in any case) did the amoeba evolve into a chicken in one instance and a worm in another and still a bug in another?! why did the amoeba actually end up as a human being with all of its complex respiratory,excretoy,digestive and all other systems, and then into a completely different organism such as a tree, a mushroom and fish and birds, doesn't make sense does it? why did the amoeba evolve into something with an intellect, memory,feeling etc. why did the amoeba evolve into something that needs, social groups, has a need to be loved and to love and to worship, why did the amoeba evolve into something that enjoys music, movies etc? and remember this amoeba is a result of a big accidental explosion. I invite all the big bang theory adherents to an experiment to verify their claim, let's all put them into a small room or big room, expose them to an explosion and lets see what comes from them ;D if they beleieve their theory, surely they should put their money where their mouths is.

Arch, I'm sorry, but you are simply betraying your ignorance. University libraries contain millions of peer-reviewed books and journal articles that answer all the 'doubts' you raised. To repeat, if you do not believe in the prevailing truths of science, what do you base your arguments on? Do you know more about these things than the people whose lives are devoted to study and understand how creatures evolved? Finally, your comments about the Big Bang theory are just silly and do not deserve a response.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 07, 2011, 04:57:13 PM
I knew this thread would go this way. I'm sure the OP did too. Evolution and creation can both have giant holes in them depending on perspective. To stand in one camp and call everyone else stupid is all well and good, until some new evidence appears proving both wrong.

mahleu, you are obviously prescient. I had no intention to stir a debate on evolution. However, like some of the comments above, you completely miss the point. The idea that evolution and creation are equally fallible is not only ridiculous, but also laughable. The one depends on research and proof, while the other simply relies on faith (i.e. belief in the absence of any evidence). Please, can we avoid pointless debates and comment of the causes and consequences of a generalised ignorance of science?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Steerpike on November 07, 2011, 05:29:38 PM
One question that has always intrigued me, and I imagine we will have no verification anytime soon:
"Is religion an inevitable consequence of evolution?"

I suspect the answer is 'yes' but I'm rather hoping it's 'only sometimes'.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 07, 2011, 05:44:49 PM
I suspect the answer is 'yes' but I'm rather hoping it's 'only sometimes'.

I think any brain evolved to the point at which it would begin to ponder, with no other significant knowledge base on which to draw, would anthropomorphise the world around it in order to understand it.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 07, 2011, 06:07:22 PM
Look up the Miller-Urey Experiment, and Louis Lerman's Bubble theory for apretty plausible explantion to the formation of complex molecules and cells.

Evolution itself is a process of chance. You need to understand the fundamental elements that leads to a species evolution. And then seeing the dramatic changes in such short time frames(10000+ years), it's miniscule compared to odd billion years of earths history - so yes, a carbon and a nitrogen atom meets each other, froms a nucleic acid. Two or more nucleic acid lolecules meet to form RNA, next thing you have is a protein, and then a living cell. Very plausible imho over a few billion years.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: perfectionist on November 07, 2011, 06:24:54 PM
Look up the Miller-Urey Experiment, and Louis Lerman's Bubble theory for apretty plausible explantion to the formation of complex molecules and cells.

Evolution itself is a process of chance. You need to understand the fundamental elements that leads to a species evolution. And then seeing the dramatic changes in such short time frames(10000+ years), it's miniscule compared to odd billion years of earths history - so yes, a carbon and a nitrogen atom meets each other, froms a nucleic acid. Two or more nucleic acid lolecules meet to form RNA, next thing you have is a protein, and then a living cell. Very plausible imho over a few billion years.

Trouble is it takes longer than the age of the earth according to the scientific community to get to humans from elements.

Plus the upper echelon of the science world are now in agreement that because of the way the human body is "put together" and continues to do things in a factory type of system something has to have created a plan, and when i say plan i mean a blue print.

This doesn't mean i stand in the corner of the bible puncher but it does make one think of many possibilities. For example why did humans have to originate on earth. Humans could have started somewhere else and come here from a dieing planet.

 
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: d0dja on November 07, 2011, 06:34:26 PM
>in such short time frames(10000+ years)

That would be roughly the time frame needed to convince a creationist that they are basically talking out their hat, and until they do a stitch of actual research (instead of spouting the fact-free arguments of the "but it's FAR too complicated to be possible" camp), will continue to do so.

You can't argue fact against ignorance.

So. Oppo. Any good?

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 07, 2011, 06:44:00 PM
Wow, I really do feel stupid when such big words are being thrown about.

Nothing further to add to this thread I'm afraid :-[
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 07, 2011, 07:06:18 PM
Trouble is it takes longer than the age of the earth according to the scientific community to get to humans from elements.

Plus the upper echelon of the science world are now in agreement that because of the way the human body is "put together" and continues to do things in a factory type of system something has to have created a plan, and when i say plan i mean a blue print.

This doesn't mean i stand in the corner of the bible puncher but it does make one think of many possibilities. For example why did humans have to originate on earth. Humans could have started somewhere else and come here from a dieing planet.

 

Do you believe in scientology? :D
What makes you think humans are really that special. Throughout the animal kingdom, human characteristics are exhibited; emotions/feelings, memory, being able to learn, decide what's right/wrong, communicate etc. We're just more advanced.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: MorneDJ on November 07, 2011, 07:07:00 PM
Have soo much to add, but my ears are still ringing from the WHOOOOOSSSHHHHH sound as my deadline passed me today ... and I am still busy. Fortunately my definition of today includes 11:59:59.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 07, 2011, 08:28:18 PM
as my deadline passed me today

Oh? You have those running away from you as well? I thought I was alone in Deadline Misery.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 07, 2011, 08:33:47 PM
Ursh is in bed with one helluva headache......there goes my big bang theory!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 07, 2011, 08:39:30 PM
Do you believe in scientology? :D
What makes you think humans are really that special. Throughout the animal kingdom, human characteristics are exhibited; emotions/feelings, memory, being able to learn, decide what's right/wrong, communicate etc. We're just more advanced.
valves sound better than transistors.....of that there can be no argument ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: u235 on November 07, 2011, 08:49:29 PM
Hey Peter, you really put the kibosh on that topic didn't you! :D
There's a nice article in the latest New Scientist on how factual argument only serves to reinforce ignorant prejudice.

One thing though, far more people know and trust science right now than ever before. The battle is slowly being won.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 07, 2011, 08:53:28 PM
Hey Peter, you really put the kibosh on that topic didn't you! :D
There's a nice article in the latest New Scientist on how factual argument only serves to reinforce ignorant prejudice.

One thing though, far more people know and trust science right now than ever before. The battle is slowly being won.
Then why did Ampdog leave before the victory march?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 07, 2011, 09:06:03 PM
I recently read a number of surveys, which were conducted in the USA and Europe to determine levels scientific knowledge, and the results are shocking. Almost half of the Americans surveyed believe that the earth (and, by extension, the universe) is less than 10,000 years old (whereas the true figure is 4.6 billion years). Twenty per cent of the people surveyed in Britain believe that: (a) it takes one month for the Earth to go around the sun (the figure is more than 20 per cent for Ireland, Austria, Spain and Denmark); and (b) winter and summer are the result of the earth moving further away or closer to the sun, respectively. In about half of the countries surveyed in Europe, almost a third of the respondents believe that humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs (the figures range from 9 per cent in Sweden and Switzerland to 42 per cent of the respondents in Turkey who believe humans coexisted with dinosaurs). Responses to the proposition that 'human beings developed from earlier species of animals' ranged from 80+ per cent concurring (in Denmark, Sweden, France and Britain) to only about 50 per cent believing that this is true (in Poland, Croatia, Austria, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Cyprus and Turkey). In fact, a majority of the Turkish population believes that evolution is false (this is probably true for much of the Islamic world). It would be really interesting to know how South Africans would score in a similar survey.

This is just preposterous Audiobug,what school did you go too?........haven't you seen Jurassic Park?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Steerpike on November 08, 2011, 03:29:11 AM
Trouble is it takes longer than the age of the earth according to the scientific community to get to humans from elements.

Plus the upper echelon of the science world are now in agreement that because of the way the human body is "put together" and continues to do things in a factory type of system something has to have created a plan, and when i say plan i mean a blue print.

That is just plain rubbish. No body of scientists makes such statements.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 08, 2011, 06:56:35 AM
So you believe there is a fair chance of randomly thrown together elements forming a living creature, however simple?

Just look around you ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on November 08, 2011, 07:09:02 AM
Just look around you ;D
I hear you! Sitting in traffic with MP at a working robot screwing it up for everyone.... So mostly simple life forms around.... ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 08, 2011, 07:13:47 AM
Cables do make a difference!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 08, 2011, 07:16:53 AM
valves sound better than transistors.....of that there can be no argument ;D

Only if you believe the religious dogma that surrounds that theory ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 08, 2011, 07:17:46 AM
Ursh is in bed with one helluva headache......there goes my big bang theory!

Administer the "medication" orally? ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 08, 2011, 07:27:52 AM
Checked my "drawers" and I only have a suppositary?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 08, 2011, 07:30:45 AM
The problem with the scientific community is that they believe they/we are the highest form of life or intelligence in the universe ::) and simply refuse to admit that their speculation may in fact be wrong.

If scientists are so smart, how come they haven't invented a sustainable, eco-friendly energy source that can power all things on this tiny planet but yet we ( the non scientific plebs) must just accept what they say is fact about the universe because 'oh we have done this experiment'

..and how come they haven't designed an Oppo thats any good  :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 08, 2011, 07:38:56 AM
You have no idea how good your name looks under my post...blessed be your evolution...such good timing is rare!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 08, 2011, 07:45:45 AM

I always feel that when religious people deny evolution, they're actually just insulting their maker, and take away the many wonders of life. Science is not there to prove religion wrong, science is a tool of understanding our wonderful universe.
the existence of cell organelles, like mitochondria and chloroplasts is a nice example that is based on facts and support evidence of evolution. If you don't wanna believe it, I suggest you either go back to school and do science or get your money back.

It is theorised that the organelles, mitochondria and chloroplasts in eukaryotic cells, are from prokaryotic cell that 'fused' in a symbiotic process, named endosymbiosis.
Chloroplasts are believed to come from photosynthetic cyanobacteria, and mitochondria from bacteria(prokaryotes) with an oxidative metabolism.

Evidence for this:
These organelles have their own DNA. it is similar to bacterial DNA, which has circular DNA molecules and not the double helix 'ladders' which is found in the nucleas of the cell.

(IIRC, a daughter will also always have the same Mitochorial DNA as her mother)

These organelles replicate DNA in the same fashion as Bacteria, and cell division of mitochondria is not related to meiosis/mitoses, but via fission - splitting of one cell similar to bacteria.

Mitochondrial ribosomes are also similar to that found in bacteria.
 
To much of a coincidence and a couple of billion years not long enough? I think not! Before people should argue of its improbability, they should at least have studied biochemistry and not come up with some BS 'new age' energy theory sucked out of some ignorant ass that would give any R50 hooker an inferiority complex.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 08, 2011, 07:48:13 AM
I always feel that when religious people deny evolution, they're actually just insulting their maker, and take away the many wonders of life. Science is not there to prove religion wrong, science is a tool of understanding our wonderful universe.
the existence of cell organelles, like mitochondria and chloroplasts is a nice example that is based on facts and support evidence of evolution. If you don't wanna believe it, I suggest you either go back to school and do science or get your money back.

It is theorised that the organelles, mitochondria and chloroplasts in eukaryotic cells, are from prokaryotic cell that 'fused' in a symbiotic process, named endosymbiosis.
Chloroplasts are believed to come from photosynthetic cyanobacteria, and mitochondria from bacteria(prokaryotes) with an oxidative metabolism.

Evidence for this:
These organelles have their own DNA. it is similar to bacterial DNA, which has circular DNA molecules and not the double helix 'ladders' which is found in the nucleas of the cell.

(IIRC, a daughter will also always have the same Mitochorial DNA as her mother)

These organelles replicate DNA in the same fashion as Bacteria, and cell division of mitochondria is not related to meiosis/mitoses, but via fission - splitting of one cell similar to bacteria.

Mitochondrial ribosomes are also similar to that found in bacteria.
 
To much of a coincidence and a couple of billion years not long enough? I think not! Before people should argue of its improbability, they should at least have studied biochemistry and not come up with some BS 'new age' energy theory sucked out of some ignorant ass that would give any R50 hooker an inferiority complex.

And this from a metal-head :D Ozzy would be proud my son  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 08, 2011, 07:48:57 AM
..and how come they haven't designed an Oppo thats any good  :D

They have, its just that you can't afford it ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 08, 2011, 07:50:01 AM
"The Circle of Life" my friends...Elton was born a boy and evolved into a "manvrou"...like we started off as humans and have evolved into a far less interesting group of unsociable,stick it down your throat thugs...we'll be on all fours before Ursh wakes up!If I'm lucky!!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 08, 2011, 07:52:11 AM
They have, its just that you can't afford it ;D

Way to kick a man when he's down :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 08, 2011, 07:54:19 AM
...we'll be on all fours before Ursh wakes up!If I'm lucky!!

Goodness, this combined with the suppository mentioned earlier conjures up a picture in my mind :o
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 08, 2011, 07:57:22 AM
Goodness, this combined with the suppository mentioned earlier conjures up a picture in my mind :o

... and you just had to put that picture in my mind too
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 08, 2011, 08:01:58 AM
Do scientists make love for fun or solely for the purpose of conception?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 08, 2011, 08:06:32 AM
Do scientists make love for fun or solely for the purpose of conception?

How the hell does Stephen Hawking make love ?

R2D2 fetish ? :D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 08, 2011, 08:09:18 AM
How the hell does Stephen Hawking make love ?

Using a joystick?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 08, 2011, 08:10:23 AM
Answer:He doesn't...but that's not to say he hasn't got "a load" on his mind!lol!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 08, 2011, 08:10:46 AM
Do scientists make love for fun or solely for the purpose of conception?

No, that would be the Catholics!  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 08, 2011, 08:18:44 AM
The problem with the scientific community is that they believe they/we are the highest form of life or intelligence in the universe ::) and simply refuse to admit that their speculation may in fact be wrong.


Well, until we haven't found a higher form of life, there isn't any. But that comment is just a generalization, the scientific community also has its believers and skeptics.

Quote

If scientists are so smart, how come they haven't invented a sustainable, eco-friendly energy source that can power all things on this tiny planet but yet we ( the non scientific plebs) must just accept what they say is fact about the universe because 'oh we have done this experiment'


Scientists aren't SO smart, they're just smarter than ignorant, religious, tree-hugging-fairy-flipping-hippies.

A scientific experiment can be simple or complex, but it almost always have sufficient data collected(randomized), which gets analyzed and test for any correlation. If there's enough statistical evidence(small variance/strong correlation) the article would be reviewed and published.
A scientific experiment can be a simple a testing whether people with light colored eyes are more prone to headaches/migraines. A test sample will drawn, and a few test can be conducted.
If there's strong statistical evidence in the data and it was tested against it, it could be accepted that people with blue eyes are prone to headaches, even though physically/morphologically there's no evidence.

Quote

..and how come they haven't designed an Oppo thats any good  :D

Somehow I think you're just stirring the whole pot again! :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 08, 2011, 08:23:17 AM
How the hell does Stephen Hawking make love ?

R2D2 fetish ? :D ;D

About as much as a married man! That includes eye-freaking women in public. :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 08, 2011, 08:26:06 AM


Somehow I think you're just stirring the whole pot again! :D

Me ?  ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Blues on November 08, 2011, 09:39:17 AM
yeah, we're evolving just fine...

(http://www.funnyflash.com/img/funnies/submissions/421/man_evolution.jpg)

btw, also science shouldn't be taken as the last word in everything, it's just a snapshot of what we think is right atm...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 08, 2011, 09:47:31 AM
Oppo is great - long live Oppo!!

Seriously, the sheer variety of dogs, who all descended from a common wolf ancestor only a few thousand years ago, clearly demonstrates the pace that evolution can attain under conditions of artificial selection. Pigeon breeders have achieved similar variety in an even shorter timespan.


Ps. Many thanks to peter, sh1tstirrer, doja et al for lightening the mood.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 08, 2011, 10:16:02 AM
Given enough time (billions of years) and the right circumstances (enough energy from the sun, an atmosphere, etc.), absolutely.

There is literally a world of difference between dogma and science. As I said, if you don't believe in science, what other body of knowledge exists that is subject to the same stringent criteria and review?

Arch, I'm sorry, but you are simply betraying your ignorance. University libraries contain millions of peer-reviewed books and journal articles that answer all the 'doubts' you raised. To repeat, if you do not believe in the prevailing truths of science, what do you base your arguments on? Do you know more about these things than the people whose lives are devoted to study and understand how creatures evolved? Finally, your comments about the Big Bang theory are just silly and do not deserve a response.

most illumined sir, there's countless more than millions of peer reviewed articles in countless libraries against evolution and the stupid big bang theory,and i'm very sorry to inform you once again that if you expose anything to a big bang, it blows into smitherins ;D ;D ;D so yeah the big bang theory is stupid. and sorry it has been proven time and time again that evolution and big bang theory, has no scientific basis. jokes aside, let me inform you that as a student of theology, I have studied to a very large extent the big bang theory and evolution! from the literature I have surveyed, there is no conclusive evidence to support evolution and big bang theory. the creation theory has a number of flaws and there's no conclusive evidence to support it either. Creation remains a mystery that no one has been able to resolve satisfactorily, that is the current accepted school of thought within scientific and theological circles, any other claims have been proved bogus and not authoritative. some people have made the evolution and big bang theory some form of religion! it is all fanatism and not a scientific school of thought I have studied both and did a literature survey for both views looking at evidence for and against. the people who spent their lives studying both theories admit that there's no compelling evidence to support any of the theory. you mention that science is the ultimate body of knowledge.I'm sorry to inform you that even science has limitations. Any scientific experiment in a well controlled environment will presuppose some assumptions, which the experiment assumes. and the experiment will state that these assumptions do not exist in real life. for instance there is no such thing as an ideal gas or fluid, but all physical chemistry ivestigations will assume an "ideal gas", which in real life does not exist. In structural analysis or statics, we assume that when a beam deflects it assumes a parabolic shape, but in life real life it assumes a very complex shape that is not parabolic at all. I'm very sorry to burst your science bubble my dear illumined sir. so much about my ignorance!!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 08, 2011, 10:18:58 AM



Ps. Many thanks to peter, sh1tstirrer, doja et al for lightening the mood.

The thread was heading for a royal fisty-cuffs :D needed some lightening up ;)

PS: Darwin was adopted :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 08, 2011, 10:27:43 AM
Arch Bishop, reading up about evolution on Creationist / ID websites is not research. Evolution is considered a fact.

You can believe what you want, but the learned world does not agree with you.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 08, 2011, 10:34:45 AM
and sorry it has been proven time and time again that evolution... has no scientific basis. ...there is no conclusive evidence to support evolution

I'm sorry mate, but you are just dead wrong.  You have the proof around you - every day. In nature, in animals, in humans. It's there. Just open your eyes and look. You don't need a scientist to prove it you - you can see it happening. With your own eyes. How you can say evolution does not exist boggles the mind.

Some reading material for you:
http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

Google it. There's plenty more. Evolution is fact, no matter what you believe.

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: mahleu on November 08, 2011, 10:51:10 AM
We seem to have come to the ironic point where those who believe in evolution are unwilling to accept that anyone cannot believe in it.

I don't see why people can't believe in whatever they want. If you have a problem the tooth fairy will remove your teeth in your sleep...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 08, 2011, 10:52:53 AM
Arch Bishop, reading up about evolution on Creationist / ID websites is not research. Evolution is considered a fact.

You can believe what you want, but the learned world does not agree with you.

Considered fact ? The world was considered (as fact) to be flat too, doctors (read scientist) once believed that you could not touch the heart.



Say no more
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 08, 2011, 10:54:16 AM
most illumined sir, there's countless more than millions of peer reviewed articles in countless libraries against evolution and the stupid big bang theory,and i'm very sorry to inform you once again that if you expose anything to a big bang, it blows into smitherins ;D ;D ;D so yeah the big bang theory is stupid. and sorry it has been proven time and time again that evolution and big bang theory, has no scientific basis.

Uhm, NO. You are still wrong!

Evolution(as Darwin also theorized it) is a biological process of adaptation via natural selection(which is driven by trait differences which is heritable and genetic mutation(drift)).

The story of the peppered moth during the industial revolution in britain, explains it nicely.

Read it here in the fountain of all knowledge:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Not gonna explain it.

HIV virus is also another great example of how mutations take place and why it keeps on evolving and we can't find a cure for it. There's endless examples out there...go read it and make sure you understand it.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 08, 2011, 10:57:17 AM
most illumined sir, there's countless more than millions of peer reviewed articles in countless libraries against evolution and the stupid big bang theory,and i'm very sorry to inform you once again that if you expose anything to a big bang, it blows into smitherins ;D ;D ;D so yeah the big bang theory is stupid. and sorry it has been proven time and time again that evolution and big bang theory, has no scientific basis. jokes aside, let me inform you that as a student of theology, I have studied to a very large extent the big bang theory and evolution! from the literature I have surveyed, there is no conclusive evidence to support evolution and big bang theory. the creation theory has a number of flaws and there's no conclusive evidence to support it either. Creation remains a mystery that no one has been able to resolve satisfactorily, that is the current accepted school of thought within scientific and theological circles, any other claims have been proved bogus and not authoritative. some people have made the evolution and big bang theory some form of religion! it is all fanatism and not a scientific school of thought I have studied both and did a literature survey for both views looking at evidence for and against. the people who spent their lives studying both theories admit that there's no compelling evidence to support any of the theory. you mention that science is the ultimate body of knowledge.I'm sorry to inform you that even science has limitations. Any scientific experiment in a well controlled environment will presuppose some assumptions, which the experiment assumes. and the experiment will state that these assumptions do not exist in real life. for instance there is no such thing as an ideal gas or fluid, but all physical chemistry ivestigations will assume an "ideal gas", which in real life does not exist. In structural analysis or statics, we assume that when a beam deflects it assumes a parabolic shape, but in life real life it assumes a very complex shape that is not parabolic at all. I'm very sorry to burst your science bubble my dear illumined sir. so much about my ignorance!!

Arch, you clearly believe that you know more about these matters than the scientific community. Why don't you put your 'theories' on paper and submit them to a peer-reviewed science journal? (I'm sure the scientists can do with a good laugh). For your information: (1) theology is fiction, not science - your attempt to equate them is pathetic; (2) the 'millions of peer reviewed articles in countless libraries against evolution' only exist in your dreams; (3) if the big bang theory is so 'stupid', how do you explain the significant progress made in physics since Einstein, which is based on this theory?; (4) the 'literature you surveyed' must have been from the comic section in CNA - the leading journals in biology and genetics all accept that evolution is a fact; and (5) your comments on scientific experiments will not even pass in a Grade 8 essay - the whole point of an experiment is to study how an ideal gas (for example) behaves under controlled circumstances. It is only through an understanding of ideal gasses that we can comprehend how real gasses behave. In short, you are a poster child for the 'general ignorance of science'.  
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 08, 2011, 10:58:57 AM
Arch Bishop, reading up about evolution on Creationist / ID websites is not research. Evolution is considered a fact.

You can believe what you want, but the learned world does not agree with you.
literature survey on "for and against material" on any subject is considered to be research by reputable academic institutions. in fact,  it is mandatory for all academic research in all reputable academic institutions, you cannot say you have researched any subject without conducting an extensive literature survey, that is what happens in the "learned world". have you guys read any academic research against evolution, you seem not to be aware of the scientifically accepted flaws of the evolution theory, even amongst proponents of evolution. It looks like there's a gap between what the academic proponents of evolution are saying and your understanding of the theory of evolution. like I said, I studied both theories from an academic point of view,  read current materials on both evolution and creation views. both of them have serious flaws, such that some schools of thought have tried to merge them to come up with a compromise view, which created serious academic flaws!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 08, 2011, 11:07:38 AM
literature survey on "for and against material" on any subject is considered to be research by reputable academic institutions. in fact,  it is mandatory for all academic research in all reputable academic institutions, you cannot say you have researched any subject without conducting an extensive literature survey, that is what happens in the "learned world". have you guys read any academic research against evolution, you seem not to be aware of the scientifically accepted flaws of the evolution theory, even amongst proponents of evolution. It looks like there's a gap between what the academic proponents of evolution are saying and your understanding of the theory of evolution. like I said, I studied both theories from an academic point of view,  read current materials on both evolution and creation views. both of them have serious flaws, such that some schools of thought have tried to merge them to come up with a compromise view, which created serious academic flaws!

Like you said you studied both theories, but you haven't given us one examples or reference to read up. It is all just talk with no facts backing up your so-called knowledge, very similar to the typical commentary on News24.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 08, 2011, 11:13:12 AM
Considered fact ? The world was considered (as fact) to be flat too, doctors (read scientist) once believed that you could not touch the heart.

My friend, that is the whole point of science - it is not dogmatic and develops through experimentation.

academic research against evolution


That is the definition of an oxymoron!  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 08, 2011, 11:14:42 AM
Arch, you clearly believe that you know more about these matters than the scientific community. Why don't you put your 'theories' on paper and submit them to a peer-reviewed science journal? (I'm sure the scientists can do with a good laugh). For your information: (1) theology is fiction, not science - your attempt to equate them is pathetic; (2) the 'millions of peer reviewed articles in countless libraries against evolution' only exist in your dreams; (3) if the big bang theory is so 'stupid', how do you explain the significant progress made in physics since Einstein, which is based on this theory?; (4) the 'literature you surveyed' must have been from the comic section in CNA - the leading journals in biology and genetics all accept that evolution is a fact; and (5) your comments on scientific experiments will not even pass in a Grade 8 essay - the whole point of an experiment is to study how an ideal gas (for example) behaves under controlled circumstances. It is only through an understanding of ideal gasses that we can comprehend how real gasses behave. In short, you are a poster child for the 'general ignorance of science'.  
just so that we are on the same page,which peer reviewed science journals are you reading, my highly esteemed sir? when was the last time you read them? what was the date of their publications?   who published them and in which city? where were they published? Which scientific theories are based on the big bang theory? can you state the big bang theory, and whilst we are at it, can you kindly explain to me any scientific progress that is based on the big bang theory...and yes,I have put my ideas on paper and have submitted them for marking to a reputable academic institute of learning at a Master's degree level and yes I passed my assignment ;D ;D ;D! I do not know more than the scientific community in as much as no one individual can know more than the scientific community, but clearly I know much more than the ignorant community, where did you submit your theories or ideas for peer review? at what level did you study the theory of evolution and big bang theory, how much have you read on the subjects? oh so  theology is fiction? is that what you learnt at school? did you go to university? Does that University teach that Theology is fiction? which university is that, just so that I don't recommend it to anyone? thanks for the title of poster child, I don't know what does that make you? if i'm poster child of ignorance!!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 08, 2011, 11:15:54 AM
We seem to have come to the ironic point where those who believe in evolution are unwilling to accept that anyone cannot believe in it.

I don't see why people can't believe in whatever they want. If you have a problem the tooth fairy will remove your teeth in your sleep...

I don't 'believe' in anything.
I have no reason in my life to have to hang on to some tenuous fairy tale, or scientific theory (or fact) to give my life meaning.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: ViVoAudio on November 08, 2011, 11:18:05 AM
literature survey on "for and against material" on any subject is considered to be research by reputable academic institutions. in fact,  it is mandatory for all academic research in all reputable academic institutions, you cannot say you have researched any subject without conducting an extensive literature survey, that is what happens in the "learned world". have you guys read any academic research against evolution, you seem not to be aware of the scientifically accepted flaws of the evolution theory, even amongst proponents of evolution. It looks like there's a gap between what the academic proponents of evolution are saying and your understanding of the theory of evolution. like I said, I studied both theories from an academic point of view,  read current materials on both evolution and creation views. both of them have serious flaws, such that some schools of thought have tried to merge them to come up with a compromise view, which created serious academic flaws!

That's exactly what irritates me about all this.

To my knowledge The different schools of thought tend to only offer evidence that prove their views or theories.

Science in my opinion is to discover and not to only look at facts that prove a preconcieved theory..

I think both the creationist and the evolution theories have flaws like mentioned before.
But I believe evolution and darwinism to be related but not the same thing.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Agaton Sax on November 08, 2011, 11:22:43 AM
Science is wonderful. A large well structured study looked at factors that influence survival after having a heart attack. The single most important factor? Area of muscle damaged,time to reperfusion,age, general condition ? No- If the person who suffers a heart attack owns a dog.

Second piece of science for the day. People undergoing open heart surgery and are religious (any religion) does (Statistically)significantly better than those who are not religious .

What does that have to do with evolution? About as much as evolution has to do with Audio Video.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on November 08, 2011, 11:23:39 AM
Careful gents! Anyone going against the generally accepted truth will be burnt at the stake! ;D Can anyone list the number of times they have convinced someone of an opposing view?                         General ignorance of science then. Why? Outside of most of the discussion so far. I think science at school starts out being somewhat heavy on maths for many people. A lot of people's eyes just glass over once more than 5 items presents itself in a formula. Hence they steer away and kind of leave the scientific stuff up to the 'clever' kids. Later on in life, these guys also tend to be the type of person who is not interested in why and how things happen, but rather whether or not it does. You can go through an entire university degree without ever having to hear about any science or scientific method. So. Is it really a problem? I'm not to sure. Not to me at least as I've come to the conclusion that stupid is as stupid does. :)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 08, 2011, 11:26:33 AM
Like you said you studied both theories, but you haven't given us one examples or reference to read up. It is all just talk with no facts backing up your so-called knowledge, very similar to the typical commentary on News24.
now you are talking sense, if you ask for refrence I'll give you some just now
read:
Evolution as Mythology: is the Modern
Theory of Evolution Science or MytW
Hugh Henry Daniel J. Dyke
Lecturer in Physics Professor of Old Testament
Northern Kentucky University Cincinnati Christian University
hughhenry@insightbb.com Dan.dyke@ccuniversity.edu

and
Beyond natural selection and intelligent design: Sri Aurobindo's theory of evolutionDetail Only Available By: Mohrhoff, Ulrich J.. Source: AntiMatters, 2 no 2 Ap 2008.
 
when you are done reading those two I'll give you some more references


Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on November 08, 2011, 11:33:26 AM
Science is wonderful. A large well structured study looked at factors that influence survival after having a heart attack. The single most important factor? Area of muscle damaged,time to reperfusion,age, general condition ? No- If the person who suffers a heart attack owns a dog.

Second piece of science for the day. People undergoing open heart surgery and are religious (any religion) does (Statistically)significantly better than those who are not religious .

What does that have to do with evolution? About as much as evolution has to do with Audio Video.
Now thats a bit more interesting! How does the dog figure in all this? Is it simply because they have something to care for and hence have more reason to get better? About the religious ones, is it because they have a believe in a higher power that impacts on their health, a type of placebo? I've seen a documentary where groups of sick people in hospital were monitored. One group had people (whom they don't know) pray for them and the other not. Their progress was checked and the ones that were prayed for showed better progress. Difficult one though to get right from a statistical point of view, but interesting non the less. Kind of points to the fact that there are still plenty out there for which science don't have good explanations (yet or maybe never). O well, keeps the scientists in a job! ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 08, 2011, 11:42:11 AM
Second piece of science for the day. People undergoing open heart surgery and are religious (any religion) does (Statistically)significantly better than those who are not religious .

I was told exactly the same thing during one of the interviews which formed part of the tests before being submitted to the heart transplant list.

Now, where I stand on this point? I believe irrevocably in God, I believe in science, provided that it is substantiated via proven, repeatable tests. I also believe that religion and science can back each other up if both sides would be less stringent in their damnation of the other.

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 08, 2011, 11:45:26 AM
I also believe that religion and science can back each other up if both sides would be less stringent in their damnation of the other.


believe me they actually do, if you take fanatics out of the equation, science can take a lot of untruth out of religion, for instance, it was once a church doctrine that the world is flat with heaven above and hell below, now we know the truth
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 08, 2011, 11:47:24 AM
believe me they actually do, if you take fanatics out of the equation, science can take a lot of untruth out of religion

In my convoluted way, that was what I meant ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 08, 2011, 12:12:04 PM
which peer reviewed science journals are you reading, my highly esteemed sir? when was the last time you read them? what was the date of their publications? who published them and in which city? where were they published?

All the most recent peer-review journals in the biological sciences. What possible relevance is there in the place of publication? Is truth geographically-specific?

Which scientific theories are based on the big bang theory? can you state the big bang theory, and whilst we are at it, can you kindly explain to me any scientific progress that is based on the big bang theory

Pretty much all post-Newtonian physics. I am referring to the leading scientists, not some crackpot creationist from some obscure, third-rate American university that you regard as the pinnacle of science.

I have put my ideas on paper and have submitted them for marking to a reputable academic institute of learning at a Master's degree level and yes I passed my assignment.

You should ask for your money back because high school kids know more about science that you. BTW, given your outrageous claims, I presume you qualified in biology and physics?

how much have you read on the subjects

Obviously a lot more than you.

oh so  theology is fiction? is that what you learnt at school? did you go to university? Does that University teach that Theology is fiction? which university is that, just so that I don't recommend it to anyone? thanks for the title of poster child, I don't know what does that make you? if i'm poster child of ignorance!!


Theology is not supported by any scientific evidence - so, yes, it is pure fiction. (The fact that you endorse christian theology is merely an accident of birth. If your parents were buddists, for instance, you would be singing from a completely different hymn sheet). I do not need a university to teach me that; it is patently obvious to anyone with half a brain cell. The science faculties in all leading universities teach students that research and experimentation, not blind faith, are the basis of scientific knowledge. So, you don't know what your title as poster child of ignorance makes me? Well, let me assure you: we are not even in the same library, let alone the 'same page' - I'm a professor at one of South Africa's top universities.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 08, 2011, 12:37:27 PM
My friend, that is the whole point of science - it is not dogmatic and develops through experimentation.
 



I agree, science proves itself wrong (in may occasions) over time, so how sure can we be that what the scientists tell us is now fact, won't be proven incorrect in the future ? We cannot simply say that - 'for now this is fact, but may actually not be fact in 20 years time' ?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 08, 2011, 12:42:37 PM
I was told exactly the same thing during one of the interviews which formed part of the tests before being submitted to the heart transplant list.

Now, where I stand on this point? I believe irrevocably in God, I believe in science, provided that it is substantiated via proven, repeatable tests. I also believe that religion and science can back each other up if both sides would be less stringent in their damnation of the other.



Religion and Faith in God are two very different things.



Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 08, 2011, 12:43:00 PM
All the most recent peer-review journals in the biological sciences. What possible relevance is there in the place of publication? Is truth geographically-specific?

Pretty much all post-Newtonian physics. I am referring to the leading scientists, not some crackpot creationist from some obscure, third-rate American university that you regard as the pinnacle of science.

You should ask for your money back because high school kids know more about science that you. BTW, given your outrageous claims, I presume you qualified in biology and physics?

Obviously a lot more than you.
 

Theology is not supported by any scientific evidence - so, yes, it is pure fiction. (The fact that you endorse christian theology is merely an accident of birth. If your parents were buddists, for instance, you would be singing from a completely different hymn sheet). I do not need a university to teach me that; it is patently obvious to anyone with half a brain cell. The science faculties in all leading universities teach students that research and experimentation, not blind faith, is the basis of scientific knowledge. So, you don't know what your title as poster child of ignorance makes me? Well, let me assure you: we are not even in the same library, let alone the 'same page' - I'm a professor at one of South Africa's top universities.


let me put it this way...I am glad I'm not  studying at your top south african university, and even more glad that you are not my lecturer, what do you guys teach there, when you can't even name a single journal? and if you didn't appreciate why I asked the name and publication details of the journals you are reading, and you said you read most recent journals, do you know that there are over 10000 recent scientific journals published today, and you have read most of them?  :o and your continued assertion that theology is fiction, betrays your lack of knowledge of science and theology? I see I wasted my time talking to you for your information, I hold a degree in Civil engineering, I was required to study first and second year BSc physics, chemistry, maths and biology before i enrolled for my engineering degree. I am currently studying for a masters degree in Theology. Your high school kids must be very priviledged to know more than university graduates, which school do they attend, I want to take my kids there...and oh what is your field of expertise? what is post newtonian physics? is that what you teach at your top university, I have never heard of that one..bwah ha ha ha !
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: legro on November 08, 2011, 12:55:49 PM
'Bug and Arch, gentlemen, so much passion!

Seriously, I see no tension between faith and science/ evolution. Science attempts, sometimes heroically, to describe us and our world while religion attempts to answer and give meaning to why we/ the world exists in the first place.

Different questions, totally different answers.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 08, 2011, 01:01:24 PM
I agree, science proves itself wrong (in may occasions) over time, so how sure can we be that what the scientists tell us is now fact, won't be proven incorrect in the future ? We cannot simply say that - 'for now this is fact, but may actually not be fact in 20 years time'?

You are absolutely correct: science is fallible. However, unlike other bodies of knowledge, science depends on evidence and has many built-in checks and balances. As such, it reflects the current state of the art in terms of our understanding of nature. Nevertheless, don't be fooled into believing that everything science tells you is open to doubt. For instance, the law of gravity is an established truth. Anyone who doesn't believe this, it invited to test the theory by jumping from a 20-story building. Ask any reputable biological scientist and he/she will tell you that the theory of evolution is a similarly established fact. The basic principles of this theory are not in doubt - fullstop. Is it purely a coincidence that we share 98% of our genes with primates? Furthermore, our hobby - hi-fi - would not be where it is today in the absence of a reliance of established scientific theories. I suppose it comes down to this: if you were to pilot a rocket to mars, what body of knowledge would you want the engineers of your rocket to use? Existing science or faith-based beliefs?

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: mahleu on November 08, 2011, 01:02:40 PM
I was wondering when the credentials would come out :p

Part of my degree was philosophy which is really learning how to argue. Incidentally we spent quite a long time on a book Life after Darwin which presupposing the validity of evolution goes on the discuss what the ramifications of evolution actually are. Quite interesting, have a look if you're bored.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: VALVAGLO on November 08, 2011, 01:08:50 PM
So tell us Professor... is OPPO any good?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 08, 2011, 01:11:29 PM
So tell us Professor... is OPPO any good?

Yes it is
No it is not
Yes it is
No it is not
Yes it is

Okay, your time is up..... ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 08, 2011, 01:17:06 PM
You are absolutely correct: science is fallible. However, unlike other bodies of knowledge, science depends on evidence and has many built-in checks and balances. As such, it reflects the current state of the art in terms of our understanding of nature. Nevertheless, don't be fooled into believing that everything science tells you is open to doubt. For instance, the law of gravity is an established truth. Anyone who doesn't believe this, it invited to test the theory by jumping from a 20-story building. Ask any reputable biological scientist and he/she will tell you that the theory of evolution is a similarly established fact. The basic principles of this theory are not in doubt - fullstop. Is it purely a coincidence that we share 98% of our genes with primates? Furthermore, our hobby - hi-fi - would not be where it is today in the absence of a reliance of established scientific theories. I suppose it comes down to this: if you were to pilot a rocket to mars, what body of knowledge would you want the engineers of your rocket to use? Existing science or faith-based beliefs?


all bodies of knowledge are based on evidence and have checks and balances, which is why I was exasperated when you said theology is faith based. I was also exasperated when you mentioned that the study of theology is based on one's parents beliefs. The study of theology encompasses all faiths that exists on earth and not just Christian one. The study of theology involves many scientific based methods such as psychology, archeology, anthropology and others, which was why I was dismayed when you mentioned that theology has no scientific basis! but of course you are not oblivious to these facts, you just chose to ignore them my learned professor at a top south african university, who has read almost 10000 scientific journals, that are currently published who has high school kids who are more knowledgeable than graduates. If you work at a trauma couselling center and you are counselling an HIV patient or a car accident victim or a mentally disturbed person or an autistic child or rape victim, would you consult an engineer? or a theologically trained counsellor who has counselling skills? and why would anyone want to fly to mars?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 08, 2011, 01:18:46 PM
let me put it this way...I am glad I'm not  studying at your top south african university, and even more glad that you are not my lecturer, what do you guys teach there, when you can't even name a single journal? and if you didn't appreciate why I asked the name and publication details of the journals you are reading, and you said you read most recent journals, do you know that there are over 10000 recent scientific journals published today, and you have read most of them?  :o and your continued assertion that theology is fiction, betrays your lack of knowledge of science and theology? I see I wasted my time talking to you for your information, I hold a degree in Civil engineering, I was required to study first and second year BSc physics, chemistry, maths and biology before i enrolled for my engineering degree. I am currently studying for a masters degree in Theology. Your high school kids must be very priviledged to know more than university graduates, which school do they attend, I want to take my kids there...and oh what is your field of expertise? what is post newtonian physics? is that what you teach at your top university, I have never heard of that one..bwah ha ha ha !

The feeling is mutual - with students like you, universities would be forced to teach flat-earth theory. Why should I name journals in the biological sciences (incidently, there are not 'over 10000'!) when you have obviously read them all? Don't insult real graduates - I said high school kids know more about science than YOU. Never heard of post-newtonian physics? There are obviously a lot of things that you have never heard of. As I said, you need to get your money back from whatever institution deemed you fit to bear their degree. Bwah ha ha ha!!!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 08, 2011, 01:23:59 PM
and why would anyone want to fly to mars?

Who wouldn't?!  ???
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 08, 2011, 01:27:18 PM
all bodies of knowledge are based on evidence and have checks and balances, which is why I was exasperated when you said theology is faith based.

Look up the meaning of theology in your dictionary, if you have one.

The study of theology involves many scientific based methods such as psychology, archeology, anthropology and others, which was why I was dismayed when you mentioned that theology has no scientific basis!

Why not study those disciplines in their own right?

If you work at a trauma couselling center and you are counselling an HIV patient or a car accident victim or a mentally disturbed person or an autistic child or rape victim, would you consult an engineer? or a theologically trained counsellor who has counselling skills?

A red herring that has no bearing on anything anyone said!

why would anyone want to fly to mars?

To escape all your BS!!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 08, 2011, 01:29:38 PM
The feeling is mutual - with students like you, universities would be forced to teach flat-earth theory. Why should I name journals in the biological sciences (incidently, there are not 'over 10000'!) when you have obviously read them all? Don't insult real graduates - I said high school kids know more about science than YOU. Never heard of post-newtonian physics? There are obviously a lot of things that you have never heard of. As I said, you need to get your money back from whatever institution deemed you fit to bear their degree. Bwah ha ha ha!!!
stop embarrassing yourself, its not even funny anymore, its clear your education level is below par and you are not very well informed about issues, you are not aware of the number of scientific publications that are currently available, you cannot name one scientific journal you have read, you cannot articulate your arguments and substantiate it with facts, so you resort to demeaning those who oppose you! generally you display lack of knowledge and content and you try to hide behind smoke screens, if I was not educated I would have been fooled. You can not conduct your arguments like an academic you claim to be, my qualifications have been endorsed by SAQA and CHO if you know what those acronyms stand for, you are generally out of league with the academic world and you are trying to punch above your weight and it is very embarassing on your part. academics do not resort to insulting or intimidating remarks or abirtrary or ambigous statements like high school kids know more than you. I have tried to give you cues that you could have picked if you were academic as you claim, but you can't even pick them if they hit you in the face, make some other claims but to say you are an academic person, thats pushing it a bit too far and you are embarassing yourself in front of other academics. You wouldn't write an academic paper to save your life
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 08, 2011, 01:35:26 PM
I.love.this.thread
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 08, 2011, 01:37:40 PM
now you are talking sense, if you ask for refrence I'll give you some just now
read:
Evolution as Mythology: is the Modern
Theory of Evolution Science or MytW
Hugh Henry Daniel J. Dyke
Lecturer in Physics Professor of Old Testament
Northern Kentucky University Cincinnati Christian University
hughhenry@insightbb.com Dan.dyke@ccuniversity.edu

and
Beyond natural selection and intelligent design: Sri Aurobindo's theory of evolutionDetail Only Available By: Mohrhoff, Ulrich J.. Source: AntiMatters, 2 no 2 Ap 2008.
 
when you are done reading those two I'll give you some more references




Okay, so I've read through some of quickly, and basically it's just a bunch of articles mostly pointing to the improbability. Nothing wrong with that, but in science there's also more than one side. Global warming is aprime example currently, with scientist claiming causes and consequences, and the obvious critics/skeptics. The thing is a lot of facts can be used to appose an argument. Similar to cherry picking effect, and I sort of get the idea that is what those articles were on about...convenenietly ignoring a lot of aspects - and it still doesn't prove that evolution doesn't happen/exist or come up with a better explanation.
Also, what is the correlation between the fact that evolution and the formation of life from inorganics compounds is/was so highly improbable , that the creation happened through God becomes plausible?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 08, 2011, 01:39:40 PM
(http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mwl/lowres/mwln68l.jpg)

HANDBAGS AT DAWN!!!!!!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Steerpike on November 08, 2011, 01:47:11 PM
So tell us Professor... is OPPO any good?

Like Schrodinger's cat, it is simultaneously good and bad.... until you open the box.

(Are we allowed to mention scientists anymore?)

BTW, that pink handbag looks more like a Philips L3X71
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 08, 2011, 01:52:03 PM
You're all talking bullshit !!!!!

Red pill or blue pill ?

And thats the truth :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 08, 2011, 01:54:48 PM
You guys make me realise that I've wasted my life when I could have been learning something....like how to repair an Oppo!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 08, 2011, 01:59:05 PM
You guys make me realise that I've wasted my life when I could have been learning something....like how to repair an Oppo!

:D :D :D
You crack me up!!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 08, 2011, 02:12:09 PM
I feel inferior and threatened by highly educated nerds...but I take solace in the fact that they will first examine and then scrutinize...!y that time I would have been shagging for a good half hour already!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 08, 2011, 02:12:20 PM
Okay, so I've read through some of quickly, and basically it's just a bunch of articles mostly pointing to the improbability. Nothing wrong with that, but in science there's also more than one side. Global warming is aprime example currently, with scientist claiming causes and consequences, and the obvious critics/skeptics. The thing is a lot of facts can be used to appose an argument. Similar to cherry picking effect, and I sort of get the idea that is what those articles were on about...convenenietly ignoring a lot of aspects - and it still doesn't prove that evolution doesn't happen/exist or come up with a better explanation.
Also, what is the correlation between the fact that evolution and the formation of life from inorganics compounds is/was so highly improbable , that the creation happened through God becomes plausible?

I was trying to show you that the arguments for evolution theory are not conclusive and they have serious major flaws, not to prove that the other theory of creation is the correct one. my point is that the evolution theory is based on premises outside of scientific evidence, but some people want to claim that evolution theory is conclusive and scientific based when there's a lot of information to the contrary. My point is that the big bang theory together with evolution theory are ridiculous and have no scientific basis contrary to popular belief,my other point is creationist that theory has no scientific basis or evidence and it does not claim any scientific basis. if you choose to belief any one of the theories, it is ok, so long as you don't articulate it as a final authority on the question of creation. the mystery of creation has always fascinated philosophers and scientists alike, but no one person in the entire history of mankind has been able to resolve it to the satisfaction of everyone, what we have is just beliefs!Any theory raises a multitude of fundamental questions that remain unanswered.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 08, 2011, 02:22:21 PM
I was trying to show you that the arguments for evolution theory are not conclusive and they have serious major flaws, not to prove that the other theory of creation is the correct one. my point is that the evolution theory is based on premises outside of scientific evidence, but some people want to claim that evolution theory is conclusive and scientific based when there's a lot of information to the contrary. My point is that the big bang theory together with evolution theory are ridiculous and have no scientific basis contrary to popular belief,my other point is creationist that theory has no scientific basis or evidence and it does not claim any scientific basis. if you choose to belief any one of the theories, it is ok, so long as you don't articulate it as a final authority on the question of creation. the mystery of creation has always fascinated philosophers and scientists alike, but no one person in the entire history of mankind has been able to resolve it to the satisfaction of everyone, what we have is just beliefs!Any theory raises a multitude of fundamental questions that remain unanswered.

The BBT I also think is an absolutely ridiculous theory, with very little to back up that hairbrained (IMO) notion.

Evolution and natural selection, however, I have to disagree with you. There is plenty of evidence for both of those.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: u235 on November 08, 2011, 02:23:29 PM
I was trying to show you that the arguments for evolution theory are not conclusive and they have serious major flaws my point is that the evolution theory is based on premises outside of scientific evidence, but some people want to claim that evolution theory is conclusive and scientific based when there's a lot of information to the contrary.,

Much as I've loved being a spectator (popcorn's finished) I must ask: Where on earth do you get these statements from? PLEASE refer me to some papers , not in a zillion publications, but just in Nature (the publication) which is where all the reputable stuff is.

I'd love to be able to pick out a factual trail that leads to your conclusions.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 08, 2011, 02:37:37 PM

Much as I've loved being a spectator (popcorn's finished) I must ask: Where on earth do you get these statements from? PLEASE refer me to some papers , not in a zillion publications, but just in Nature (the publication) which is where all the reputable stuff is.

I'd love to be able to pick out a factual trail that leads to your conclusions.

now you are talking sense, if you ask for refrence I'll give you some just now
read:
Evolution as Mythology: is the Modern
Theory of Evolution Science or MytW
Hugh Henry Daniel J. Dyke
Lecturer in Physics Professor of Old Testament
Northern Kentucky University Cincinnati Christian University
hughhenry@insightbb.com Dan.dyke@ccuniversity.edu

and
Beyond natural selection and intelligent design: Sri Aurobindo's theory of evolutionDetail Only Available By: Mohrhoff, Ulrich J.. Source: AntiMatters, 2 no 2 Ap 2008.
 
when you are done reading those two I'll give you some more references

I've posted these articles earlier, but clearly you were enjoying the popcorn
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: u235 on November 08, 2011, 02:42:15 PM
What I'm looking for is a paper from a reputable publication. "Nature" is the best, and publishes a huge amount of stuff. They also seem to have little bias for or against academic positions, but insist that whatever they publish is well researched. Anything from there?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 08, 2011, 02:44:35 PM
stop embarrassing yourself, its not even funny anymore, its clear your education level is below par and you are not very well informed about issues, you are not aware of the number of scientific publications that are currently available, you cannot name one scientific journal you have read, you cannot articulate your arguments and substantiate it with facts, so you resort to demeaning those who oppose you! generally you display lack of knowledge and content and you try to hide behind smoke screens, if I was not educated I would have been fooled. You can not conduct your arguments like an academic you claim to be, my qualifications have been endorsed by SAQA and CHO if you know what those acronyms stand for, you are generally out of league with the academic world and you are trying to punch above your weight and it is very embarassing on your part. academics do not resort to insulting or intimidating remarks or abirtrary or ambigous statements like high school kids know more than you. I have tried to give you cues that you could have picked if you were academic as you claim, but you can't even pick them if they hit you in the face, make some other claims but to say you are an academic person, thats pushing it a bit too far and you are embarassing yourself in front of other academics. You wouldn't write an academic paper to save your life

If there is anyone embarrasing themselves, it is you! Saying that my education is 'below par' is very rich coming from someone who doesn't even have a post-graduate degree. The fact that I did not mention any journals by name, is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Any idiot can list the names of scientific journals - the point is biologists and geneticists do not doubt the theory of evolution, as you alleged. The claim that the basic tenets of evolutionary theory are in dispute or unproven is simply wrong and a favourite mantra of the creationist pseudo-science. There are not 'more than 10,000' journals in the biological sciences; unless you count the comics that you base your arguments on. Instead of continually making ad hominem remarks, why don't you respond, in substance, to the many valid comments made above? For instance, why have you chosen to remain silent about your ignorant views on scientific experiments? The fact that your qualifications are recognised by SAQA doesn't prove anything. SAQA recognises ALL accredited diplomas and degrees, even the most basic one-year certificates. Please explain to me what qualifies you to make the following statement: 'you are generally out of league with the academic world and you are trying to punch above your weight ... You wouldn't [sic] write an academic paper to save your life'? You know nothing about me. Do you even know what is required to gain employment in an academic institution? The only reason I mentioned my profession was to counter your claim that I am uneducated. Qualifications are not the issue. Coherent and logical argument wins debates, not petty and unsubstantiated insults. You are clearly incapable of the former and obviously believe that the latter makes you my intellectual superior. Dream on.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 08, 2011, 02:46:42 PM
I was trying to show you that the arguments for evolution theory are not conclusive and they have serious major flaws, not to prove that the other theory of creation is the correct one. my point is that the evolution theory is based on premises outside of scientific evidence, but some people want to claim that evolution theory is conclusive and scientific based when there's a lot of information to the contrary. My point is that the big bang theory together with evolution theory are ridiculous and have no scientific basis contrary to popular belief,my other point is creationist that theory has no scientific basis or evidence and it does not claim any scientific basis. if you choose to belief any one of the theories, it is ok, so long as you don't articulate it as a final authority on the question of creation. the mystery of creation has always fascinated philosophers and scientists alike, but no one person in the entire history of mankind has been able to resolve it to the satisfaction of everyone, what we have is just beliefs!Any theory raises a multitude of fundamental questions that remain unanswered.

Of course evolution and the big bang theory can't be proven in it's entirety, from the begining to the end. Firstly, no one was there to correspond with any data, and secondly ,the theories and models propposed are there to give us a better understanding of what we see. What about those peppered moths? Or barnicles on the high/low tide levels, where each one's niche led it to evolve in aa different specie. Not evolution? Did God just put them there?
And the dinosaurs? Is that prove then that God has a sense of humour and planted a bunch of bones in the ground. "Hmmm, this ought to keep those smartass pro-evolution wankers occupied for a while, mwhahahah!"

The history of man, in it's evolutionary form dates back 50,000 years. Compress it to a time frame most could fathom - 50 years - it would only be yesterday that science came to the fore and our understanding is very much limited. Right now, we're building a puzzle and to disregard it based just from a mathematical perspective is in fact ignorant.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: d0dja on November 08, 2011, 02:46:54 PM
OK, let's take a step back:

>I was trying to show you that the arguments for evolution theory are not
>conclusive and they have serious major flaws, not to prove that the other
>theory of creation is the correct one.

Ah, that old chestnut "it's just a theory, and it's flawed".  Theory: postulate, evidence, modelling, testing, refining. Repeatable, allows you to make predictions.

Creationism - only source is a thoroughly discredited translation of a bronze-age tribal oral history.

Natural selection - highly plausible theory backed by piles and piles and piles of evidence thoroughly documented and tested, model that describes the natural environment and has repeatably been shown to hold true in test cases, still being refined because there are still flaws, but over time these are getting fewer and fewer.

One is called science. The other is faith-based wishful thinking.

One is the same school of thinking that allows petrol engines, heavier-than-air flight, the Interent, brain surgery, formalised systems of ethics and understanding of morals.

One is the same school that gives us homophobia, incest and lasting guilt issues relating to body issues and conflation of sex with sin, not to mention post-traumatic stress disorder for the kids scared shi**ess by boogie man stories of Satan and Hell.

Me, I prefer stuff that's real.  :-*

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 08, 2011, 02:51:08 PM
can you guys keep your retorts to less essay-length ? Its getting too late in the day to read all that,


....Forgive me, my evolution slows down in the afternoon
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 08, 2011, 02:52:57 PM
can you guys keep your retorts to less essay-length ? Its getting too late in the day to read all that,


....Forgive me, my evolution slows down in the afternoon

It's not our fault you got dumped in the faulty gene pool.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 08, 2011, 02:53:58 PM


 formalised systems of ethics and understanding of morals.




Clearly South African politics missed the scientific bus then  ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 08, 2011, 02:54:35 PM
It's not our fault you got dumped in the faulty gene pool.

It was more of a gene-jacuzzi on Big-brother  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on November 08, 2011, 02:57:25 PM
can you guys keep your retorts to less essay-length ? Its getting too late in the day to read all that,


....Forgive me, my evolution slows down in the afternoon
They to shall tire, like I did... ;p
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 08, 2011, 02:58:55 PM
They to shall tire, like I did... ;p

... of repeating themselves ?  :D :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 08, 2011, 02:59:38 PM
Ah, that old chestnut "it's just a theory, and it's flawed".  Theory: postulate, evidence, modelling, testing, refining. Repeatable, allows you to make predictions.

Creationism - only source is a thoroughly discredited translation of a bronze-age tribal oral history.

Natural selection - highly plausible theory backed by piles and piles and piles of evidence thoroughly documented and tested, model that describes the natural environment and has repeatably been shown to hold true in test cases, still being refined because there are still flaws, but over time these are getting fewer and fewer.

One is called science. The other is faith-based wishful thinking.

One is the same school of thinking that allows petrol engines, heavier-than-air flight, the Interent, brain surgery, formalised systems of ethics and understanding of morals.

One is the same school that gives us homophobia, incest and lasting guilt issues relating to body issues and conflation of sex with sin, not to mention post-traumatic stress disorder for the kids scared shi**ess by boogie man stories of Satan and Hell.

Me, I prefer stuff that's real.  :-*

+11000


Oppo: any good?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: d0dja on November 08, 2011, 03:03:13 PM
I hear they're pretty good, but overpriced in SA. Read it somewhere, not much in the way of references, but the author sounded really sure.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 08, 2011, 03:04:37 PM
tsk tsk,

This thread makes me wonder why so many here are opposed to the odd boobie here and there ?

Must be all the scientists, ..... I mean heterophobes  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 08, 2011, 03:06:44 PM
+11000


Oppo: any good?

I'm not sure - I thought Peter said his broke?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 08, 2011, 03:18:13 PM

Must be all the scientists

Nonsense. The scientific community loves examining things.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 08, 2011, 03:18:55 PM
If there is anyone embarrasing themselves, it is you! Saying that my education is 'below par' is very rich coming from someone who doesn't even have a post-graduate degree. The fact that I did not mention any journals by name, is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Any idiot can list the names of scientific journals - the point is biologists and geneticists do not doubt the theory of evolution, as you alleged. The claim that the basic tenets of evolutionary theory are in dispute or unproven is simply wrong and a favourite mantra of the creationist pseudo-science. There are not 'more than 10,000' journals in the biological sciences; unless you count the comics that you base your arguments on. Instead of continually making ad hominem remarks, why don't you respond, in substance, to the many valid comments made above? For instance, why have you chosen to remain silent about your ignorant views on scientific experiments? The fact that your qualifications are recognised by SAQA doesn't prove anything. SAQA recognises ALL accredited diplomas and degrees, even the most basic one-year certificates. Please explain to me what qualifies you to make the following statement: 'you are generally out of league with the academic world and you are trying to punch above your weight ... You wouldn't [sic] write an academic paper to save your life'? You know nothing about me. Do you even know what is required to gain employment in an academic institution? The only reason I mentioned my profession was to counter your claim that I am uneducated. Qualifications are not the issue. Coherent and logical argument wins debates, not petty and unsubstantiated insults. You are clearly incapable of the former and obviously believe that the latter makes you my intellectual superior. Dream on.
Your assertions that theology is faith based and based on one's parents beliefs and that you rely on dictionaries to define what theology is, and your questions why not study the subjects of theology on their own left me exasperated and led me to conclude that clearly you have no understanding or experience of university education. many subjects that are taught at university are based or incorporate a lot of subjects, engineering encompasses maths, physics, chemistry etc, medicine a lot more subjects, it is called applied sciences, those subjects apply priciples from pure sciences, in any case no body of knowledge could ever exist in isolation. It uses truths established in other fields. I'm sure you will agree with me that the subject you are teaching incorporates knowledge from other fields. and I'm sure you will agree with me that as you progress up the education ladder. for instance at Ph.D level, the boundaries between subjects dimnish considerably. and your continued attempt to be condescending and intimidating reflected a character not compatible with an educated person. Also it was difficult to discern any logic or cohesion within your statements that your high school kids are more knowledgeable than a graduate. And you have a fondness to refer to comics which though amusing do not add any substance to your arguemnts. i still stand by my remarks that you resort to smoke screens, intimidating, condescending and insulting remarks instead of substantial remarks to articulate your beliefs. I have not remained silent about my knowledge fof scientific experiments, I have stated at the beginning that all scientific investigations are premised on ideal conditions, and ideal conditions do not exist, so this nullifies the results of the experiment from being accurate and precise in terms of relating them to real life conditions. surely you know that by now! So what scientific experiment has been conducted to prove conclusively that life originates from a chemical soup that was subjected to lightning?! you will agree with me that this is a ridiculous assertion! I am still interested in your academic qualifications and the university you are lecturing at. and I'd like to know your area of specialisation.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Crankshaft on November 08, 2011, 03:44:32 PM
This is such an old debate.  Sigh.

Surely, everyone knows that 'God' created the big-bang, evolution and everything else.

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: ViVoAudio on November 08, 2011, 03:48:51 PM
This is such an old debate.  Sigh.

Surely, everyone knows that 'God' created the big-bang, evolution and everything else.


+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 the end
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: VALVAGLO on November 08, 2011, 04:12:45 PM
+ 10000...........etc I'll say Amen to that.
This thread is like my old broken turntable with too much anti-skate. It just keeps hopping back and back and b.. ok ,youve got the drift
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on November 08, 2011, 04:27:24 PM
I would love our resident non-believers to help me speculate on this, seeing as science could never come up with a good answer: What was before the big bang? Where did the bit that went bang come from? From a previous contraction of the universe? Surely somewhere it should all have begun? Also, I find it fascinating that a story, told by bronze age people, correlate so nicely with modern thinking: First there was 'nothing', then there was the universe, then the earth, the sea, plants, animals in the sea,  animals on land and finally humans. How clever must they have been to come to such a conclusion! Or did they have access to inside information??? Mind you, was much more technical information given, this story could never have been repeated across generations with much success. I mean, here I've been reading convoluted scientific concoctions from people who are but a click away from the proper stuff.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: d0dja on November 08, 2011, 04:40:42 PM
Actually science does have a good answer: the Big Bang is a singularity, a moment when all the laws of physics we known and understand breaks down. We don't know what was before the big bang as there is no way of knowing, and we don't even know if there WAS a 'before'. Our current understanding of the universe is not complete.

Up to the Big Bang, science says "unknown".
After the Big Bang, science says "pretty damn well known".

Just because you don't know what happens, or why, doesn't mean you need to create a Magic Sky Fairy to explain it. You put an unkown in the box labelled, "Don't know, doesn't affect us in any meaningful way, hope to know eventually, moving on".

Science doesn't have to explain EVERYTHING. It also doesn't feel the need when it can't explain something to come up with exciting stories of burning bushes, impossible arks, stern imprecations about eating shellfish and bacon, people returning from the dead, etc.

Just because you don't know something for sure is not a reason to invent fairy stories.

Wheeee! And I should be working on a tender doc!  ;D

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 08, 2011, 04:52:02 PM
I would love our resident non-believers to help me speculate on this, seeing as science could never come up with a good answer: What was before the big bang? Where did the bit that went bang come from? From a previous contraction of the universe? Surely somewhere it should all have begun? Also, I find it fascinating that a story, told by bronze age people, correlate so nicely with modern thinking: First there was 'nothing', then there was the universe, then the earth, the sea, plants, animals in the sea,  animals on land and finally humans. How clever must they have been to come to such a conclusion! Or did they have access to inside information??? Mind you, was much more technical information given, this story could never have been repeated across generations with much success. I mean, here I've been reading convoluted scientific concoctions from people who are but a click away from the proper stuff.

Just thinking about makes me wanna drink. I wonder if dogs ever think about this ****, and do they want booze?
But if you get the answer, you probably solved the most important one.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on November 08, 2011, 04:59:33 PM
Actually science does have a good answer: the Big Bang is a singularity, a moment when all the laws of physics we known and understand breaks down. We don't know what was before the big bang as there is no way of knowing, and we don't even know if there WAS a 'before'. Our current understanding of the universe is not complete.

Up to the Big Bang, science says "unknown".
After the Big Bang, science says "pretty damn well known".

Just because you don't know what happens, or why, doesn't mean you need to create a Magic Sky Fairy to explain it. You put an unkown in the box labelled, "Don't know, doesn't affect us in any meaningful way, hope to know eventually, moving on".

Science doesn't have to explain EVERYTHING. It also doesn't feel the need when it can't explain something to come up with exciting stories of burning bushes, impossible arks, stern imprecations about eating shellfish and bacon, people returning from the dead, etc.

Just because you don't know something for sure is not a reason to invent fairy stories.

Wheeee! And I should be working on a tender doc!  ;D


Uh-huh.

Where did the purported Magic Jew's dad originate from? Was he just "there"? How is that even possible?
So you're not willing to speculate? I also find your condescending tones a bit more than what is called for. You are not talking to some backward person that understands nothing of the natural sciences or that are ignorant of evolution. You are simply jumping the gun and chucking everyone that doesn't jump in behind your cause in the same bucket. I doubt very much if an intelligent debat is possible with the likes of you. Out.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: d0dja on November 08, 2011, 05:25:17 PM
>You are simply jumping the gun and chucking everyone that doesn't jump in behind your cause in the same bucket.

Yep. But at least not burning them at the stake.

Da-dish!  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 08, 2011, 05:36:59 PM
>You are simply jumping the gun and chucking everyone that doesn't jump in behind your cause in the same bucket.

Yep. But at least not burning them at the stake.

Da-dish!  ;D

Wow, that's a little nasty don't you think? You generally such a nice guy!

FWIW, I'm with Abe. And I honestly believe in the BBT and that a 'Heavenly Being' was responsible for that. So really, I sit in both camps as I believe both are right (to a degree).
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: cj on November 08, 2011, 05:51:19 PM
oh smack, this is where this otherwise long winded and rather boring thread can interesting..... JERRY JERRY JERRY !!!!!!! (pumps fist in air)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 08, 2011, 05:58:43 PM
I'm Mormon.....not for religious convictions but for the variety of daily grinds :)Love is stronger than justice1
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 08, 2011, 06:16:58 PM
Guys, really. We've degraded this thread to blasphemy? I think we can all agree that there's many walks of life that come here, and that each person has their own religious beliefs. But I think mocking someone else's religious beliefs is in poor taste and I personally find it deeply offensive.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 08, 2011, 06:23:06 PM
Guys, really. We've degraded this thread to blasphemy? I think we can all agree that there's many walks of life that come here, and that each person has their own religious beliefs. But I think mocking someone else's religious beliefs is in poor taste and I personally find it deeply offensive.

My apologies, Gert and Attie. I shall refrain from any further comments that can be seen as blasphemous.
To me, they're not, as I'm not a believer, but I guess I can see how it can be for those that choose to believe.

Apologies again to all.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 08, 2011, 06:47:15 PM
Me too G....i mean no harm...apologies for my silliness...i shall refrain...anyone know why Dean is banned?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 08, 2011, 07:27:21 PM
No problems. I'm glad that, while many here don't agree on evolusionism, we can agree to respect each other.

Now someone please find me a tree to hug.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: d0dja on November 08, 2011, 07:37:56 PM
Oh hell no! A hippie! Seriously? Do you know what those people EAT?

 
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 08, 2011, 07:42:19 PM
Oh hell no! A hippie! Seriously? Do you know what those people EAT?

Trust me, when you see how big my toolshed is you'll have no doubt in your mind what I eat :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Steerpike on November 08, 2011, 08:28:19 PM
Actually science does have a good answer: the Big Bang is a singularity, a moment when all the laws of physics we known and understand breaks down. We don't know what was before the big bang as there is no way of knowing, and we don't even know if there WAS a 'before'. Our current understanding of the universe is not complete.

Exactly so! Science does not say there was nothing before the big bang; the bb is merely a point in space/time through which no information can travel.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 08, 2011, 09:24:41 PM
What is really interesting is - every time this argument comes up - how AGGRESSIVELY each side attacks the other. And without fail, the other side is part of a major conspiracy to undermine the other (which is proven by how often the argument arises...). Surely if you KNOW you know the truth, you will allow every other being to come to the same truth, just the way you did?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 08, 2011, 09:34:33 PM
Is this the valves vs transistors debate?...One can't help but giggle at the folly of the sand supporters!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 08, 2011, 09:37:41 PM
Wow, that's a little nasty don't you think? You generally such a nice guy!

FWIW, I'm with Abe. And I honestly believe in the BBT and that a 'Heavenly Being' was responsible for that. So really, I sit in both camps as I believe both are right (to a degree).
Although understandable, with all of the agenda within material on the subject, I think most would find it very surprising to know who the originator of the the big bang theory was. You should feel quite comfortable with your view Gert.

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being" - Who wrote that?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 08, 2011, 09:42:37 PM
What came before the Big Bang OR Creation?

I think (which I hope I am still allowed to  :)) that Time only came into existence the moment the first atom started to vibrate. I think there is no Time without Matter, and no Matter without Time. Etc.

All the above figured out one night 15 mins after I took my Zolpidem... but the real wonder of it was, I thought, that I could THINK this with the same validity as did the first man who had the first thought (wether created or evolved (<- the man, not the thought)).



Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 08, 2011, 09:46:02 PM
^^^ Aha, Byrd! He also said: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Moog on November 08, 2011, 10:02:39 PM
Cables do make a difference!
  I like extra-thick ones!  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 08, 2011, 10:06:51 PM
What is really interesting is - every time this argument comes up - how AGGRESSIVELY each side attacks the other. And without fail, the other side is part of a major conspiracy to undermine the other (which is proven by how often the argument arises...). Surely if you KNOW you know the truth, you will allow every other being to come to the same truth, just the way you did?
I think you will find it is some from each side that are aggressive in their approach,.

The statement I quoted in my post above is enlightening as it uses the words "crusading" and "fervour" which are usually seen in a religious context. What was the man trying to say?

Gordon could you point us to these surveys you were reading? They sound a little unacademic to me.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 08, 2011, 10:12:40 PM
I think you will find it is some from each side that are aggressive in their approach,.

Yep. My point exactly.

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 08, 2011, 10:16:32 PM
^^^ Aha, Byrd! He also said: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
I see no conflict there.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 08, 2011, 10:27:38 PM
Regarding the topic of the thread:

What makes life great, are the moments I experience while I sit in front of my hifi and I simply cannot speak. When I get into bed next to my wife while she is already sleeping. When I go outside and look up at the stars which are so incredibly bright here.

And I get this great old lump in my chest and I think: THIS, science cannot explain and science cannot create.

Then MY logic takes me to this place: where I KNOW there must be something greater than us.

No, I have no scientific paper, no guy with a few PhD's to support my... errr... theory, but it is MY truth. And, by all means, call me ignorant or stupid, but I am happy!

 :)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 08, 2011, 10:31:12 PM
I see no conflict there.

No conflict, Byrd! I agree with you. Thanks for the quote, btw, never saw it before.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: d0dja on November 08, 2011, 11:22:30 PM
Appologies for the going on and on, it was my ideology talking.

So, to the OP, the kids of today, huh. Don't know a damn thing about chemistry or even who Ghandi was.

~R
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 09, 2011, 06:32:05 AM

No, I have no scientific paper, no guy with a few PhD's to support my... errr... theory, but it is MY truth. And, by all means, call me ignorant or stupid, but I am happy!

 :)

Hypothesis suits it better.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on November 09, 2011, 06:39:39 AM
No conflict, Byrd! I agree with you. Thanks for the quote, btw, never saw it before.
+1 And that is the point I was trying to make. Before the BB, there was a 'point' where no time or laws of science existed. Then things that are greater than us happened. However things came about, the scientific explanation of how the universe, the earth and life on earth developed,  seems to confirm what is written about the creation in the Bible. I'm not saying word for word, but the sequence of events is fairly accurately set out. Adam was made from clay/sand/earth. It no story about a disk on the back of a giant tortoise on the back of two giant elephants in the sky. Those that have met me, by now there's a few, knows I'm no religious fanatic. And the above realization came only after my 4yr old made me read her the story of the creation about 5 times this week. All she wanted to hear. Anyway, use it, don't use it. Takes no skin off my nose.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 09, 2011, 07:00:46 AM
Appologies for the going on and on, it was my ideology talking.

So, to the OP, the kids of today, huh. Don't know a damn thing about chemistry or even who Ghandi was.

~R

They don't know a damn thing about anything but how to get onto social networks....
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 09, 2011, 07:26:16 AM
I always thought the Bing Bang Theory was a TV show  ???
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 09, 2011, 07:40:08 AM
I always thought the Bing Bang Theory was a TV show  ???

Hmmm! So you also fall into the "kids" category ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Cirr on November 09, 2011, 07:42:31 AM
Is this thread the fastest growing ever on this forum? :D
Moderators,please check?

Best topic since I joined! ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 09, 2011, 07:45:03 AM
Hmmm! So you also fall into the "kids" category ;D

Or maybe the 'I won't lose any sleep over not knowing what was before the BB' category ;D

or perhaps the 'who gives a **** anyway' category

What I really wanna is : WHO THE FUUCK IS ALICE ?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 09, 2011, 07:47:51 AM
What I really wanna is : WHO THE FUUCK IS ALICE ?

You will have to ask Chris Norman as the rest of the band asks the same question ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 09, 2011, 07:49:28 AM
You will have to ask Chris Norman as the rest of the band asks the same question ;D

Its actually SAD that you know his name  :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on November 09, 2011, 07:56:13 AM
Its actually SAD that you know his name  :D
Who the hell is Chris Norman?! ;p
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 09, 2011, 07:59:22 AM
The arguments against the Big Bang are quite telling of the opposition. They are the same arguments I've heard from the religious sector for as far back as I can remember. If you're going to argue against The Big Bang, at least try and keep up with the various permutations of the theory and some of it's alternatives. The simplistic arguments put forth in this thread just highlight your ignorance.

Faith is believing without the need for proof. So go on believing what you believe, why knock science and argue with those that feel they need evidence before they can accept something as true? And for goodness sake, stop being so damn sensitive about your religion. Why should I be forced to revere what I feel strongly is simply a culmination of outdated superstitions.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 09, 2011, 08:01:11 AM
Its actually SAD that you know his name  :D

A little secret, I had to Google it first ;D

Now, getting back to Alice:

The facts are that "he" stayed next to Alice for 24 years and that she was never interested in him. He had the serious hots for her and was devestated when she drove away in a fancy limousine. Then only the mousy Sally appears on the scene from nowwhere and offer him her fruits.

Now the theory is that Alice was a lesbian all along and that was why she was not interested in him. Actually very silly, seeing that they are both interested in playing with the same "toolset" Maybe they could have roped Sally in from the start and all enjoyed each other's company ;D

Okay, that's enough crap from me this time of the morning ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 09, 2011, 08:08:30 AM
Why should I be forced to revere what I feel strongly is simply a culmination of outdated superstitions.

So you can put a comment like that out there but others shouldn't comment negatively on your views?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 08:08:50 AM
The arguments against the Big Bang are quite telling of the opposition. They are the same arguments I've heard from the religious sector for as far back as I can remember.
This is hilarious as it shows your level of ignorance on the subject. Again I ask - who was the originator of the BBT?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 09, 2011, 08:10:50 AM
+1 And that is the point I was trying to make. Before the BB, there was a 'point' where no time or laws of science existed. Then things that are greater than us happened. However things came about, the scientific explanation of how the universe, the earth and life on earth developed,  seems to confirm what is written about the creation in the Bible. I'm not saying word for word, but the sequence of events is fairly accurately set out. Adam was made from clay/sand/earth. It no story about a disk on the back of a giant tortoise on the back of two giant elephants in the sky. Those that have met me, by now there's a few, knows I'm no religious fanatic. And the above realization came only after my 4yr old made me read her the story of the creation about 5 times this week. All she wanted to hear. Anyway, use it, don't use it. Takes no skin off my nose.

I don't have the mathematical background to even understand astro physics, or to make sense of the thousand dimensions etc. My mind shuts just thinking about how massive space is, and can't even get past(or before) the BB. Because I believe a lot of answers are to be found out there still.
You're an engineer right? You should be able to do better? :D

I also secretly hope the pyramids hold some hidden secret of the universe and some of it is still revealed in my lifetime.

Comedian Bill Hicks said:
“Today young men on Acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed into a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.  There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream within the imagination of ourselves… here’s Tom with the weather.”


...screw it, ignorance is bliss!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 09, 2011, 08:15:51 AM
So you can put a comment like that out there but others shouldn't comment negatively on your views?

There was nothing negative about my comment. Why are you offended that I don't believe in the same thing as you? I never insulted your deity.

This is hilarious as it shows your level of ignorance on the subject. Again I ask - who was the originator of the BBT?

A catholic priest, George Lemaitre, I know. Many of the great discoveries of science come from the religious sector. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 09, 2011, 08:19:56 AM
There was nothing negative about my comment. Why are you offended that I don't believe in the same thing as you? I never insulted your deity.



I never said you offended ME, but calling people's faith a superstition will most definately offend them, but I guess the idea of offending someone hasn't been scientifically proven to you yet  ::)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 09, 2011, 08:21:24 AM
Again I ask - who was the originator of the BBT?

It does not appear to be attributed to one person or group only and goes back even as far as Aristotle, who argued that the universe has an infinite past. This caused a lot of problems for the religious leaders of the time and so it continues through the centuries, having Einstein rethink his field equation formula and adding a cosmological constant to the formula. After Einstein numerous scientists have in one way or other tried to prove the big bang theory and if I am not mistaken, the particle accelarator in Cern(is that the place?) is supposed to play a role in proving the theory.

Phew! Now I am totally confused :o
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 08:21:58 AM
The arguments against the Big Bang are quite telling of the opposition. They are the same arguments I've heard from the religious sector for as far back as I can remember.

A catholic priest, George Lemaitre, I know. Many of the great discoveries of science come from the religious sector. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Somehow it seems that these statements are contradictory.

Calling peoples beliefs "superstitions" is insulting.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 09, 2011, 08:26:07 AM
Ken, I have to agree that the fact that you dismiss other people believes as superstition, will not sit well with many people.

I am not easily offended, although I do fall into the group you are referring to, but I have a right to believe in what I want to and so do you. However we need to be sensitive of other's feeling in that regard.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 09, 2011, 08:29:33 AM
Somehow it seems that these statements are contradictory.

I don't feel it's contradictory at all. In my experience, those so vehemently opposed to things like the big bang do so due to their religious outlook. However, there are many people of faith who have found a way to embrace both their religion and science.

Calling peoples beliefs "superstitions" is insulting.

I said that I personally believe that religion is a distilation of different superstitions. And that given that, why must I be force to tip toe around your beliefs? By your logic, I could argue that your outlook on my belief is insulting.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 09, 2011, 08:30:50 AM
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

+1
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 09, 2011, 08:33:56 AM
And that given that, why must I be force to tip toe around your beliefs? By your logic, I could argue that your outlook on my belief is insulting.

It's called tolerance and respect for a fellow human being. If you know something might be offensive to someone, why would you insist on being offensive? Because of your principles? I have a great deal of respect for you and what you contribute here. But this comment saddens me as well.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 09, 2011, 08:35:55 AM
I said that I personally believe that religion is a distilation of different superstitions. And that given that, why must I be force to tip toe around your beliefs? By your logic, I could argue that your outlook on my belief is insulting.


The fact is that nothing was mentioned about your believes. The responses were aimed at your apparent dismissal of other's believes.

Mutual respect goes a long way to allow people to co-exist.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 08:52:35 AM
I don't feel it's contradictory at all. In my experience, those so vehemently opposed to things like the big bang do so due to their religious outlook. However, there are many people of faith who have found a way to embrace both their religion and science.

I said that I personally believe that religion is a distilation of different superstitions. And that given that, why must I be force to tip toe around your beliefs? By your logic, I could argue that your outlook on my belief is insulting.

I would then prefer that you used a statement such as "The arguments against the Big Bang are quite telling of the opposition. They are the same arguments I've heard from certain segments of the religious sector for as far back as I can remember. "

It seems, otherwise, that you are painting anybody who is religious or who has faith in anything other than science with the same brush.

On the issue of "I could argue that your outlook on my belief is insulting", what outlook is that? Please quote to me where this outlook has been mentioned where it was in any way disparaging OF YOUR BELIEF. Your conduct is what I have issue with.

If you look at many scientists, including Einstein who I quoted earlier, you will see there is a fair balance between believers and not. It is therefore presumptuous of Gordons, radio transmission experts and other amateur "science" aficionados to presume that they have some inside knowledge that these individuals did not. You have the right to your opinions, but you also have the responsibility to present them in a way that is not demeaning to others, just as they have the right to their own opinions and the responsibility to do the same.

I haven't yet seen any thread started on the topic of those damned to the fires of hell for viewing bare breasts .... modest moderators are another matter altogether.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 09, 2011, 08:53:15 AM
Group hug in the "oiling room" at the CT get together?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 09, 2011, 08:53:31 AM
The fact is that nothing was mentioned about your believes. The responses were aimed at your apparent dismissal of other's believes.

I don't understand. All I'm saying is that I do not believe in religion, I believe it comes from a time when people explained things like the wind as coming from a giant in a cave etc. That's my belief.

This is not about me not being tolerant of others beliefs, quite the opposite.

Anyway, I don't want to argue with you guys. The point of my post was to point out that there was no need for this sensitivity, but apparently I was wrong.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 09, 2011, 09:04:24 AM

I haven't yet seen any thread started on the topic of those damned to the fires of hell for viewing bare breasts


Now THAT would be another interesting thread!  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 09, 2011, 09:08:12 AM
I don't understand. All I'm saying is that I do not believe in religion, I believe it comes from a time when people explained things like the wind as coming from a giant in a cave etc. That's my belief.

This is not about me not being tolerant of others beliefs, quite the opposite.

Anyway, I don't want to argue with you guys. The point of my post was to point out that there was no need for this sensitivity, but apparently I was wrong.

Maybe as Byrd suggested, don't make it a generalisation that all those with religious beliefs are whackjobs, only some of us. I'm Roman Catholic, but didn't take offence to your comments - Dodja's one was a bit um, dodgy, but I've largely learned over the years to have selective sight, so I'm not easily offended. This is a very interesting thread, so keep giving your input.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 09, 2011, 09:08:27 AM
Any chance our good Lord might prefer the company of those who challenge,question,doubt and break his rules.....or would he prefer those who obey,follow and hang on his every word......you know that guy at a braai who confirms everything you say,agrees with your wise words and follows you to the loo.....he seldom receives a second invitation!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: legro on November 09, 2011, 09:15:52 AM
Maybe I'm too laid back, but I must confess to not being in the least offended by anyone calling my beliefs superstition. As with so many other judgements on things one does not understand, this pronouncement usually reveals more about the person making the verdict than my beliefs. The good Mr Dawkins' sometimes quite hilarious assessment of religion is a case in point.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 09, 2011, 09:16:28 AM
Any chance our good Lord might prefer the company of those who challenge,question,doubt and break his rules.....or would he prefer those who obey,follow and hang on his every word......you know that guy at a braai who confirms everything you say,agrees with your wise words and follows you to the loo.....he seldom receives a second invitation!

I agree with you Andre. The problem is that it's a double edged sword. On the one hand you can't challenge and question while on the other hand still blindly believing there is a God. Some things you just have to take on faith (if you choose to of course). Look, I'm definitely not the right person to enter debates like these as I'm pretty poorly equipped to do so, but I must also believe that we wouldn't be given intellect if we weren't expected to use it.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 09, 2011, 09:25:22 AM
but I must also believe that we wouldn't be given intellect if we weren't expected to use it.

not always the case unfortunately ::)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: cj on November 09, 2011, 09:29:16 AM
bill maher -religulous go check it out, im sure even slightly devote chatholics (which is how i was raised) will be pissed off, but the guy speaks the truth. (runs away from pc in expectation of backlash)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 09, 2011, 09:31:08 AM
bill maher -religulous go check it out, im sure even slightly devote chatholics (which is how i was raised) will be pissed off, but the guy speaks the truth. (runs away from pc in expectation of backlash)

*grabs pitchfork and flaming torch*
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: VALVAGLO on November 09, 2011, 09:32:03 AM
who gave us the intelect?
Something in the primordial mud pool?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 09, 2011, 09:33:06 AM
Any chance our good Lord might prefer the company of those who challenge,question,doubt and break his rules.....or would he prefer those who obey,follow and hang on his every word......you know that guy at a braai who confirms everything you say,agrees with your wise words and follows you to the loo.....he seldom receives a second invitation!
....unless the braai is at Andrew's.....that dude would be the star of the show ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 09, 2011, 09:41:37 AM
bill maher -religulous go check it out, im sure even slightly devote chatholics (which is how i was raised) will be pissed off, but the guy speaks the truth. (runs away from pc in expectation of backlash)

+1.

Some reasoning in the theist vs atheist:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 09, 2011, 09:47:44 AM
Maybe as Byrd suggested, don't make it a generalisation that all those with religious beliefs are whackjobs...

I never said they were.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 09, 2011, 09:51:46 AM
I have one opinion about religion, and this mostly includes all of them. Not just Christianity.

The problem with all religion is that people adapt their religion to their own preferences/lifestyle and not really adapt their lifestyle to their religion, and it is always (well mostly anyway) justified by some random reason that suits them.
People believe for instance and do good things because they don't wanna burn in hell or want to live forever in heaven.
It is a lot of the time more a personal gain, than anything else.

Stupid example(for the sake of not starting an argument around what the bible say and does not say); the bible says your body is the temple bla bla...yet people smoke and drink. It is either conveniently ignored or justified by saying not everything should be taken literally.

Just my opinion
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 09, 2011, 09:55:33 AM
^^^ You are actually quite right. And I'm one of those who twists religion to suit me :D I also feel that the bible was written by humans (albeit inspired by the word of God) and it has been translated so many times already, so you cannot help but wonder if the many 'translator's' personal bias' didn't have a part to play in what I'm actually reading today
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 09:58:53 AM
Any chance our good Lord might prefer the company of those who challenge,question,doubt and break his rules.....or would he prefer those who obey,follow and hang on his every word......you know that guy at a braai who confirms everything you say,agrees with your wise words and follows you to the loo.....he seldom receives a second invitation!
I agree with you there, however at some point you may come to a realization that you accept certain things.

Having a great cable debate with someone who initially disagrees with you and only after many years of debating testing and listening comes to accept the truth that they make no difference is far more satisfying to me than someone who accepts my say so from the beginning. ;D If however they simply accept that they do make a difference - well that is the same as the other way right?

If you look at many of the religions you will find that, in truth, there is tolerance. How you live your life and the sincerity with which you try to improve your community and consciousness is more important than the rituals you undergo and specific beliefs you have. There are many misconceptions about the intolerance of the religious community, both outside and inside the religions themselves. How can you expect a lay person who spends an hour at church a week to understand concepts that it takes a priest 7 to 8 years of study at least to grasp. Consider that fact on top of the usual situation that these theologians already have degrees or qualifications in other areas. Some of the recent ones I have come across: An airline pilot, an attorney, a doctor of history, a psychologist. Put that in your academic pipe and smoke it Gordon.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 09, 2011, 09:59:16 AM
Heavy Metal is evil and demonic......try some Buble and watch your life transform ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 09, 2011, 10:00:02 AM
^^^ You are actually quite right. And I'm one of those who twists religion to suit me :D I also feel that the bible was written by humans (albeit inspired by the word of God) and it has been translated so many times already, so you cannot help but wonder if the many 'translator's' personal bias' didn't have a part to play in what I'm actually reading today

I've heard this argument quite a few times before but I don't think it holds water. The Bible is the inspired word of God, he guided it's creation. For me it stands to reason that he would ensure, through his devine influence, that it's message stayed true no matter what. I can't see God turning someone away from Heaven after they followed the Bible to the letter going "Tsch, ja, I know what it says, but it's wrong hey".
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 09, 2011, 10:03:40 AM
^^^ You are actually quite right. And I'm one of those who twists religion to suit me :D I also feel that the bible was written by humans (albeit inspired by the word of God) and it has been translated so many times already, so you cannot help but wonder if the many 'translator's' personal bias' didn't have a part to play in what I'm actually reading today

Agree with you, but you just justified your actions/beliefs again! :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 09, 2011, 10:04:51 AM
I've heard this argument quite a few times before but I don't think it holds water. The Bible is the inspired word of God, he guided it's creation. For me it stands to reason that he would ensure, through his devine influence, that it's message stayed true no matter what. I can't see God turning someone away from Heaven after they followed the Bible to the letter going "Tsch, ja, I know what it says, but it's wrong hey".
surely "downstairs" would be where most of the good work should be done?or is management separating themselves again?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 09, 2011, 10:05:14 AM
Heavy Metal is evil and demonic......try some Buble and watch your life transform ;D

There's no such thing as demons. But if there was, I'm sure it be awesome! :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 09, 2011, 10:09:50 AM
I agree with you there, however at some point you may come to a realization that you accept certain things.

Having a great cable debate with someone who initially disagrees with you and only after many years of debating testing and listening comes to accept the truth that they make no difference is far more satisfying to me than someone who accepts my say so from the beginning. ;D If however they simply accept that they do make a difference - well that is the same as the other way right?

If you look at many of the religions you will find that, in truth, there is tolerance. How you live your life and the sincerity with which you try to improve your community and consciousness is more important than the rituals you undergo and specific beliefs you have. There are many misconceptions about the intolerance of the religious community, both outside and inside the religions themselves. How can you expect a lay person who spends an hour at church a week to understand concepts that it takes a priest 7 to 8 years of study at least to grasp. Consider that fact on top of the usual situation that these theologians already have degrees or qualifications in other areas. Some of the recent ones I have come across: An airline pilot, an attorney, a doctor of history, a psychologist. Put that in your academic pipe and smoke it Gordon.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Crankshaft on November 09, 2011, 10:11:51 AM
An important thing to remember is that only we humans think we have this amazing intelect.   :P

Perhaps the reason we have such a hard time accepting the 'miracle' of life, is that what is thought to be so incredibly complex and unlikely, is actually quite simple.

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 09, 2011, 10:18:37 AM
Agree with you, but you just justified your actions/beliefs again! :D

I told you that :D

I've heard this argument quite a few times before but I don't think it holds water. The Bible is the inspired word of God, he guided it's creation. For me it stands to reason that he would ensure, through his devine influence, that it's message stayed true no matter what. I can't see God turning someone away from Heaven after they followed the Bible to the letter going "Tsch, ja, I know what it says, but it's wrong hey".

See, here I disagree with you. It might have been inspired by God, but how do I know it was 'interpreted' correctly, bearing in mind there were many, many iterations? Bear in mind that not every word in one language may exist as a word in another language, so words had to be 'substituted' to get you close enough. Do this enough times and I'm almost certain that some concepts can vary enough from the original intent to actually matter. I know I'm getting technical, but these are the things I wonder about.

Here's another stick for the fire: I believe that many religions are similar and believe in the same thing. The fact that many exist is because religion is actually a human interpretation and has been adapted by different cultures to suit their 'needs' - for the same reason that different languages exist. As it so happens, I'm busy reading Steve Jobs' Biography and he shared this view and summed it up quite nicely: The different religions are like the doors to a house, it all leads to the same thing.

But, to come full circle... I've been raised Christian and I believe in the Christian 'interpretation'. Does that make me a hypocrite? Definitely. But then, nothing is perfect is it? :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 09, 2011, 10:20:12 AM
I agree with you there, however at some point you may come to a realization that you accept certain things.

Having a great cable debate with someone who initially disagrees with you and only after many years of debating testing and listening comes to accept the truth that they make no difference is far more satisfying to me than someone who accepts my say so from the beginning. ;D If however they simply accept that they do make a difference - well that is the same as the other way right?

If you look at many of the religions you will find that, in truth, there is tolerance. How you live your life and the sincerity with which you try to improve your community and consciousness is more important than the rituals you undergo and specific beliefs you have. There are many misconceptions about the intolerance of the religious community, both outside and inside the religions themselves. How can you expect a lay person who spends an hour at church a week to understand concepts that it takes a priest 7 to 8 years of study at least to grasp. Consider that fact on top of the usual situation that these theologians already have degrees or qualifications in other areas. Some of the recent ones I have come across: An airline pilot, an attorney, a doctor of history, a psychologist. Put that in your academic pipe and smoke it Gordon.
add Civil engineer to your list ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 10:21:55 AM
I've heard this argument quite a few times before but I don't think it holds water. The Bible is the inspired word of God, he guided it's creation. For me it stands to reason that he would ensure, through his devine influence, that it's message stayed true no matter what. I can't see God turning someone away from Heaven after they followed the Bible to the letter going "Tsch, ja, I know what it says, but it's wrong hey".
If someone does not have the capacity for faith would they be turned away?

Muslim, Christian & Jew all have the same seed religion. For some or other reason one man in his humanity decides on one of these religions, all telling him that they are the only way. Does God close the gates on them for choosing the wrong one?

An atheist has a conscience (from somewhere?) directing him to right and wrong. If he follows it to do good works, do those gates close on him?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 09, 2011, 10:22:05 AM
Your assertions that theology is faith based and based on one's parents beliefs and that you rely on dictionaries to define what theology is, and your questions why not study the subjects of theology on their own left me exasperated and led me to conclude that clearly you have no understanding or experience of university education. many subjects that are taught at university are based or incorporate a lot of subjects, engineering encompasses maths, physics, chemistry etc, medicine a lot more subjects, it is called applied sciences, those subjects apply priciples from pure sciences, in any case no body of knowledge could ever exist in isolation. It uses truths established in other fields. I'm sure you will agree with me that the subject you are teaching incorporates knowledge from other fields. and I'm sure you will agree with me that as you progress up the education ladder. for instance at Ph.D level, the boundaries between subjects dimnish considerably.

Arch, PLEASE read my posts before you respond. You seem so single-minded in the defence of your views that you do not really absorb anything I said. I do not have the time, energy or inclination to respond in detail to every misguided claim you made. However, let's deal with some of the more baffling parts of your response. First, unless theology means something different in your version of the English language, it is generally understood to be the study of god and religious beliefs. Second, the overwhelming majority of people adopt the religious beliefs of their parents. (It is in this sense that religion is often regarded as a form of indoctination). It is no accident that you are christian, hindu, muslim or jew and that you believe your religion is the correct one. Third, I never disputed the fact that scientific knowledge must be multi-disciplinary. As such, you were preaching to the converted. My point, which you missed entirely, is that psychology, etc. could be studied in their own right without bring theology into the mix. Finally, drawing on other discipline does not necessarily increase as you 'move up the education ladder'. It depends on the focus of your research - my PhD was multi-disciplinary, but many of my colleagues focused on debates that are largely contained within the boundaries of a particular discipline.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 09, 2011, 10:24:36 AM
I agree with you there, however at some point you may come to a realization that you accept certain things.

Having a great cable debate with someone who initially disagrees with you and only after many years of debating testing and listening comes to accept the truth that they make no difference is far more satisfying to me than someone who accepts my say so from the beginning. ;D If however they simply accept that they do make a difference - well that is the same as the other way right?

If you look at many of the religions you will find that, in truth, there is tolerance. How you live your life and the sincerity with which you try to improve your community and consciousness is more important than the rituals you undergo and specific beliefs you have. There are many misconceptions about the intolerance of the religious community, both outside and inside the religions themselves. How can you expect a lay person who spends an hour at church a week to understand concepts that it takes a priest 7 to 8 years of study at least to grasp. Consider that fact on top of the usual situation that these theologians already have degrees or qualifications in other areas. Some of the recent ones I have come across: An airline pilot, an attorney, a doctor of history, a psychologist. Put that in your academic pipe and smoke it Gordon.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 09, 2011, 10:26:43 AM
this damn computer >:(
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 09, 2011, 10:27:09 AM
Here's another stick for the fire: I believe that many religions are similar and believe in the same thing. The fact that many exist is because religion is actually a human interpretation and has been adapted by different cultures to suit their 'needs' - for the same reason that different languages exist. As it so happens, I'm busy reading Steve Jobs' Biography and he shared this view and summed it up quite nicely: The different religions are like the doors to a house, it all leads to the same thing.

I very much disagree with you there, religious fantasy if you ask me, hinduism believes in many idols and worships them, Christianity does not believe in so many Gods but believes that the blood of Goodness Gracious saves, Judaism does not believe in many Gods but don't believe that Goodness Gracious is the son of God, Islam doesn't believe in many gods, but they believe that Goodness Gracious was just another prophet something that christians take issue with. These are fundamental differences between religions, and not just small little differences. i can go on and on about other religions and differences but the differences between religions is fundamental, heck the buddhists don't actually believe in God, they believe in Dharma.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 09, 2011, 10:27:16 AM
If someone does not have the capacity for faith would they be turned away?

Muslim, Christian & Jew all have the same seed religion. For some or other reason one man in his humanity decides on one of these religions, all telling him that they are the only way. Does God close the gates on them for choosing the wrong one?

An atheist has a conscience (from somewhere?) directing him to right and wrong. If he follows it to do good works, do those gates close on him?

From my understanding of the Chrisitan Bible, if you know of Goodness and do not accept him as your saviour, then yes, you're going to hell. However, if you've never heard of Goodness, then special consideration is given.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 09, 2011, 10:27:33 AM
this damn computer >:(

Was about to remark that you seemed to be having problems having your say, lol...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 10:28:51 AM
There's no such thing as demons.

Why? Because it wasn't scientifically proven? Can we then deduct that aliens do not exist? And if they do not exist, why did evolution not spontaneously occur on any of the many, many planets in the known universe? Errrr... does the 'unknown' universe even exist?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 09, 2011, 10:30:04 AM
Why? Because it wasn't scientifically proven? Can we then deduct that aliens do not exist? And if they do not exist, why did evolution not spontaneously occur on any of the many, many planets in the known universe? Errrr... does the 'unknown' universe even exist?

It's very likely that aliens exist, just not very likely we'll be spotting any anytime soon (given the enormity of the universe / possibly multiverse).
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 09, 2011, 10:30:35 AM
I worship DAVID HAFLER!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 09, 2011, 10:31:47 AM
....and leave the the starting of wars to well studied attorneys and priests ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 09, 2011, 10:32:32 AM
From my understanding of the Chrisitan Bible, if you know of Goodness and do not accept him as your saviour, then yes, you're going to hell. However, if you've never heard of Goodness, then special consideration is given.

No, I think that's why the Catholics invented Purgatory.  ;)  There are some Christians that have that view, yes - I had a discussion a few years back with a reborn Christian who told me I was not a Christian, and that I couldn't go to Heaven unless I was reborn. So I think that some make it up as they go along, to be honest...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 10:33:00 AM
From my understanding of the Chrisitan Bible, if you know of Goodness and do not accept him as your saviour, then yes, you're going to hell. However, if you've never heard of Goodness, then special consideration is given.
As I say - misunderstanding is common. Sola Scriptura does not apply to all Christian denominations.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 09, 2011, 10:36:18 AM
I'm not a full blooded jew, I'm jew-ish! :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 09, 2011, 10:36:58 AM
I very much disagree with you there, religious fantasy if you ask me, hinduism believes in many idols and worships them, Christianity does not believe in so many Gods but believes that the blood of Goodness Gracious saves, Judaism does not believe in many Gods but don't believe that Goodness Gracious is the son of God, Islam doesn't believe in many gods, but they believe that Goodness Gracious was just another prophet something that christians take issue with. These are fundamental differences between religions, and not just small little differences. i can go on and on about other religions and differences but the differences between religions is fundamental, heck the buddhists don't actually believe in God, they believe in Dharma.

Fair enough, but Byrd made a very good point that I happen to agree with:

If someone does not have the capacity for faith would they be turned away?

Muslim, Christian & Jew all have the same seed religion. For some or other reason one man in his humanity decides on one of these religions, all telling him that they are the only way. Does God close the gates on them for choosing the wrong one?

An atheist has a conscience (from somewhere?) directing him to right and wrong. If he follows it to do good works, do those gates close on him?

He managed to put it in a much better way than I can, and this is the reason why I must wonder if specific religious beliefs aren't pure interpretation? It's something I've only recently started pondering over so must admit that there can be many holes in my reasoning :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 09, 2011, 10:38:11 AM
Why? Because it wasn't scientifically proven? Can we then deduct that aliens do not exist? And if they do not exist, why did evolution not spontaneously occur on any of the many, many planets in the known universe? Errrr... does the 'unknown' universe even exist?

You phone me when you get possessed, then we start one evil metal band!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 10:40:58 AM
It's very likely that aliens exist, just not very likely we'll be spotting any anytime soon (given the enormity of the universe / possibly multiverse).

So, if 'likely' and 'possibly' is allowed, is it 'possible' that somewhere there 'may' exist an alien species of such great 'intellect' that they know and do things we still consider impossible? And if so, how far from there to an even greater alien that is not bound to 'somewhere'? Etc.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Dennis on November 09, 2011, 10:41:47 AM
You phone me when you get possessed, then we start one evil metal band!
(http://www.webmastertalkforums.com/attachments/lounge/1179d1301001522-lmao-pics-star-trek-data-data_lmao_super-jpg)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 10:45:05 AM
Dennis... Dennis... the avatar.... PLEASE!  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 09, 2011, 10:45:29 AM
So, if 'likely' and 'possibly' is allowed, is it 'possible' that somewhere there 'may' exist an alien species of such great 'intellect' that they know and do things we still consider impossible? And if so, how far from there to an even greater alien that is not bound to 'somewhere'? Etc.

No, an alien can also be a single celled organism a billion lightyears away. Don't stereotype the alien as skinny green creatures with big heads.

What I'm saying is, the universe is big and almost anything is possible.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 09, 2011, 10:48:11 AM
Byrd....i have spent a lifetime with little faith,i have four kids out of marriage(all with Ursula),i have almost no friends and live a rather sheltered existence with my better half and our "crew".....the number of times i've questioned "this hole in my soul" are more than i care to mention.....i'm not a bad person but i'm not the father or partner i want to be either.....i'm missing something....could it be?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 09, 2011, 10:50:28 AM
No, I think that's why the Catholics invented Purgatory.  ;)  There are some Christians that have that view, yes - I had a discussion a few years back with a reborn Christian who told me I was not a Christian, and that I couldn't go to Heaven unless I was reborn. So I think that some make it up as they go along, to be honest...

Purgatory is where people who are already in God's grace, bestowed apon them by Goodness, are sent when they don't quite cut the mustard. Not those who don't accept him.

Also, Goodness specifically said ""I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." We need Goodness in order to pass into heaven because no one can be considered good: "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us."
 
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 10:51:00 AM
No, an alien can also be a single celled organism a billion lightyears away. Don't stereotype the alien as skinny green creatures with big heads.

Oi, I said : Is it POSSIBLE that there MAY... nevermind.

What I'm saying is, the universe is big and almost anything is possible.

Does that include the existence of God?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 09, 2011, 10:53:20 AM
Does that include the existence of God?

You should read Isaac Asimov's short story "The Last Question", I think you might find it interesting.

EDIT: Here we go, found a link: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 09, 2011, 10:54:45 AM
Does that include the existence of God?

Try wikipedia, is has all the answers.

Also, facebook is also an option. Found Goodness there.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 10:57:53 AM
You phone me when you get possessed, then we start one evil metal band!

I play one mean triangle...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 11:00:25 AM
Purgatory is where people who are already in God's grace, bestowed apon them by Goodness, are sent when they don't quite cut the mustard. Not those who don't accept him.

Also, Goodness specifically said ""I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." We need Goodness in order to pass into heaven because no one can be considered good: "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us."
 

Ai Ken

You are trying to argue on subjects that you have non understanding of. Where in your quote does it say that one needs to accept Gracious and in what manner?

Do you understand what Sola Scriptura is?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 09, 2011, 11:07:17 AM
Ai Ken

You are trying to argue on subjects that you have non understanding of. Where in your quote does it say that one needs to accept Gracious and in what manner?

Do you understand what Sola Scriptura is?

Solely Scripture? I have an understanding of the Bible, I have read it, I was raised a Christian. I thought the part where Goodness said: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.", was the part.

In full: "In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going." Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Goodness answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 11:18:06 AM
You should read Isaac Asimov's short story "The Last Question", I think you might find it interesting.

EDIT: Here we go, found a link: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

Read it, found it really interesting (great piece of writing). But maybe I'm missing your point... ?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 09, 2011, 11:19:40 AM
Can we go back to discussing evolution?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 09, 2011, 11:21:19 AM
Can we go back to discussing evolution?

No, that's not the way this thread is evolving ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 09, 2011, 11:25:44 AM
Read it, found it really interesting (great piece of writing). But maybe I'm missing your point... ?

I just thought you'd like it in light of your earlier post:

So, if 'likely' and 'possibly' is allowed, is it 'possible' that somewhere there 'may' exist an alien species of such great 'intellect' that they know and do things we still consider impossible? And if so, how far from there to an even greater alien that is not bound to 'somewhere'? Etc.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 11:38:29 AM
I just thought you'd like it in light of your earlier post:


Ah, ok  :)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 11:41:03 AM
Yes - Not all denominations believe that the entire truth of the Christian way is defined in the scriptures.

If you look carefully that statement simply says that the Gracious is the medium through which humanity will be saved. Nowhere does it say you must make a decision to "accept" him as their personal savior here on earth.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Shonver on November 09, 2011, 11:44:03 AM
Seventeen pages? Really??!!!

I was hoping to keep up, but I only got as far as pg 12.

FWIW, I've abandoned religion, though I still believe in Him. And I've read enough science fiction to know that there are so many possibilities (many sci-fi writers are scientists; some deeply religious). So, I'm playing wait-and-see. Maybe Sometime All Will Be Revealed. But I'm hedging my bets. Staying Good. Just in case.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 09, 2011, 11:49:58 AM
So, if 'likely' and 'possibly' is allowed, is it 'possible' that somewhere there 'may' exist an alien species of such great 'intellect' that they know and do things we still consider impossible? And if so, how far from there to an even greater alien that is not bound to 'somewhere'? Etc.

Now herein lies my problem. How far does possibility go? A bit more than a 100 years ago flight was deemed as not possible and that has been proven wrong. Based on this what would be possible in another 100 years that we consider to be impossible today?

The same applies to the existance of so-called aliens. I think there could possibly be "aliens" that are technologically less developed(just invented the wheel) than we are as well as those who are way ahead of us in their development(say capable of inter-brain communications and transfer of knowledge by thought)

Do I believe in this? No, I believe in the possibility ;)

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: u235 on November 09, 2011, 11:50:21 AM
My karma just ran over your dogma
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 09, 2011, 11:55:06 AM
Yes - Not all denominations believe that the entire truth of the Christian way is defined in the scriptures.

If you look carefully that statement simply says that the Gracious is the medium through which humanity will be saved. Nowhere does it say you must make a decision to "accept" him as their personal savior here on earth.

Sure, I'm just going with what the Bible says. As for your second point, accepting Goodness as your saviour is what makes you a Christian in the first place, the clue is in the name.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 12:11:31 PM
Sure, I'm just going with what the Bible says. As for your second point, accepting Goodness as your saviour is what makes you a Christian in the first place, the clue is in the name.
As far as Christians go yes that is the definition, however we are discussing who salvation is for. Re Purgatory?

This is more what I was referring to

If someone does not have the capacity for faith would they be turned away?

Muslim, Christian & Jew all have the same seed religion. For some or other reason one man in his humanity decides on one of these religions, all telling him that they are the only way. Does God close the gates on them for choosing the wrong one?

An atheist has a conscience (from somewhere?) directing him to right and wrong. If he follows it to do good works, do those gates close on him?

IE belief in Gracious as the savior is not necessary for salvation.

This is none the less the official stance of the Catholic Church, the patent holders of the purgatory theology so no point in arguing otherwise.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 09, 2011, 12:12:39 PM
accepting Goodness as your saviour is what makes you a Christian in the first place, the clue is in the name.

I understand what you mean, but to me a Christian is a person that live according to certain values and one of these values is - Care for and respect one another. Based on that I have met many people who live a Christian way, but who are not "Christians" A case in point is an Orthodox Jew I work with, who is one of the best human beings I have come across in my life.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Cirr on November 09, 2011, 12:19:33 PM
Bliksem, this is good :o ;D :o ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 12:21:25 PM
Blues said (and I cannot agree more):
"btw, also science shouldn't be taken as the last word in everything, it's just a snapshot of what we think is right atm..

With that, I also think that religion is what man makes of it - proven by the Crusades, Inquisition, and I include apartheid. (Note that I separate God and religion)

In the end I do not like any one party pretending that they have the final say in everything. Not science (that only a few centuries ago knew nothing about electricity, nuclear power, evolution(!), and still knows nothing about anything any of us feels deep inside) to say: "Ah, now we know! Agree you idiots!". Nor religion to say: "You are wrong, because.... errr... you'll burn in hell!". Because of the human factor it just boils down to ego vs ego.

We all just want to be happy and complete, and because we fail, we settle for 'safe' which is nestled in being right about what we need to be true.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 12:25:31 PM
I understand what you mean, but to me a Christian is a person that live according to certain values and one of these values is - Care for and respect one another. Based on that I have met many people who live a Christian way, but who are not "Christians" A case in point is an Orthodox Jew I work with, who is one of the best human beings I have come across in my life.

You also find the "Christians" who are absolutely the worst. I don't mean those who enjoy a bit of immodest exposure ;D

The kind that are truly bad / selfish / hurt others and have no remorse what so ever but at the drop of a hat they will be proclaiming their faith.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 12:26:00 PM
No, I believe in the possibility ;)

My point exactly, as long as the 'possibility' you believe in makes way for the existence of God, not just aliens!  ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 09, 2011, 12:39:29 PM
The kind that are truly bad / selfish / hurt others and have no remorse what so ever but at the drop of a hat they will be proclaiming their faith.

I know quite a number of those :o
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 12:55:47 PM
You also find the "Christians" who are absolutely the worst. I don't mean those who enjoy a bit of immodest exposure ;D

The kind that are truly bad / selfish / hurt others and have no remorse what so ever but at the drop of a hat they will be proclaiming their faith.

To my eyes you can mention Christians, agnostics, Jews, Russians, Brits, scientists - there are certain 'universal' principles that hold true - respect others, do not hurt others, etc. It is called 'being human'. I have yet to discover any group that preaches 'hurt, do bad'.

So why do we single out Christians? Do we expect more from them?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 09, 2011, 01:07:00 PM
Well, as I mentioned before, I am not religious, so I don't have any personal ideas about religion, God or how to get to Heaven. I have no insight other than what the Christian Bible specifically has to say on the subject.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: d0dja on November 09, 2011, 01:07:08 PM
This is one bit religious people don't get... Shaun was kidding, but it's an important part of atheism - ethics.

> Staying Good. Just in case.

A 'good' atheist stays good because being good is a social virtue that is its own reward, both in actual life and in theory.

Because I don't believe anything written in any scripture (apart from that sometimes they're sometimes cracking good adventure yarns, and the King James version is beautifully phrased) does not mean that I have no morals or ethics.

This is a weird perversion of reality that God botherers (and by this I mean the egregious ones, not all Christians/Jews/Muslims/etc) love to spout is
1.  "if you don't believe in God, you must believe in something" (the answer is what? why? what are you on about?)
2. "if you don't have religion, you don't have morals and think you can do just anything" (the answer is what? why? what are you on about?)

The assumption they make is that the concept of "sin" has any real bearing on "morals".
  
Religious scripture is not, and has never, been a good source of moral compass. IMHO.

Now I'm off to go crush kittens heads. Not banned in the Bible, should be good to go ...  8)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 09, 2011, 01:08:38 PM
I very much disagree with you there, religious fantasy if you ask me, hinduism believes in many idols and worships them, Christianity does not believe in so many Gods but believes that the blood of Goodness Gracious saves, Judaism does not believe in many Gods but don't believe that Goodness Gracious is the son of God, Islam doesn't believe in many gods, but they believe that Goodness Gracious was just another prophet something that christians take issue with. These are fundamental differences between religions, and not just small little differences. i can go on and on about other religions and differences but the differences between religions is fundamental, heck the buddhists don't actually believe in God, they believe in Dharma.

While this is largely true, it focuses on the superficial and overlooks the many commonalities in the underlying belief systems of the various religions. In this sense, Gert was absolutely correct. For example, Hinduism believes in ONE god (contrary to your claim) but argues that he/she assumes different forms. Gert was also correct in his assessment of the bible - it started as an oral tradition, was passed on from generation to generation, has been translated and contextualised numerous times, only contains the gospels that the catholic church deemed appropriate, etc. etc.

@ Byrd: Who is this 'Gordon' that you keep referring to? If, by any chance, it is me; that's not my name.

@ Strainger: equating science and religion is completely falacious. It does not follow from the fact that scientific knowledge changes over time (as scientists expand their knowledge of nature) that religion offers an equally valid interpretation of the origins of life, etc. Unfortunately, you cannot have it both ways - if science and religion contradict each other on a particular issue, you cannot logically accept both. The point I tried to make earlier is this: even though science is fallible, it offers a far more coherent, verifiable and believeable set of ideas than ANY other. Just like religious people may legitimately ask: 'what happened before the big bang?'; so too may atheists ask (given the laws of thermo-dynamics that suggest that energy can never be created or destroyed): 'who or what created god?'

As for life on other planets; surely, it depends on having the conditions necessary for intelligent life to evolve. Given the mind-boggling scale of the universe, there is a very good chance that intelligent life has evolved on other planets, which have the 'right' mix of gasses in their atmosphere, contain water, are not too close or too far from a sun, etc.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 09, 2011, 01:10:49 PM
This is one bit religious people don't get... Shaun was kidding, but it's an important part of atheism - ethics.

> Staying Good. Just in case.

A 'good' atheist stays good because being good is a social virtue that is its own reward, both in actual life and in theory.

Because I don't believe anything written in any scripture (apart from that sometimes they're sometimes cracking good adventure yarns, and the King James version is beautifully phrased) does not mean that I have no morals or ethics.

This is a weird perversion of reality that God botherers (and by this I mean the egregious ones, not all Christians/Jews/Muslims/etc) love to spout is
1.  "if you don't believe in God, you must believe in something" (the answer is what? why? what are you on about?)
2. "if you don't have religion, you don't have morals and think you can do just anything" (the answer is what? why? what are you on about?)

The assumption they make is that the concept of "sin" has any real bearing on "morals".
  
Religious scripture is not, and has never, been a good source of moral compass. IMHO.

Now I'm off to go crush kittens heads. Not banned in the Bible, should be good to go ...  8)


I have just adopted d0dja as my Guru and spiritual leader. Lead on master, I will follow!

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 09, 2011, 01:19:46 PM
A 'good' atheist stays good because being good is a social virtue that is its own reward, both in actual life and in theory.
  
Religious scripture is not, and has never, been a good source of moral compass. IMHO.

Now I'm off to go crush kittens heads. Not banned in the Bible, should be good to go ...  8)

I agree 100% Some of the some heinous crimes are committed in the name of religion by so-called religious people - apartheid, suicide bombers, the crusades, holy wars ... the list goes on and on. Conversely, I have never heard of atheists starting a war to abolish religion or to force their views down the throats of unwilling theists.

After crushing those kittens, you should not forget to pick up some rocks on the way. According to the bible, people who are guilty of adultery must be stoned to death.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 09, 2011, 01:25:01 PM
Seventeen pages? Really??!!!

I was hoping to keep up, but I only got as far as pg 12.

FWIW, I've abandoned religion, though I still believe in Him. And I've read enough science fiction to know that there are so many possibilities (many sci-fi writers are scientists; some deeply religious). So, I'm playing wait-and-see. Maybe Sometime All Will Be Revealed. But I'm hedging my bets. Staying Good. Just in case.

Ah. Pascal's Wager. Rather be good than not. Just in case.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 09, 2011, 01:28:56 PM
While this is largely true, it focuses on the superficial and overlooks the many commonalities in the underlying belief systems of the various religions. In this sense, Gert was absolutely correct. For example, Hinduism believes in ONE god (contrary to your claim) but argues that he/she assumes different forms.
I want to disagree that these are superficial things! Christians will not accept that belief in Goodness Gracious is superficial!!! this is what makes them Christians, otherwise they wouldn't be Christians, they'd be superficial Christians! Muslims do not agree completely with them so do the Jewish. Hindus worship a 108 idols!!! they carve images of monkeys,elephants and a woman with 8 arms from stone,metal and wood! they pour milk over these images and burn incense around these images. In my book its called idolatory!you want to argue that this is the one God who created the universe manifesting as wooden images of monkeys and baboons!!! over and above that they worship their million and one gurus!! They worship, krishana, ramayan,sai baba, guru dev and ramakrishna.They worship the cow as Brahma!!! (I'll tell you what, I'd rather eat a cow than worship it!!)these are fundamentals to their religion, not superficial at all! I would like to believe that all the religions preach one thing, but unfortunately that is not true at all!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 09, 2011, 01:36:33 PM
I want to disagree that these are superficial things! Christians will not accept that belief in Goodness Gracious is superficial!!! this is what makes them Christians, otherwise they wouldn't be Christians, they'd be superficial Christians! Muslims do not agree completely with them so do the Jewish. Hindus worship a 108 idols!!! they carve images of monkeys,elephants and a woman with 8 arms from stone,metal and wood! they pour milk over these images and burn incense around these images. In my book its called idolatory!you want to argue that this is the one God who created the universe manifesting as wooden images of monkeys and baboons!!! over and above that they worship their million and one gurus!! They worship, krishana, ramayan,sai baba, guru dev and ramakrishna.They worship the cow as Brahma!!! (I'll tell you what, I'd rather eat a cow than worship it!!)these are fundamentals to their religion, not superficial at all! I would like to believe that all the religions preach one thing, but unfortunately that is not true at all!

Ok, so which one is the one true religion? Only one can be the one true religion. Agreed? So which one is it?
And before you say Christainity - which denomination?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 09, 2011, 01:38:18 PM
Arch, as I said: hindus worship these 'idols' as the various incarnations of god. I stand by my view that the basic message of all religions is the same. However, what is more disturbing about your response is the utter contempt that you show for the religious beliefs of non-christians. The idea that 'my religion is the only correct one' is common among religious people. It is offensive and the cause of so much of the misery and suffering that plagues the world.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 01:44:21 PM
@ Strainger: equating science and religion is completely falacious.

I did that? Where? (scrolling, scrolling)

I say just as science cannot pretend to explain what I am feeling, religion cannot pretend to explain the unfolding of every scientific process that takes place.

I say religion, as it is, is coloured by the interpretation of men with their particular ideologies. The bible tried to convey certain things to people centuries ago - like you trying to explain that whole thermo-dynamics thing to people centuries ago. Surely you can convey the idea behind it all, but without the scientific development through all the ages, there will be gaps you simply cannot fill.

I say maybe, maybe, science and religion (both in their pure form) see part of the picture. Which surely you can leave room for if you can use words like 'mind-boggling' (cannot be encompassed by the mind, right?) . And, maybe then, the mind-boggling possibility of the mind-boggling existence of God.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 09, 2011, 01:47:36 PM
Ok, so which one is the one true religion? Only one can be the one true religion. Agreed? So which one is it?
And before you say Christainity - which denomination?

I hope you're not getting some arbitrary answer.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 01:50:53 PM
A 'good' atheist stays good because being good is a social virtue that is its own reward, both in actual life and in theory.

If you replace 'atheist' with 'human being' you have it right. There are simple qualities a human being (should) have before we even get to the question of religious principles.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 01:58:21 PM
Ok, so which one is the one true religion? Only one can be the one true religion. Agreed? So which one is it?
And before you say Christainity - which denomination?

It must be clear, Frikkie: true religion must be the belief in God (you'll say if he exists) as he truly is - not the image that is created by the interpretion of man. Asking today which religion is the right one, is like asking which political party is the correct one.

Ah. Pascal's Wager. Rather be good than not. Just in case.

And will you tell me that being good doesn't make you feel good? Principles of being human... (not scientifically proven, of course).  ;D

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: mahleu on November 09, 2011, 01:59:40 PM
I agree 100% Some of the some heinous crimes are committed in the name of religion by so-called religious people - apartheid, suicide bombers, the crusades, holy wars ... the list goes on and on. Conversely, I have never heard of atheists starting a war to abolish religion or to force their views down the throats of unwilling theists.

If we're going that route then we should probably mention that religious people were quite happy killing each other with spears and stones until some scientists came up with more creative ways.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 09, 2011, 02:07:17 PM
It must be clear, Frikkie: true religion must be the belief in God

But whose God...?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 09, 2011, 02:09:45 PM
If we're going that route then we should probably mention that religious people were quite happy killing each other with spears and stones until some scientists came up with more creative ways.


So all that changed for them was that they could happily kill more people with greater ease?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Dennis on November 09, 2011, 02:10:32 PM
a woman with 8 arms
Now if they made it 8 t1ts, I might have changed my mind.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 02:11:34 PM
Just like religious people may legitimately ask: 'what happened before the big bang?'; so too may atheists ask (given the laws of thermo-dynamics that suggest that energy can never be created or destroyed): 'who or what created god?'

Sticking to the mind-boggling freedom of thought we (should) possess: allowing that the (known) laws of the (known) universe dictate that energy cannot be created or destroyed - who says anything outside this universe must conform to the same laws? And if that is a problem: who says there is nothing outside this universe?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: mahleu on November 09, 2011, 02:14:10 PM
So all that changed for them was that they could happily kill more people with greater ease?

Effectively yes. So science is bad :p

But seriously, if religion wasn't involved people would just find some other reason to have wars (oil, women, etc). More often than not it's a convenient justification with ulterior motives.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 02:15:25 PM
While this is largely true, it focuses on the superficial and overlooks the many commonalities in the underlying belief systems of the various religions. In this sense, Gert was absolutely correct. For example, Hinduism believes in ONE god (contrary to your claim) but argues that he/she assumes different forms. Gert was also correct in his assessment of the bible - it started as an oral tradition, was passed on from generation to generation, has been translated and contextualised numerous times, only contains the gospels that the catholic church deemed appropriate, etc. etc.

@ Byrd: Who is this 'Gordon' that you keep referring to? If, by any chance, it is me; that's not my name.

@ Strainger: equating science and religion is completely falacious. It does not follow from the fact that scientific knowledge changes over time (as scientists expand their knowledge of nature) that religion offers an equally valid interpretation of the origins of life, etc. Unfortunately, you cannot have it both ways - if science and religion contradict each other on a particular issue, you cannot logically accept both. The point I tried to make earlier is this: even though science is fallible, it offers a far more coherent, verifiable and believeable set of ideas than ANY other. Just like religious people may legitimately ask: 'what happened before the big bang?'; so too may atheists ask (given the laws of thermo-dynamics that suggest that energy can never be created or destroyed): 'who or what created god?'

As for life on other planets; surely, it depends on having the conditions necessary for intelligent life to evolve. Given the mind-boggling scale of the universe, there is a very good chance that intelligent life has evolved on other planets, which have the 'right' mix of gasses in their atmosphere, contain water, are not too close or too far from a sun, etc.

Gordon

I see you are quite precise with your grammar and punctuation so I thought I would just point out that Bible and Catholic are capitals.

Science is a branch of knowledge or study whereas religion is as set of common beliefs generally held by a number of people. It does not make any sense to juxtapose these two. Comparing science and theology is more appropriate, however they still have vastly different objectives. Science deals with the physical world, whereas theology deals with divinity and religious truth and their effect on humanity. Any 'contradiction' is likely to be one or the other having one of its fervent proponents overstepping its bounds.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 02:17:56 PM
But whose God...?

Note: God (if he exists) as he truly is - whichever form.

Just like: you are who you are and you prefer people to treat you accordingly and you do not like to be slandered and you do not like people classifying or treating you according to that slandered image.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 09, 2011, 02:18:53 PM
... true religion must be the belief in God (you'll say if he exists) as he truly is - not the image that is created by the interpretion of man.


Not to be confrontational but where do you get this from? Is there some arbiter of true religion that you have access to? And please don't say THE BIBLE, because that would be just a circular argument as we all know that the christian bible is very much an interpretation of man, revised by various bodies over the last couple of hundred years to get rid of some troublesome bits. (Lower case intentional for descriptive terms.)

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 09, 2011, 02:19:19 PM
But whose God...?

My point exactly.

And w.r.t. Pascal wager - I don't need to fear some eternal death to be a good person. I'm a good person with great morals because I want to be one. Abe will say "Christian". I say bullshit. Any decent person will strive to these things, without any fear of doG.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 02:21:43 PM
My point exactly.

And w.r.t. Pascal wager - I don't need to fear some eternal death to be a good person. I'm a good person with great morals because I want to be one. Abe will say "Christian". I say bullshit. Any decent person will strive to these things, without any fear of doG.

Oi, oi, Frikkie...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 09, 2011, 02:23:54 PM
Note: God (if he exists) as he truly is - whichever form.

Just like: you are who you are and you prefer people to treat you accordingly and you do not like to be slandered and you do not like people classifying or treating you according to that slandered image.

Hmm, I'm not comfortable with that explanation. 'God' is very much a Christian term of reference. It might be more reasonable to refer to a 'Supreme Being', 'Higher Entity' to make the comment more encompassing of other faiths/beliefs?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 09, 2011, 02:29:38 PM
Sticking to the mind-boggling freedom of thought we (should) possess: allowing that the (known) laws of the (known) universe dictate that energy cannot be created or destroyed - who says anything outside this universe must conform to the same laws? And if that is a problem: who says there is nothing outside this universe?

True. Scientists are already contemplating the idea of multiple dimensions. On your earlier post, I was simply suggesting that it is problematic to assume that religion can explain whatever science cannot or has not yet explained.

If we're going that route then we should probably mention that religious people were quite happy killing each other with spears and stones until some scientists came up with more creative ways.

Scientists would not have had any incentives to invent 'more creative ways' to kill people if the antagonisms between religions did not exist in the first place.

Gordon

I see you are quite precise with your grammar and punctuation so I thought I would just point out that Bible and Catholic are capitals.

Science is a branch of knowledge or study whereas religion is as set of common beliefs generally held by a number of people. It does not make any sense to juxtapose these two. Comparing science and theology is more appropriate, however they still have vastly different objectives. Science deals with the physical world, whereas theology deals with divinity and religious truth and their effect on humanity. Any 'contradiction' is likely to be one or the other having one of its fervent proponents overstepping its bounds.

Firstly, to repeat: who is Gordon? Secondly, I accept your distinction between religion and science. The problem, however, is that many religious people do not accept the boundaries that you have drawn. For example, creationists reject the findings of the biological sciences and use the bible to answer scientific questions.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 02:30:21 PM
Not to be confrontational but where do you get this from? Is there some arbiter of true religion that you have access to? And please don't say THE BIBLE, because that would be just a circular argument as we all know that the christian bible is very much an interpretation of man, revised by various bodies over the last couple of hundred years to get rid of some troublesome bits. (Lower case intentional for descriptive terms.)

Please not that I have not once quoted the Bible (thanks Byrd) in trying to make a point.

It is just common sense: 1. If God exists, then 2. true religion can only be the belief in him (1.). Or do you want me to expand the statement: true religion can only be the belief in ANY god that REALLY exists as he/they really are.

Yes?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 09, 2011, 02:33:43 PM
Oi, oi, Frikkie...

What?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 02:36:26 PM
I agree 100% Some of the some heinous crimes are committed in the name of religion by so-called religious people - apartheid, suicide bombers, the crusades, holy wars ... the list goes on and on. Conversely, I have never heard of atheists starting a war to abolish religion or to force their views down the throats of unwilling theists.

After crushing those kittens, you should not forget to pick up some rocks on the way. According to the bible, people who are guilty of adultery must be stoned to death.
Hitler? Stalin? Mao?

And before you say that Hitler was a Christian and quote out of Mein Kampf - please not in Deutsch - have a look at more recent historical evidence.

Atheist or theist - both are capable of terrible atrocities when lead by power hungry men with a twist in their psyche.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 02:37:55 PM
Hmm, I'm not comfortable with that explanation. 'God' is very much a Christian term of reference. It might be more reasonable to refer to a 'Supreme Being', 'Higher Entity' to make the comment more encompassing of other faiths/beliefs?

Andrew, I tried 'supremely intelligent alien' in earlier posts...

Ok, amended:

Please not that I have not once quoted the Bible (thanks Byrd) in trying to make a point.

It is just common sense: 1. If God exists, then 2. true religion can only be the belief in him (1.). Or do you want me to expand the statement: true religion can only be the belief in ANY god that REALLY exists as he/they really are.

Yes?

Or do I need to take care of the gender thing?  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 09, 2011, 02:40:01 PM
Andrew, I tried 'supremely intelligent alien' in earlier posts...

Ok, amended:

Or do I need to take care of the gender thing?  ;D

Well, She might be offended if you don't!  ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 09, 2011, 02:42:40 PM
Please not that I have not once quoted the Bible (thanks Byrd) in trying to make a point.

It is just common sense: 1. If God exists, then 2. true religion can only be the belief in him (1.). Or do you want me to expand the statement: true religion can only be the belief in ANY god that REALLY exists as he/they really are.

Yes?

I'm not sure I understand fully what you're saying - if you mean that until such time as there is absolute proof of a god, one "that REALLY exists", only then can one believe in a god, then I agree with you.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 09, 2011, 02:46:56 PM
Arch, as I said: hindus worship these 'idols' as the various incarnations of god. I stand by my view that the basic message of all religions is the same. However, what is more disturbing about your response is the utter contempt that you show for the religious beliefs of non-christians. The idea that 'my religion is the only correct one' is common among religious people. It is offensive and the cause of so much of the misery and suffering that plagues the world.
I have never said my religion is the one true religion or the correct one! I pointed out the fundamental differences between the various religions, and i emphasiesd the practices of Hinduism and their beliefs. I don't see why I should apologise on their behalf for what they practice and belief in! If hindus have a problem with the fact that they worship idols, they should desist from worshipping idols!I agree with you religious intolerance is the cause of many strifes and wars and misery in this world! I wish people could engage in debate about their religions and accept the differences within their religions and accept that they will never come to any compromise. You can not for example, ask a devout christian whom the bible teaches to refrain from idolatry to practice hinduism. but we can teach others to be tolerant of others and live with them. I'll tell you one thing, religious intolerance arises from political motivation, when one empire wants to impose its religion on other people that is where all the strifes come from! my view is that let the muslim practice islam, without attempting to dilute it with Christianity or hinduism, but let him do so without intefwering on the rights of others to practise whatever beliefs they want to practice. And yes I believe it is utterly wrong to equate any one religion with another! So you think that God incarnates as a piece of wood that has been shaped into a monkey form(Hanuman) or elephant (ganesha) or the woman with 8 arms (vishnu), or that God incarnates as Sai baba, who has been accused of fraud and molesting kids! I think its a very dim view and shows little regard for God!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 02:49:01 PM
Firstly, to repeat: who is Gordon? Secondly, I accept your distinction between religion and science. The problem, however, is that many religious people do not accept the boundaries that you have drawn. For example, creationists reject the findings of the biological sciences and use the bible to answer scientific questions.
I disagree - not many. Very few relatively speaking.

Creationists are not the majority of the Christian world. I personally disagree with the literal interpretation of Genesis, however those who wish to believe in it have the right to do so without being harassed. The danger, as has been mentioned, is radical fundamentalism. Where these beliefs are foisted on others. Where children are "prepared for war" from an early age. Most here would think I am talking about Muslim fundamentalists. Watch the documentary "Goodness Camp".

What needs to be kept in mind is that radical is termed radical for a reason, it is in the minority.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Steerpike on November 09, 2011, 02:49:59 PM
Why can there be only one god? If there is justification for one, what prevents there from being two, or even an infinite number ?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 09, 2011, 02:50:14 PM
Hitler? Stalin? Mao? And before you say that Hitler was a Christian and quote out of Mein Kampf - please not in Deutsch - have a look at more recent historical evidence. Atheist or theist - both are capable of terrible atrocities when lead by power hungry men with a twist in their psyche.

I read somewhere that Hitler believed in the occult and, as such, was not strictly speaking a Christian. To be fair to the other crackpots you mentioned (Mao and Stalin), they did not start any wars and their ideologies were more anti-capitalist than anti-religion.

not-Gordon ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 02:56:49 PM
And w.r.t. Pascal wager - I don't need to fear some eternal death to be a good person. I'm a good person with great morals because I want to be one. Abe will say "Christian". I say bullshit. Any decent person will strive to these things, without any fear of doG.

Like I said: there are certain qualities that ppl (should) have that makes them 'human beings', even before coming to any religious principles -such as respecting others, doing good to others, etc. Because it makes you feel good!

Only THEN you go and wonder why you feel angry at someone that you do not even believe exists. Or wonder why you are unhappy, or whatever.

And then you fill that up with whatever/whoever eventually fills it for you. Or not.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 03:00:48 PM
I read somewhere that Hitler believed in the occult and, as such, was not strictly speaking a Christian. To be fair to the other crackpots you mentioned (Mao and Stalin), they did not start any wars and their ideologies were more anti-capitalist than anti-religion.

not-Gordon ;D

Hey, not-Gordon. May I call you Audio? Or do you prefer Mr. Bug?  ;D

Anyway, I must say as far as I know Stalin and Mao went to extreme lengths to exterminate any form of religion - destroyed monastries, churches and killing everybody associated.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 09, 2011, 03:04:12 PM
I have never said my religion is the one true religion or the correct one! ... I think its a very dim view and shows little regard for God!

Again - who's god? (lower case intentional) If your god is not the one true one, why bother?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 09, 2011, 03:08:57 PM
I have never said my religion is the one true religion or the correct one! I pointed out the fundamental differences between the various religions, and i emphasiesd the practices of Hinduism and their beliefs. I don't see why I should apologise on their behalf for what they practice and belief in! If hindus have a problem with the fact that they worship idols, they should desist from worshipping idols!I agree with you religious intolerance is the cause of many strifes and wars and misery in this world! I wish people could engage in debate about their religions and accept the differences within their religions and accept that they will never come to any compromise. You can not for example, ask a devout christian whom the bible teaches to refrain from idolatry to practice hinduism. but we can teach others to be tolerant of others and live with them. I'll tell you one thing, religious intolerance arises from political motivation, when one empire wants to impose its religion on other people that is where all the strifes come from! my view is that let the muslim practice islam, without attempting to dilute it with Christianity or hinduism, but let him do so without intefwering on the rights of others to practise whatever beliefs they want to practice. And yes I believe it is utterly wrong to equate any one religion with another! So you think that God incarnates as a piece of wood that has been shaped into a monkey form(Hanuman) or elephant (ganesha) or the woman with 8 arms (vishnu), or that God incarnates as Sai baba, who has been accused of fraud and molesting kids! I think its a very dim view and shows little regard for God!

You don't have to say something for someone to infer your underlying intentions. What you are saying about hindus is insulting and offensive. It also assumes that you somehow have access to the 'truth' about how one should worship. The fact of the matter is that hindus may, quite legitimately, claim that the way in which you worship is "a very dim view and shows little regard for God!" Read your post again - it is patently obvious that the implicit text is: 'I am right and hindus are wrong'. This subconscious, often unintentional, antipathy to opposing belief systems is a product of the deeply ingrained socialisation into a particular religion at an early age.

Ps. If I remember correctly, Vishnu is not a woman.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 03:10:00 PM
I have never said my religion is the one true religion or the correct one! I pointed out the fundamental differences between the various religions, and i emphasiesd the practices of Hinduism and their beliefs. I don't see why I should apologise on their behalf for what they practice and belief in! If hindus have a problem with the fact that they worship idols, they should desist from worshipping idols!I agree with you religious intolerance is the cause of many strifes and wars and misery in this world! I wish people could engage in debate about their religions and accept the differences within their religions and accept that they will never come to any compromise. You can not for example, ask a devout christian whom the bible teaches to refrain from idolatry to practice hinduism. but we can teach others to be tolerant of others and live with them. I'll tell you one thing, religious intolerance arises from political motivation, when one empire wants to impose its religion on other people that is where all the strifes come from! my view is that let the muslim practice islam, without attempting to dilute it with Christianity or hinduism, but let him do so without intefwering on the rights of others to practise whatever beliefs they want to practice. And yes I believe it is utterly wrong to equate any one religion with another! So you think that God incarnates as a piece of wood that has been shaped into a monkey form(Hanuman) or elephant (ganesha) or the woman with 8 arms (vishnu), or that God incarnates as Sai baba, who has been accused of fraud and molesting kids! I think its a very dim view and shows little regard for God!
The same can be said of the Christian religion.

The pastors and priests that God works through on earth have done the same and worse. And not just been accused, but tried and convicted. It shows little regard for God, but these are humans.

These "idols" as I understand it are icons of the various manifestations of God. They are not God themselves. Everything contains God though you, me the words you speak / write. I think it may well be better though for one of our Hindu members to speak here, I am sure we have some.

Do you have a cross or any other symbol in your church? What robes do you wear?

My personal opinion is that I do find your comments on other's religion is a little demeaning. Eat a cow?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 03:13:03 PM
Why can there be only one god? If there is justification for one, what prevents there from being two, or even an infinite number ?

I cannot give attempt to give my opinion on that without entering the realms of strictly religion. So, if you do not mind, I'll refrain.  :)

I'm not sure I understand fully what you're saying - if you mean that until such time as there is absolute proof of a god, one "that REALLY exists", only then can one believe in a god, then I agree with you.

If you want to call the worship of a tree religion, then I see. But the question was about TRUE religion - which can only exist if there really are (a) god/gods. But then, on the part you agree with me, I disagree with you, because as soon as you PROOF the existence of a god, there is no belief required.  :)

And you see, Andrew, here applies the principle of the word 'god', because the word supposes or asks for 'worship' - whatever your language or culture - unlike 'supreme being' or 'clever alien'.   ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 09, 2011, 03:20:15 PM
Hey, not-Gordon. May I call you Audio? Or do you prefer Mr. Bug?  ;D

That is Prof. Bug to you. ;D ;D ;D

Anyway, I must say as far as I know Stalin and Mao went to extreme lengths to exterminate any form of religion - destroyed monastries, churches and killing everybody associated.

Yes, they did. They also killed political opponents, gays, people who liked rock 'n' roll, etc. etc. However, the Soviet Union and China relaxed their clampdown on religion soon after those two megalomaniacs died.

as soon as you PROOF the existence of a god, there is no belief required

Is that not just a convenient way of copping out? Surely, the onus is on those, who say a god exists, to prove it? If I make the claim that there is a pink elephant with wings in the sky, it would be mischievous for me to suggest that those who do not believe me, should prove that such a creature does not exist.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 09, 2011, 03:21:02 PM

And you see, Andrew, here applies the principle of the word 'god', because the word supposes or asks for 'worship' - whatever your language or culture - unlike 'supreme being' or 'clever alien'.   ;D

Agreed for god, disagreed for 'God', because the 'G' used in the second generally refers to the Christian 'God'.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 03:27:54 PM
That is Prof. Bug to you. ;D ;D ;D

Yes, they did. They also killed political opponents, gays, people who liked rock 'n' roll, etc. etc. However, the Soviet Union and China relaxed their clampdown on religion soon after those two megalomaniacs died.

Ok, Prof it is  ;D

Point is: they tried to eliminate everything (forget religion) that stood in the way of their ideology. And religion, too, becomes only an ideology when the religist... religee... err person tries to force it down the throat of anyone else. So, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Crusaders, Inquisitors... all the same. No God.  ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 09, 2011, 03:31:10 PM
The same can be said of the Christian religion.

The pastors and priests that God works through on earth have done the same and worse. And not just been accused, but tried and convicted. It shows little regard for God, but these are humans.

These "idols" as I understand it are icons of the various manifestations of God. They are not God themselves. Everything contains God though you, me the words you speak / write. I think it may well be better though for one of our Hindu members to speak here, I am sure we have some.

Do you have a cross or any other symbol in your church? What robes do you wear?

My personal opinion is that I do find your comments on other's religion is a little demeaning. Eat a cow?

my comments are not demeaning, but seeks clarity on a logical level. those pastors and priests have fallen far short of the requisites of being pastors,I'll agree with you there. but this could be that those people who were imposters, were finally found out not to be true pastors.Also these pastors are not worshipped as God, they are human beings attempting to minister God's word! What I could never understand about your understanding of Hinduism is why God would want to manifest as a piece of wood or metal or stone shaped as a monkey or cow or donkey or whatever the case maybe, and I have a problem with the statement that everything contains God! everything?! does that include, dog poop?! and horse poop as well?! and folk poop?! So God is present in a dog, a cow, a snake? then why would a snake want to bite me? if God exists in every person, why do people rape and murder each other, is that God raping God? A 33 year old God raping a 2 year old God? maybe you want to revise your assertion that God is in everything and everyone! Hinduism in my opinion stretches the limits of human understanding!!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 03:34:49 PM
Agreed for god, disagreed for 'God', because the 'G' used in the second generally refers to the Christian 'God'.

But, then, maybe you are only an andrew. After all, you are on the other side of one of the many lightning fast tentacles of my GPRS connection. So, how do I really know you are ANDREW?? (squint)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 09, 2011, 03:36:17 PM
But, then, maybe you are only an andrew. After all, you are on the other side of one of the many lightning fast tentacles of my GPRS connection. So, how do I really know you are ANDREW?? (squint)

Well, it doesn't really make any difference because neither andrew nor ANDREW deserves to be worshiped.  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 03:37:52 PM
Well, it doesn't really make any difference because neither andrew nor ANDREW deserves to be worshiped.  ;D

Damn good point! hehehe
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 09, 2011, 03:38:44 PM
my comments are not demeaning, but seeks clarity on a logical level. those pastors and priests have fallen far short of the requisites of being pastors,I'll agree with you there. but this could be that those people who were imposters, were finally found out not to be true pastors.Also these pastors are not worshipped as God, they are human beings attempting to minister God's word! What I could never understand about your understanding of Hinduism is why God would want to manifest as a piece of wood or metal or stone shaped as a monkey or cow or donkey or whatever the case maybe, and I have a problem with the statement that everything contains God! everything?! does that include, dog poop?! and horse poop as well?! and folk poop?! So God is present in a dog, a cow, a snake? then why would a snake want to bite me? if God exists in every person, why do people rape and murder each other, is that God raping God? A 33 year old God raping a 2 year old God? maybe you want to revise your assertion that God is in everything and everyone! Hinduism in my opinion stretches the limits of human understanding!!

But Genesis refers to God making man in His own image, so it depends on how you interpret that?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 09, 2011, 03:48:19 PM
my comments are not demeaning, but seeks clarity on a logical level. those pastors and priests have fallen far short of the requisites of being pastors,I'll agree with you there. but this could be that those people who were imposters, were finally found out not to be true pastors.Also these pastors are not worshipped as God, they are human beings attempting to minister God's word! What I could never understand about your understanding of Hinduism is why God would want to manifest as a piece of wood or metal or stone shaped as a monkey or cow or donkey or whatever the case maybe, and I have a problem with the statement that everything contains God! everything?! does that include, dog poop?! and horse poop as well?! and folk poop?! So God is present in a dog, a cow, a snake? then why would a snake want to bite me? if God exists in every person, why do people rape and murder each other, is that God raping God? A 33 year old God raping a 2 year old God? maybe you want to revise your assertion that God is in everything and everyone! Hinduism in my opinion stretches the limits of human understanding!!

Your comments are demeaning/insulting and the fact that you cannot/will not recognise that speaks volumes for the ways in which religious beliefs can distort the views of (otherwise logical and tolerant) people. The reality is that you have been steeped in Christianity for so long that you can only view other religions though that conceptual or normative framework. Your questions on poop demonstrate that very clearly. All religions are weird when you hear about them for the first time. To repeat, the only reason you are unable to see the contradictions, implausibility and incredibility of Christianity (yet seem quite able to detect it clearly in other religions) is because you were 'indoctrinated' with Christian beliefs from a very early age.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 03:51:14 PM
Is that not just a convenient way of copping out? Surely, the onus is on those, who say a god exists, to prove it? If I make the claim that there is a pink elephant with wings in the sky, it would be mischievous for me to suggest that those who do not believe me, should prove that such a creature does not exist.

It was just tongue-in-cheek about the words: 'belief' and 'proof' do not exactly go together in that context.

But, what you say holds true IF I am trying to prove the existence of God. Which I am not. I am trying to say that you cannot claim that God does NOT exist via lack of scientific proof, just like we leave room for the possibility that aliens exist, or that a multiverse exists. Or, that we may still discover, or irrevocably prove to be false, that this God had something to do with the whole domino effect.

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 09, 2011, 03:58:43 PM
Your comments are demeaning/insulting and the fact that you cannot/will not recognise that speaks volumes for the ways in which religious beliefs can distort the views of (otherwise logical and tolerant) people. The reality is that you have been steeped in Christianity for so long that you can only view other religions though that conceptual or normative framework. Your questions on poop demonstrate that very clearly. All religions are weird when you hear about them for the first time. To repeat, the only reason you are unable to see the contradictions, implausibility and incredibility of Christianity (yet seem quite able to detect it clearly in other religions) is because you were 'indoctrinated' with Christian beliefs from a very early age.
its fascinating how you keep insisting on me being christian and how I was raised as christian!! If you ask me about the incredulity, implasibility and contradictions of christianity I could write a book on that. Its also fascinating that you picked on my comments about hinduism and not Islam and Judaism! and you keep insisting that I'm intolerable of other beliefs, I just don't understand them, just as you may find it difficult to understand African beliefs. I find nothing wrong, with me not understand hinduism and finding it strange, its not my religion or custom or tradition, and so are other religions!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 09, 2011, 04:03:44 PM
It was just tongue-in-cheek about the words: 'belief' and 'proof' do not exactly go together in that context.

But, what you say holds true IF I am trying to prove the existence of God. Which I am not. I am trying to say that you cannot claim that God does NOT exist via lack of scientific proof, just like we leave room for the possibility that aliens exist, or that a multiverse exists. Or, that we may still discover, or irrevocably prove to be false, that this God had something to do with the whole domino effect.

No objections. You raise an important point, which is often not properly understood. Like 'being religious', 'being an atheist' exists along a continuum ranging from agnosticism (i.e. 'I do not know') to full-blown anti-theism (i.e. 'I am absolutely convinced that there can be no god and anyone who says otherwise is wrong'). Many atheists, myself included, fall somewhere between those two extremes. Agnosticism is not logical - it implies that there is a 50-50 chance that god does exist. Conversely, anti-theism implies that we can be certain of something about which there can be no certainty.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 04:06:34 PM
I read somewhere that Hitler believed in the occult and, as such, was not strictly speaking a Christian. To be fair to the other crackpots you mentioned (Mao and Stalin), they did not start any wars and their ideologies were more anti-capitalist than anti-religion.

not-Gordon ;D
Godon, I am not sure where you took History

"Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.

Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction as a public institution: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938.[86] During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, and thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression in Khrushchev's time. The Russian Orthodox Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.
Just days before Stalin's death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted. Many religions popular in the ethnic regions of the Soviet Union including the Roman Catholic Church (including the Eastern Catholic Churches), Baptists, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. underwent ordeals similar to the Orthodox churches in other parts: thousands of monks were persecuted, and hundreds of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, sacred monuments, monasteries and other religious buildings were razed.
Stalin had a different policy outside of the Soviet Union, he supported the Communist Uyghur Muslim separatists under Ehmetjan Qasim in the Ili Rebellion against the Anti Communist Republic of China regime. He supplied weapons to the Uyghur Ili army and Red Army support against Chinese forces, and helped them established the Second East Turkestan Republic of which Islam was the official state religion."

Outlawing and persecuting the Religious - seems atheist to me ...

"Marxist-Leninist ideology was opposed to religion, and people were told to become atheists from the early days of the PRC's existence. During the Destruction of Four Olds campaign, religious affairs of all types were discouraged by Red Guards, and practitioners persecuted. Temples, churches, mosques, monasteries, and cemeteries were closed down and sometimes converted to other uses, looted, and destroyed. Marxist propaganda depicted Buddhism as superstition, and religion was looked upon as a means of hostile foreign infiltration, as well as an instrument of the 'ruling class'. Chinese Marxists declared 'the death of God', and considered religion a defilement of the Chinese communist vision. Clergy were arrested and sent to camps; many Tibetan Buddhists were forced to participate in the destruction of their monasteries at gunpoint."

As far as the Cultural Revolution of Chairman Mao goes there were millions killed and persecuted. So although not a war per se, it should be clear that apartheid is quite mild compared to this and i know you find that abhorrent.

If you look at the more recent evidence Hitler was to abolish all Religions after the final battle was won.

Furthermore even currently
"In the People's Republic of China (PRC), Roman Catholicism is officially banned. The Chinese government demands that all Chinese Catholics must be loyal to the state, and that worship may only be legally conducted through State-approved churches, which means the "Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association". Catholics are pressured to break communion with the Vatican by requiring them to renounce an essential belief in Roman Catholicism, the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Catholics loyal to the pope currently worship clandestinely, out of fear of imprisonment. The PRC allows only state-approved candidates to be consecrated as bishops, and so-far the Vatican has not recognized the legitimacy of any of their bishops."
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 09, 2011, 04:08:09 PM
Some excellent reading for both sides of the argument: These are short and succinct and not hard to understand.

Critical Thinking: Using Logic and Reason: http://atheism.about.com/od/criticalthinking/Critical_Thinking_Using_Logic_and_Reason.htm

How to Talk to, Debate Atheists: Ways Religious Theists can Avoid Common Errors: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheiststheism/p/HowDebate.htm

How to Talk to, Debate Theists: Ways Atheists Can Avoid Common Errors: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheiststheism/p/DebateTheists.htm

Cosmological Argument - Does the Universe Require a First Cause?: http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/cosmological.htm

And then the one question no religion has been able to answer: Who created your god?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 09, 2011, 04:09:10 PM
its fascinating how you keep insisting on me being christian and how I was raised as christian!!

Am I wrong?

Its also fascinating that you picked on my comments about hinduism and not Islam and Judaism! and you keep insisting that I'm intolerable of other beliefs, I just don't understand them, just as you may find it difficult to understand African beliefs. I find nothing wrong, with me not understand hinduism and finding it strange, its not my religion or custom or tradition, and so are other religions!

I 'picked' on hinduism because of the comments you made about it. You did not subject the other religions to similar scorn. Can you at least admit that a devote hindu may find some of your comments distasteful?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 04:16:32 PM
. Agnosticism is not logical - it implies that there is a 50-50 chance that god does exist.
Gordon that is completely misleading. It simply means that the existence is unknown - not denied or accepted. Probability does not make sense here. Think of the cat in the box.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 09, 2011, 04:19:49 PM
Godon, I am not sure where you took History

FOR F**K SAKES, STOP CALLING ME GORDON/GODON!!!

"Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.

How is this different from the way in which the catholic church behaved during medieval times? People were burned at the stake for questioning the doctrines of the church, thousands were killed for not believing in christianity, the church plundered the wealth of europe, etc. The rest of your post does not contradict anything I said.

My comments on agnosticism do make sense: if X says: 'I'm agnostic about Y', he is implying that Y may or may not exist ('not denied or accepted', as you put it). This, in turn, must imply that the existence or non-existence of Y have an equal chance of being true/false.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 09, 2011, 04:20:48 PM

Can you at least admit that a devote hindu may find some of your comments distasteful?
My sincere apologies to all Hindus or all religious adherents, for my insensitive comments. In the heat of the moment I may have transgressed against acceptable limits for a constructive argument. I do not and will never advocate hatred for any one person on religious, social, political, economic or ethnic grounds. I admit I may have displayed a little bit of overzealousness in my pursuit to win an argument and I apologise unconditionally to all who may have been hurt by my insensitive and inconsiderate remarks. I meant no offense and I sincerely hope none was taken.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 09, 2011, 04:33:37 PM
Is this the never ending thread? :D

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 04:35:05 PM
Gorden

I wrote
Atheist or theist - both are capable of terrible atrocities when lead by power hungry men with a twist in their psyche.

The number of people that died during the times of the crusades (which was both Muslim as Christian and had a political edge to it, and the inquisition) was far lower than the number affected by just those two drives. I think that what I said does contradict what you said. You cannot divide the atheist agenda from the communist ideology. The churches and monasteries were not capitalist devices - therefore why persecute them? It was specifically the atheist agenda within the communism that caused the religious to be persecuted.

However my point stands
Atheist or theist - both are capable of terrible atrocities when lead by power hungry men with a twist in their psyche.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 04:36:04 PM
My sincere apologies to all Hindus or all religious adherents, for my insensitive comments. In the heat of the moment I may have transgressed against acceptable limits for a constructive argument. I do not and will never advocate hatred for any one person on religious, social, political, economic or ethnic grounds. I admit I may have displayed a little bit of overzealousness in my pursuit to win an argument and I apologise unconditionally to all who may have been hurt by my insensitive and inconsiderate remarks. I meant no offense and I sincerely hope none was taken.
I wonder if you will hear the same from the other side.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 09, 2011, 04:38:27 PM
FOR F**K SAKES, STOP CALLING ME GORDON/GODON!!!

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 04:43:36 PM
But Genesis refers to God making man in His own image, so it depends on how you interpret that?

Well, (A)andrew, I am glad you asked that question... No, I am not, but I AM trying to get my posts up to 100.

Please bear with me here, since it relies solely on my personal belief, but for me it is totally relevant to the whole thread. Capiche??

I simply believe that it means we were given the capacity to understand God's logic, heart and laws - and with laws I mean the SYSTEM that runs the universe, like the law of gravity, etc. I believe we can understand anything about the universe, because it was never meant to be hidden from us. We just have to get there. Yes, science!

But, then, this whole mind-boggingly huge shebang is ultimately just a place to live in. And, if you are an ape, to be the bloody best ape you can, because only then will you really feel (go?) ape.



Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 09, 2011, 04:45:27 PM
Gorden

ARE YOU BLIND?? MY NAME IS NOT GORDON, GODON, GORDEN OR ANY OTHER DERIVATIVE OF THAT NAME.

I wonder if you will hear the same from the other side.

I did not realise that there were 'sides'. Please explain what defines the different 'sides'? What do you want from the 'other side'? An apology? For what?

Ps. there is no atheist 'agenda' - the great thing about atheism is that you don't need an 'agenda'; you just live your life as best as you can.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 05:02:57 PM
ARE YOU BLIND?? MY NAME IS NOT GORDON, GODON, GORDEN OR ANY OTHER DERIVATIVE OF THAT NAME.

I did not realise that there were 'sides'. Please explain what defines the different 'sides'? What do you want from the 'other side'? An apology? For what?
OK after a long think Jordan? Completely different etymology.

There are sides here clearly from a point of view of Arch Bishops argument. There is AB's Christian side, then there is the atheist side. Some of which has been derogatory and inflamatory. For example you are calling AB out for insulting the Hindu Religion, however in the same breath you are stating that Christianity is implausible and incredible as fact.

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 05:04:12 PM
ARE YOU BLIND?? MY NAME IS NOT GORDON, GODON, GORDEN OR ANY OTHER DERIVATIVE OF THAT NAME.

I did not realise that there were 'sides'. Please explain what defines the different 'sides'? What do you want from the 'other side'? An apology? For what?

Ps. there is no atheist 'agenda' - the great thing about atheism is that you don't need an 'agenda'; you just live your life as best as you can.
As part of communism there certainly is an athiest agenda. Religion is the opiate of the masses ....

Did you notice - that was your 911 post?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 09, 2011, 05:07:09 PM
Christianity is implausible and incredible as fact.

All religions are implausible and incredible IMO. But the religious don't care, as their beliefs are based on faith.
The factual anomalies are irrelevant.

And that, in my mind, is quite scary. As that is where fanaticism gets born... :o
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 09, 2011, 05:10:29 PM
The really interesting thing about arguments based on  cause and effect is that it presupposes that our perception of time is real and a true unitary constant which Mr Einstein (capitalisation deserved) has postulated as being not, and science subsequently also proved not to be the case. Thus if time is part of creation, as it must be, then before creation (and time), cause and effect also didn't exist, as it needs time to follow on each other. So before time there was also no cause and effect and thus....   ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 09, 2011, 05:19:33 PM
Anyone going to the Janet Jackson concert.....now there's a baboon ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: u235 on November 09, 2011, 05:22:23 PM
Those were good links - WH - thanks.

As for Gordon - why is he trying to hide his real identity? when I knew him he was such an open, trusting lad, pulling the wings off flies and so on, now he pretends to be a serious academic and denies his own name (NAME?)

Gordon, admit it - it IS you! :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 05:27:12 PM
All religions are implausible and incredible IMO. But the religious don't care, as their beliefs are based on faith.
The factual anomalies are irrelevant.

And that, in my mind, is quite scary. As that is where fanaticism gets born... :o
Don't be too worried, about religion at least. The percentage of fanatics is quite low, although they can be fairly explosive.

Look to political machinations if you really want to be worried about the state of affairs.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: legro on November 09, 2011, 06:23:31 PM
God does not believe in atheists, so they do not exist. ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 06:44:32 PM
So before time there was also no cause and effect and thus....   ;D

Thus anything/anyone that existed (and I exercise my right of poetic freedom to use the word) before creation must have been outside time and matter...  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 09, 2011, 06:55:36 PM
Thus anything/anyone that existed (and I exercise my right of poetic freedom to use the word) before creation must have been outside time and matter...  ;D

There is no before before time.. before and after are time concepts.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 07:00:35 PM
There is no before before time.. before and after are time concepts.

Granted. But we do not have any words to describe status of being outside of time, do we? Hence my grabbing at the straw of poetic freedom.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 09, 2011, 07:05:03 PM
Well, (A)andrew, I am glad you asked that question... No, I am not, but I AM trying to get my posts up to 100.

Please bear with me here, since it relies solely on my personal belief, but for me it is totally relevant to the whole thread. Capiche??

I simply believe that it means we were given the capacity to understand God's logic, heart and laws - and with laws I mean the SYSTEM that runs the universe, like the law of gravity, etc. I believe we can understand anything about the universe, because it was never meant to be hidden from us. We just have to get there. Yes, science!

But, then, this whole mind-boggingly huge shebang is ultimately just a place to live in. And, if you are an ape, to be the bloody best ape you can, because only then will you really feel (go?) ape.


No, sorry, I was replying to Arch who seemed to have a problem with the notion of God being part of everything around us.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 09, 2011, 07:06:08 PM
ARE YOU BLIND?? MY NAME IS NOT GORDON, GODON, GORDEN OR ANY OTHER DERIVATIVE OF THAT NAME.


Lulz, seriously, this would go down beautifully as a Monty Python episode... ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 09, 2011, 07:06:25 PM
Deleted - bored!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 07:48:01 PM
The really interesting thing about arguments based on  cause and effect is that it presupposes that our perception of time is real and a true unitary constant which Mr Einstein (capitalisation deserved) has postulated as being not, and science subsequently also proved not to be the case. Thus if time is part of creation, as it must be, then before creation (and time), cause and effect also didn't exist, as it needs time to follow on each other. So before time there was also no cause and effect and thus....   ;D
Since there was no cause / effect what were the circumstances that gave rise to the big bang? If there was nothing at some point in our time as is the currently prevailing theory then where does our current existence arise from?

Yes Einstein certainly needs to be capitalised, to not do so would be grammatically incorrect.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 09, 2011, 08:07:46 PM
Since there was no cause / effect what were the circumstances that gave rise to the big bang? If there was nothing at some point in our time as is the currently prevailing theory then where does our current existence arise from?

Yes Einstein certainly needs to be capitalised, to not do so would be grammatically incorrect.

You're big on rules and regulations aren't you - the rigid model of grammatical propriety is only proscribed in formal writing - e e cummings wrote many a thing and published it without your approval!  ;D

As for your initial question - I truly don't know and neither does the "religulous" lot! (google it! - watch it on youtube). :o

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 08:31:03 PM
Are we finished? I feel so... deflated...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 09, 2011, 08:48:06 PM
You're big on rules and regulations aren't you - the rigid model of grammatical propriety is only proscribed in formal writing - e e cummings wrote many a thing and published it without your aproval!  ;D

As for your initial question - I truly don't know and neither does the "religulous" lot! (google it! - watch it on youtube). :o


The religious lot, as you call them, believe that God that was the originator of this singularity. I don't know how you could have missed all of the many proposed articles on google.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Blues on November 09, 2011, 08:53:12 PM
(http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/sea0511l.jpg)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 08:55:44 PM
LOL @Blues
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 09:03:24 PM
Word
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 09, 2011, 09:15:28 PM
Word

Inadequate

@ Byrd - I did not say "religious lot".

Best description of the universe: "It's turtles all the way down."
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 09:29:02 PM
Best description of the universe: "It's turtles all the way down."

At last! Some real sense... hehehe. Reminds me of that great free spirit, Terry Pratchett.

As for the inadequate part: was just trying to have the last word for once - never happens in my house...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 09, 2011, 09:31:16 PM


Back to the music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXcqfKshzkc

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 09, 2011, 10:10:26 PM
Oppo tunistic buggers....may your cd lasers burn out.......we were headed for a record here!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 09, 2011, 10:41:40 PM
Which reminds me: once a lifetime all the great planetary turtles drift close to one another, male and female, and for a while, we experience the Big Bang anew...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 10, 2011, 07:28:06 AM
These had to be created ;D

No, I'm not burning yet either  ;D ;D ;D

(http://hostingc.hotchyx.com/adult-image-hosting-08/8991sola005.jpg) (http://hotchyx.com/)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 10, 2011, 07:31:24 AM
These had to be created ;D

No, I'm not burning yet either  ;D ;D ;D

(http://hostingc.hotchyx.com/adult-image-hosting-08/8991sola005.jpg) (http://hotchyx.com/)

Excrement Agitator FTW! 8)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 10, 2011, 07:32:42 AM
Excrement Agitator FTW! 8)

 ;D nice re-post of the pic, now u in kakka with the mods/admins too :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: kay on November 10, 2011, 07:39:53 AM
Excrement Agitator FTW! 8)

+1 :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 10, 2011, 08:03:16 AM
:D:D:D:D:D:D
The modest mods are now so agitated I can only imagine a visit to the hospital (or car wash) is in order.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 10, 2011, 08:13:40 AM
A fine and prime mate she is!Does this make me a beastialitist?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 10, 2011, 08:30:05 AM
OK after a long think Jordan? Completely different etymology.

There are sides here clearly from a point of view of Arch Bishop's argument. There is AB's Christian side, then there is the atheist side. Some of which has been derogatory and inflammatory. For example you are calling AB out for insulting the Hindu Religion, however in the same breath you are stating that Christianity is implausible and incredible as fact.

It's not Jordan either!!! ;D What is it with you and names??? ;D

To avoid confusion, remember both Arch Bishop and Audio Bug are abbreviated to AB. For a second, I thought you were insulting me by putting me in the Christian 'side'. ;D

Seriously Byrd, it has been great debating/arguing with you and the Arch (BTW, where is he? Sulking? Contemplating a change of degree?). As for your comments above, I never saw this discussion as being about 'sides', but rather as an avenue to express particular metaphysical views, often in a lighthearted manner. Any reasonable person who reads the Arch's comments on Hinduism would agree that they are insulting. By contrast, my statement that Christianity is implausible and incredible was clearly a personal opinion. How that can be construed as a statement of fact or as an insult, escapes me.

If you were an alien from a distant planet visiting the earth and asked an earthling to explain the various religions, you would definitely think people on earth are mad or just plain gullible. For instance, how plausible is the idea of an ark containing a male and female of every species on the planet? What about the plants? Where did Noah put the wood borers and wood peckers? How did he stop the anteaters from eating the ants? Given the difficulties in sexing a snake, did Noah personally check the sex of every adder, mamba and cobra? How did he feed all the animals? How did he know how much an elephant or tapir eats? Did he stop over in Australia to get eucalyptus leaves for  the koalas? How did he keep those leaves fresh? When the flood ended, how did the jaguars get back to South America? Did they swim across the Atlantic?

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 10, 2011, 08:32:42 AM
how did the jaguars get back to South America? Did they swim across the Atlantic?



If they used Google directions , yes !  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 10, 2011, 08:54:30 AM
It's not Jordan either!!! ;D What is it with you and names??? ;D

To avoid confusion, remember both Arch Bishop and Audio Bug are abbreviated to AB. For a second, I thought you were insulting me by putting me in the Christian 'side'. ;D

Seriously Byrd, it has been great debating/arguing with you and the Arch (BTW, where is he? Sulking? Contemplating a change of degree?). As for your comments above, I never saw this discussion as being about 'sides', but rather as an avenue to express particular metaphysical views, often in a lighthearted manner. Any reasonable person who reads the Arch's comments on Hinduism would agree that they are insulting. By contrast, my statement that Christianity is implausible and incredible was clearly a personal opinion. How that can be construed as a statement of fact or as an insult, escapes me.

If you were an alien from a distant planet visiting the earth and asked an earthling to explain the various religions, you would definitely think people on earth are mad or just plain gullible. For instance, how plausible is the idea of an ark containing a male and female of every species on the planet? What about the plants? Where did Noah put the wood borers and wood peckers? How did he stop the anteaters from eating the ants? Given the difficulties in sexing a snake, did Noah personally check the sex of every adder, mamba and cobra? How did he feed all the animals? How did he know how much an elephant or tapir eats? Did he stop over in Australia to get eucalyptus leaves for  the koalas? How did he keep those leaves fresh? When the flood ended, how did the jaguars get back to South America? Did they swim across the Atlantic?

At the risk of being flamed *looks around nervously*, there is a fairly widespread acceptance (in my religious circles) that the Old Testament cannot be taken literally, and that much of the content (such as the Ark) are smaller occurences retold in a Biblical sense. So for example there might well have been a considerable flood in that area at the time, yes, and it was so unusual that it was regarded as God saying, "I've had enough of you lot because of all of your crap." And as a result their experiences were retold as it being the whole world that was flooded, and then embellished. It's the New Testament that I've been taught to take more literally as being, well, 'real'.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 10, 2011, 08:59:26 AM

To avoid confusion, remember both Arch Bishop and Audio Bug are abbreviated to AB. For a second, I thought you were insulting me by putting me in the Christian 'side'. ;D

Seriously Byrd, it has been great debating/arguing with you and the Arch (BTW, where is he? Sulking? Contemplating a change of degree?). As for your comments above, I  For instance, how plausible is the idea of an ark containing a male and female of every species on the planet? What about the plants? Where did Noah put the wood borers and wood peckers? How did he stop the anteaters from eating the ants? Given the difficulties in sexing a snake, did Noah personally check the sex of every adder, mamba and cobra? How did he feed all the animals? How did he know how much an elephant or tapir eats? Did he stop over in Australia to get eucalyptus leaves for  the koalas? How did he keep those leaves fresh? When the flood ended, how did the jaguars get back to South America? Did they swim across the Atlantic?

this is where theology comes in James, sorry Audio Bug!! ;D to differentiate grain from chaff!! theologists will agree with you that the story of Noah's ark is just that, a story, and anybody who takes it literally has lost his marbles!! every tradition until a few years ago, used stories to transmit some wisdom!! folk tales were used to teach children wisdom!! it is certainly the case in my African tradition, we were told of how the rabbit would often outwit an elephant or lion or any big animals, certainly no one believes that the rabbit could actually talk to the lion or goat or sheep or snake, whatever the case maybe!! unfortunately when people are taught that the wisdom that can be derived from stories such as the great flood, the tower of babel etc is God inspired, they want to insist that these are literary stories and they actually happened, now when questions like those Audio Bug asks are asked, these very same people will take offense and label you as satanic or unbeliever! the task of the Theologian is to point out the fairy tales form the historical materials! the bible was written by many people from different backgrounds to diffrent readers over a wide period of time. It is not a book that was hand written by God and given to people to read as factual material!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 10, 2011, 09:27:01 AM
At the risk of being flamed *looks around nervously*, there is a fairly widespread acceptance (in my religious circles) that the Old Testament cannot be taken literally, and that much of the content (such as the Ark) are smaller occurences retold in a Biblical sense. So for example there might well have been a considerable flood in that area at the time, yes, and it was so unusual that it was regarded as God saying, "I've had enough of you lot because of all of your crap." And as a result their experiences were retold as it being the whole world that was flooded, and then embellished. It's the New Testament that I've been taught to take more literally as being, well, 'real'.

I have to choose something other than Audio Bug as that is too long as as there are now 2 AB's I chose Gordon. No Jordan? Pamela then?

Right Pam ;D

There are always "sides" to a debate - I do however consider it a debate and not a war and you are not my enemy. Some have overstepped what I consider the bounds, I pointed your statement out which was to me mildly offensive, but that is my opinion. There are far worse which I will not bother with as the intelligence level required to grasp the concepts plainly doesn't exist.

If you were to do a little research into official theological study you would find that what Andrew has stated is quite quite correct. As I said before misunderstanding and misinformation abound. The Bible is not meant to be a history book, nor is it meant to be a scientific explanation of the physical world around us. It is a work on the purpose of man, creation and the relationship between those and the divine. Without having a good grasp of the subject of theology I think it is unwise to pass judgement and make such statements. It is exactly the same as those who are accused of being ignorant and stating over and over again that the earth is 10 000 years old when in fact it is billions of years old.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 10, 2011, 09:49:37 AM

Right Pam ;D

actually,It's Jones!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 10, 2011, 10:40:01 AM
It's not Jordan either!!! ;D What is it with you and names??? ;D

To avoid confusion, remember both Arch Bishop and Audio Bug are abbreviated to AB. For a second, I thought you were insulting me by putting me in the Christian 'side'. ;D

Seriously Byrd, it has been great debating/arguing with you and the Arch (BTW, where is he? Sulking? Contemplating a change of degree?). As for your comments above, I never saw this discussion as being about 'sides', but rather as an avenue to express particular metaphysical views, often in a lighthearted manner. Any reasonable person who reads the Arch's comments on Hinduism would agree that they are insulting. By contrast, my statement that Christianity is implausible and incredible was clearly a personal opinion. How that can be construed as a statement of fact or as an insult, escapes me.

If you were an alien from a distant planet visiting the earth and asked an earthling to explain the various religions, you would definitely think people on earth are mad or just plain gullible. For instance, how plausible is the idea of an ark containing a male and female of every species on the planet? What about the plants? Where did Noah put the wood borers and wood peckers? How did he stop the anteaters from eating the ants? Given the difficulties in sexing a snake, did Noah personally check the sex of every adder, mamba and cobra? How did he feed all the animals? How did he know how much an elephant or tapir eats? Did he stop over in Australia to get eucalyptus leaves for  the koalas? How did he keep those leaves fresh? When the flood ended, how did the jaguars get back to South America? Did they swim across the Atlantic?



You and Noah forgot about the Giraffes, that's why they grew such long necks to keep their head above the water, and that's also prove that evolution is true!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 10, 2011, 10:42:15 AM
You know, there are all these different interpretations of the Bible. As someone who doesn't believe in deities or an afterlife or any such thing, basically an outsider looking in, it doesn't make much sense, if this is what you're supposed to be living by.

People just seem to work the Bible any which way that suits them. I read something like "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." to me that quite plainly and unequivocally states that God is against homosexuality, which I take moral objection to. Some Christians will say "Yes, that's right"  while others I know will say that that line is simply a reflection of the time in which the Bible was written and that other points in the Bible clearly indicate that God loves everyone, so you can just ignore it. Makes little sense to me, but then again, I'm not a theologian.

On to related science news:

NASA-funded researchers have evidence that some building blocks of DNA, the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for life, found in meteorites were likely created in space. The research gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by meteorite and comet impacts assisted the origin of life.

"People have been discovering components of DNA in meteorites since the 1960's, but researchers were unsure whether they were really created in space or if instead they came from contamination by terrestrial life," said Dr. Michael Callahan of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "For the first time, we have three lines of evidence that together give us confidence these DNA building blocks actually were created in space."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-meteorites.html
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 10, 2011, 10:44:21 AM
The Bible is not meant to be a history book, nor is it meant to be a scientific explanation of the physical world around us.

Tell that to the church. the Christian churches punt the Bible as "the inspired, unerring, infallible, Word of God". Ie, everything in it is 100% factual and true. how can it be unerring and infallible if most of it is made-up stories? how can it be unerring and infallible if countless versions of the same text exist, often with very different meanings? Which on is correct? They can't ALL possible be the "unerring, infallible Word Of God"?

Just like all religions/denominations believe their god is THE god, so they also believe that their holy book, or version of it, is THE book.

Surely just those facts should prove to any sane person that religion is a complete fallacy? ???

Some reading material:
http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/booklets/the-bible-fact-or-fiction

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 10, 2011, 11:01:44 AM
You know, there are all these different interpretations of the Bible. As someone who doesn't believe in deities or an afterlife or any such thing, basically an outsider looking in, it doesn't make much sense, if this is what you're supposed to be living by.

People just seem to work the Bible any which way that suits them. I read something like "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." to me that quite plainly and unequivocally states that God is against homosexuality, which I take moral objection to. Some Christians will say "Yes, that's right"  while others I know will say that that line is simply a reflection of the time in which the Bible was written and that other points in the Bible clearly indicate that God loves everyone, so you can just ignore it. Makes little sense to me, but then again, I'm not a theologian.

On to related science news:

NASA-funded researchers have evidence that some building blocks of DNA, the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for life, found in meteorites were likely created in space. The research gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by meteorite and comet impacts assisted the origin of life.

"People have been discovering components of DNA in meteorites since the 1960's, but researchers were unsure whether they were really created in space or if instead they came from contamination by terrestrial life," said Dr. Michael Callahan of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "For the first time, we have three lines of evidence that together give us confidence these DNA building blocks actually were created in space."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-meteorites.html
Which confirms that in deed man was created out of dust, cosmic dust!!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 10, 2011, 11:09:22 AM
Tell that to the church. some of the Christian churches punt the Bible as "the inspired, unerring, infallible, Word of God". Ie, everything in it is 100% factual and true.


Fixed  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: u235 on November 10, 2011, 11:12:37 AM
In the beginning was the Word.

Strainger tried the last word.

Isn't it time for that? This thread has become like a party when the gin runs out and the host is trying to get rid of bittereinders.............
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 10, 2011, 11:13:46 AM
No, not until I know who Gordon is.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 10, 2011, 11:17:48 AM
Fixed  ;D

Even worse. Thanks for strengthening my case! :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 10, 2011, 11:20:39 AM
Even worse. Thanks for strengthening my case! :D

 ;D You see? It's not all of us...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 10, 2011, 11:27:32 AM
Will anyone deny that subjective individual experience plays a huge part in human existence? Something that cannot be verified by science, but that gives us Beethoven and Mozart, Picasso and Rembrandt, Joan of Arc, etc.

Why did great scientific minds begin the whole quest of creating the best possible hifi, if not to be able to recreate the whole subjective experience of a Beethoven symphony in full flight, or even Metallica slamming the hell out of an electric guitar?

So, while it is great and useful to understand exactly what my house is built of (to make it as strong as possible, and as beautiful(!) as possible), it all means nothing if I cannot live a happy life in that house.



Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 10, 2011, 11:32:59 AM
Also, sometimes it would be great in this world if we could stop telling each other how BAD your idea is and why, and instead tell each other how GOOD my idea is and why... for your sake I really really hope you have one...  :)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on November 10, 2011, 11:39:23 AM
Went to church last night and for the first time ever heard an organ play a duet with an electric guitar. Deon vd Merwe (won a SAMA for best electric guitar player) can make an electric guitar sing 'Houtkruis'. WOW! How is this relavent? Its inside, not on top!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 10, 2011, 12:08:02 PM
Audio Bug said:

"If you were an alien from a distant planet visiting the earth and asked an earthling to explain the various religions, you would definitely think people on earth are mad or just plain gullible. For instance, how plausible is the idea of an ark containing a male and female of every species on the planet? What about the plants? Where did Noah put the wood borers and wood peckers? How did he stop the anteaters from eating the ants? Given the difficulties in sexing a snake, did Noah personally check the sex of every adder, mamba and cobra? How did he feed all the animals? How did he know how much an elephant or tapir eats? Did he stop over in Australia to get eucalyptus leaves for  the koalas? How did he keep those leaves fresh? When the flood ended, how did the jaguars get back to South America? Did they swim across the Atlantic?"

It would be mad, yes, unless you consider that IF an alien visited here, he/she/it PROBABLY found a way to adapt/warp time and space to be able to travel here. Then, maybe, he/she/it may think: "Hey, ja, interesting application of the time/space warp to fit everything in that lil' old thing..."

 ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Cirr on November 10, 2011, 12:11:16 PM
This was so much fun,I sat here with my strawberries and yoghurt looking at the bouncing ball being flung around,
and now that the Great November Debate is over,I wonder who will be the Fat Lady ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 10, 2011, 01:10:50 PM
An historical understanding of the Bible is certainly more plausible than a literal interpretation (such as answersingenesis.com). However, as Ken pointed out, it does raise problems of its own. For instance, is anyone at liberty to re-interpret any aspect of the Bible? Where does one draw the line? The teachings of Goodness provide an excellent moral compass - turn the other cheek, forgive your enemies, love your neighbour, etc. His sermon on the mount is nothing short of revolutionary. I particularly like the answer to the question whether the rich and greedy will go to heaven: 'a camel has more chance of passing through the eye of a needle'. My view, however, is that these moral values are largely intrinsic to human nature and can be followed in the absence of any belief in some supernatural being.

On a different note: something that I have always cherished about this forum is that we can have heated debates, but still respect and value each other as members of a community that share a passion for music and the equipment that reproduces it. I have learned so much from fellow forumites and treasure the keen and selfless willingness to assist and answer questions posed in the various threads. I have also had some really good laughs at the sharp-witted comments that punctuate even the most serious discussions. For that, I sincerely thank you.

AB aka Gordon aka Jordan aka Pamela aka The Fat Lady?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 10, 2011, 01:19:03 PM
For instance, is anyone at liberty to re-interpret any aspect of the Bible?

Regrettably, yes, which is where so many problems crop up... Sorry, Fattie.  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 10, 2011, 01:51:28 PM
If God doesn't exist, then why do millions of women the world over cry out his name from the bedroom or back seat of a car ?  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Steerpike on November 10, 2011, 01:55:17 PM
My view, however, is that these moral values are largely intrinsic to human nature

I.e., they are a consequence of Darwinian evolution. If you don't live what has become called a moral or righteous lifestyle, you are less likely to survive long enough to have your genes passed on to your offspring. Species that are instrinsically likely to be selfish, uncaring to each other, etc. tend to become extinct.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 10, 2011, 03:41:53 PM
If you don't live what has become called a moral or righteous lifestyle, you are less likely to survive long enough to have your genes passed on to your offspring.

Really? You are talking about human species in this monster of a capitalist system?? Seems to me like the immoral and corrupt are the ones to thrive...

Ok, ok, I'm no lady but I'll just sing now if that is ok!  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Steerpike on November 10, 2011, 03:54:53 PM
Really? You are talking about human species in this monster of a capitalist system?? Seems to me like the immoral and corrupt are the ones to thrive...

You need to consider timeframes. Evolution works on the scale of tens of thousands to millions of years. Homo sapiens - biologically - are the same as they were hundreds of thousands of years ago. The 20th century lifestyle won't have any genetic impact unless it continues for a long time. Concepts such as caring for the sick, looking after the elderly, not killing your 'friends'... these are the 'human' attributes that - if they go - may result in extinction, or species division.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 10, 2011, 04:21:20 PM
You know, there are all these different interpretations of the Bible. As someone who doesn't believe in deities or an afterlife or any such thing, basically an outsider looking in, it doesn't make much sense, if this is what you're supposed to be living by.

People just seem to work the Bible any which way that suits them. I read something like "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." to me that quite plainly and unequivocally states that God is against homosexuality, which I take moral objection to. Some Christians will say "Yes, that's right"  while others I know will say that that line is simply a reflection of the time in which the Bible was written and that other points in the Bible clearly indicate that God loves everyone, so you can just ignore it. Makes little sense to me, but then again, I'm not a theologian.

On to related science news:

NASA-funded researchers have evidence that some building blocks of DNA, the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for life, found in meteorites were likely created in space. The research gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by meteorite and comet impacts assisted the origin of life.

"People have been discovering components of DNA in meteorites since the 1960's, but researchers were unsure whether they were really created in space or if instead they came from contamination by terrestrial life," said Dr. Michael Callahan of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "For the first time, we have three lines of evidence that together give us confidence these DNA building blocks actually were created in space."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-meteorites.html
You must surely recognize that formulation of scientific theory and even "fact" is based on the interpretation of data and observations of experiments. Sometimes data or observation is not interpreted correctly (why do we not have Fleischmann–Pons cold fusion generators yet?). Our understanding of the universe is constantly evolving. Think of the scientists of 100 years ago. They were completely sure of the atomic model, however as time went on those theories were proven to be not completely accurate and the knowledge envelope has been pushed even further. However I am of the opinion that we still have a fairly limited understanding of our existance, and there are multiple scientific theories that conflict with each other. That does not mean that I discard them or have a disparaging view of science, however I don't make science a god that knows all.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 10, 2011, 04:47:33 PM
An historical understanding of the Bible is certainly more plausible than a literal interpretation (such as answersingenesis.com). However, as Ken pointed out, it does raise problems of its own. For instance, is anyone at liberty to re-interpret any aspect of the Bible? Where does one draw the line? The teachings of Goodness provide an excellent moral compass - turn the other cheek, forgive your enemies, love your neighbour, etc. His sermon on the mount is nothing short of revolutionary. I particularly like the answer to the question whether the rich and greedy will go to heaven: 'a camel has more chance of passing through the eye of a needle'. My view, however, is that these moral values are largely intrinsic to human nature and can be followed in the absence of any belief in some supernatural being.
If you look at these teachings in todays context - yes because they are prevalent. However, look back through history. Look also at the reverence with which Goodness treated woman within his teachings given the practicality of the time. This was unheard of with women being second class citizens - even till this very day.

We also very recently have had on the forum a big rucus on the display of "pornography" - which was linked to morality. The reason for it is that different people have different views on morality. These are not things that are built in to the psyche, but they are part of the cultures (mostly influenced by religeon) that individuals are born into and come into contact with. Morality is a social theme which has developed over time, it is not something that a person has magical knowledge of. (I use the term magical respectfully - if you lookup magical thinking in psychology)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 10, 2011, 06:09:12 PM
You must surely recognize that formulation of scientific theory and even "fact" is based on the interpretation of data and observations of experiments. Sometimes data or observation is not interpreted correctly (why do we not have Fleischmann–Pons cold fusion generators yet?). Our understanding of the universe is constantly evolving. Think of the scientists of 100 years ago. They were completely sure of the atomic model, however as time went on those theories were proven to be not completely accurate and the knowledge envelope has been pushed even further. However I am of the opinion that we still have a fairly limited understanding of our existance, and there are multiple scientific theories that conflict with each other. That does not mean that I discard them or have a disparaging view of science, however I don't make science a god that knows all.

I don't see how my post prompted this reply, but whatever. Sure, our understanding of the world is ever evolving, but you make it sound like science is a guessing game. Look at what you're communicating on, the screen displaying it, your message traveling half a world away to me at the press of a button, a pretty amazing confluence of lucky guesses.

I understand you have this belief, and I do respect your right to it, but I personally can't take it any more seriously than I would "Clash of the Titans." Now I understand this is an uncomfortable idea for many South Africans, but in Scandinavia, where I live, it's very much the norm (being roughly 80% atheist). Just a few weeks ago I went to view an exhibit on ancient Egyptian art, there was a section of the exhibit about Osiris, focusing on him being the template on which the Romans based Goodness. It was there, larger than life, displayed quite unapologetically and to the discomfort of no one. Anyway, that's how I feel about these things, I think they're very interesting, but I believe science is the only valid means by which to better understand the natural world.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 10, 2011, 08:13:15 PM
Ken - my point is similar to what Pam raised earlier. You cannot for the life of you see the link between science interpreting facts / data in various ways and various Christian denominations interpreting scripture in different ways.

I understand you have this vehement need to not understand anything that is outside of the narrow scope of understanding you have. Hawking did the same. He did not arrive at Atheism, as most think, because of his study, but because of indoctrination by his mother (a communist party member). Most don't know but his ex-wife was Christian before he divorced her for some hot totty nurse who got all excited by his way with words (vibrating nogal).

 It is frightening and daunting to actually study other subjects and give real consideration to possibilities.

For example - you say the Romans based Gracious on Osiris? This is called the pagan origin theory. Have you criticaly asked yourself weather it was valid or not? I would like to hear more about this part of the exhibit you went to. Are you telling us the full unbiased account or are you presenting an agenda?

This is an old tale that has been told many times and debated and rejected by mainstream academia. It is no doubt something that attracts attention - have you read any of Dan Brown's Documentary Novels recently?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: MorneDJ on November 10, 2011, 08:23:04 PM
This topic is miiiiilllllleeessss from the original post ...

And I am still not sure whether Oppo is really any good. ...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Nidri on November 10, 2011, 09:14:31 PM

'Science is not an exact science.' - Can't remember who said that.

Whether one 'believes' in evolution or not, one has to admit that it is an incredibly interesting subject.
After reading a few books on the topic recently, I realised that I had never really understood the basic underlying principles that it's based on. Fascinating stuff. I'd advise anyone with an interest in the world around them to do the same.

Regardless, it's a minefield. What's more, it's completely pointless to 'debate' it in the first place.
In my experience, it's impossible for two people with opposing, immovable points of view to 'debate' anything.
No good can come of it.

2c
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 10, 2011, 09:53:02 PM
For example - you say the Romans based Gracious on Osiris? This is called the pagan origin theory. Have you criticaly asked yourself weather it was valid or not? I would like to hear more about this part of the exhibit you went to. Are you telling us the full unbiased account or are you presenting an agenda? This is an old tale that has been told many times and debated and rejected by mainstream academia.

No agenda. There were many interesting things on display. I didn't know it was called the pagan origin theory and while I thought it was an interesting bit of trivia, it's not the sort of thing I'd look up.

Basically that section of the exhibit was about Alexandria and how it was something of a melting pot, with much mixing of Roman and Egytian tradition. They said Osiris struck a chord as apparently the idea of a being who would guide you to an afterlife as a reward for following the rules was a novel idea at the time. The idea spread quite rapidly and gained a following in Rome, current thinking being that it contributed to the shaping of the Christian faith.

It is no doubt something that attracts attention - have you read any of Dan Brown's Documentary Novels recently?

No, if I'm going to read something, I prefer to read something good.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 10, 2011, 10:38:01 PM
Oh, and just to be clear, when I said I find religion interesting, I didn't mean in the sense that like to read up on religious conspiracy theories. What I meant was that I enjoy the mythology, much as I do Greek mythology and what not. A show like Supernatural is a good example.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 11, 2011, 07:09:10 AM


We also very recently have had on the forum a big rucus on the display of "pornography" -

And what is defined as pornoraphy? breasts visible through a see-through top or up close and personal view of intercourse ? lets draw the line... but where?  ;D

Is this really that offensive? but slagging off someone's beliefs is ok, no matter what they be, scientific or spiritual.

Make the circle bigger :)

(http://hostingc.hotchyx.com/adult-image-hosting-08/3280sola001.jpg) (http://hotchyx.com/)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 07:30:12 AM
And what is defined as pornoraphy? breasts visible through a see-through top or up close and personal view of intercourse ? lets draw the line... but where?  ;D

Is this really that offensive? but slagging off someone's beliefs is ok, no matter what they be, scientific or spiritual.

Oh crap, here we go ;D I see n1pples and fuzz, this is terrible!

I think we know what the stance is on pics of this nature - to some of us it is not offensive at all, others take exception. Somehow there is a corrulation on people's opinion on religion and their views of science.

If only we can allow others to have their own views and not attempt to persuade them otherwise only because we think we know better...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 11, 2011, 07:32:41 AM
Oh crap, here we go ;D I see n1pples and fuzz, this is terrible!


Oops, fuzz was a slip, wasn't supposed to be that one :D will edit ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 07:35:22 AM
Oops, fuzz was a slip, wasn't supposed to be that one :D will edit ;D

Gha!, more a Freudian "Lisp"  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 11, 2011, 07:36:03 AM
Gha!, more a Freudian "Lisp"  ;D ;D ;D ;D

HAHAHAHAHA :D :D :D

better now ? :P
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 07:39:51 AM
HAHAHAHAHA :D :D :D

better now ? :P

I would say quite acceptable in public conversation, but that's just me ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 07:46:44 AM
Talking about Fuzz, this reminds of an old joke:

An old lady decided to join the Hell's Angels are during the interview a biker asks her "Have you every been picked up by the Fuzz?" She replied "No, but I have been swung by the t1ts a couple of times!"

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 11, 2011, 07:49:42 AM
Is this really that offensive? but slagging off someone's beliefs is ok, no matter what they be, scientific or spiritual.

(http://hostingc.hotchyx.com/adult-image-hosting-08/3280sola001.jpg) (http://hotchyx.com/)

I've just offened my screen!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 11, 2011, 07:51:17 AM
Talking about Fuzz, this reminds of an old joke:

An old lady decided to join the Hell's Angels are during the interview a biker asks her "Have you every been picked up by the Fuzz?" She replied "No, but I have been swung by the t1ts a couple of times!"



Dirty ol man :D :D :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 11, 2011, 07:55:12 AM
OO flip,

Hier kommie kak  :D

(http://hostingc.hotchyx.com/adult-image-hosting-08/5278Capture.PNG) (http://hotchyx.com/)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stereophreak on November 11, 2011, 08:07:07 AM
Usually, I'm of the opinion that there should be no "Science vs Religion" debate, the two operate so very differently, but the two do sometimes clash in uncomfortable ways. I'm reminded of a TV show I saw (Dr Phil iirc! Oh the humanity!  :-[ ) where a grandfather had molested his grandchild. He pleaded "guilty" and got a suspended sentence. I say "guilty" because he insisted that he was not a paedophile, and that an evil spirit had taken hold of him, and that he had been exorcised, and that he was fine, and wouldn't do it again. His family insisted on psychological treatment before he was even allowed to come near his grandchild. They wouldn't budge from their position that he was a paedophile and needed scientifically based treatment, and he was deeply offended that they couldn't understand that his faith had cured him. I honestly believe that he believed it.

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 11, 2011, 08:30:01 AM
Gotta love this....."the walking corpse that wont play dead?"
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: ViVoAudio on November 11, 2011, 08:32:10 AM
And what is defined as pornoraphy? breasts visible through a see-through top or up close and personal view of intercourse ? lets draw the line... but where?  ;D

Is this really that offensive? but slagging off someone's beliefs is ok, no matter what they be, scientific or spiritual.

Make the circle bigger :)

(http://hostingc.hotchyx.com/adult-image-hosting-08/3280sola001.jpg) (http://hotchyx.com/)
I Always say
What if that was your daughter
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 08:36:15 AM
I Always say
What if that was your daughter

I understand your point of view, but once again it will be a matter of opinion and/or priorities.

This lady is someone's daughter and her parents are probably very proud of her as she gets recognition and earns a crapload of money. I know a few people whose children are models and they are not fazed by anything their children are required to do in front of the cameras as "it is only a job"
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 11, 2011, 08:40:40 AM
I Always say
What if that was your daughter

Then you move to Brakpan where it's legal...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 11, 2011, 08:46:43 AM
OO flip,

Hier kommie kak  :D

(http://hostingc.hotchyx.com/adult-image-hosting-08/5278Capture.PNG) (http://hotchyx.com/)

Bah! I see through your puny attempts to get the thread deleted  ;D No need for that anymore because individual posts can now be removed, which means the thread stays...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Family_Dog on November 11, 2011, 08:49:02 AM
OO flip,

Hier kommie kak  :D

(http://hostingc.hotchyx.com/adult-image-hosting-08/5278Capture.PNG) (http://hotchyx.com/)


This thread has been widely debated and only one or two "off limits" posts were removed. In general, user self-moderation was sufficient before things got out of hand. Push the limits however, by posting off-topic nudies and the whole thread is gone. It's in your hands, Mr. Stirrer! ;)


-F_D

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: ViVoAudio on November 11, 2011, 08:51:39 AM
I understand your point of view, but once again it will be a matter of opinion and/or priorities.

This lady is someone's daughter and her parents are probably very proud of her as she gets recognition and earns a crapload of money. I know a few people whose children are models and they are not fazed by anything their children are required to do in front of the cameras as "it is only a job"
I suppose you're right, it's a job but some people would argue prostitution/ hardcore stuff is also just a job.
But yet so many families are destroyed as a direct / indirect result of it.
I'm of the opinion that it's creates a lack of respect for women and the intimate and sacred nature of making love to your spouse / partner.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 11, 2011, 08:52:33 AM

This thread has been widely debated and only one or two "off limits" posts were removed. In general, user self-moderation was sufficient before things got out of hand. Push the limits however, by posting off-topic nudies and the whole thread is gone. It's in your hands, Mr. Stirrer! ;)


-F_D



Er, no - individual posts can be removed, thread stays.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Family_Dog on November 11, 2011, 08:56:07 AM
They can indeed, but do I feel like reading the entire thread to remove one or two indiviodual posts that are often repeated four or five times down the line? Nope.... self moderation and a bit of common sense before hitting the keyboard "send" button will determine this thread's future.

But... if you are also prepared to "police" (Ugh! I know you hate the thought) the thread, then it can become manageable. I really don't have the time to play policeman.


-F_D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 11, 2011, 09:01:27 AM
I think we should just give Stirrer a 'Tit' thread of his own. Then everyone knows what's in it, and only have themselves to blame if they look.  ;D 
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 11, 2011, 09:02:47 AM
I think we should just give Stirrer a 'Tit' thread of his own. Then everyone knows what's in it
No need to call him a tit...  ::)







 :D :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 09:06:35 AM
No need to call him a tit...  ::)

 :D :D

Well there was a veiled n1pple in there somewhere ;D


Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Dennis on November 11, 2011, 09:07:32 AM
Then you move to Brakpan where it's legal...
:D :D :D :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 11, 2011, 09:11:24 AM
Concepts such as caring for the sick, looking after the elderly, not killing your 'friends'... these are the 'human' attributes that - if they go - may result in extinction, or species division.
so all these concepts are a result of a chemical soup and a very big bang, so many billions of years ago?!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 11, 2011, 09:13:42 AM
so all these concepts are a result of a chemical soup and a very big bang, so many billions of years ago?!

No, I would say it came from experience, University of Life. Lessons learned largely the hard way.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 09:17:28 AM
No, I would say it came from experience, University of Life. Lessons learned largely the hard way.

And religion, off course, could also have been a contributor ;) Or is there perhaps something such as "The inherent good of man"?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 11, 2011, 09:27:38 AM
They can indeed, but do I feel like reading the entire thread to remove one or two indiviodual posts that are often repeated four or five times down the line? Nope.... self moderation and a bit of common sense before hitting the keyboard "send" button will determine this thread's future.

But... if you are also prepared to "police" (Ugh! I know you hate the thought) the thread, then it can become manageable. I really don't have the time to play policeman.

-F_D

The implied threat that the entire thread may be deleted because one or two posts are deemed to be inappropriate is totally unacceptable. Such heavy-handed behaviour would be tantamount to a suppression of free speech and unjustified censorship. It also opens the door for any forum member to cause a thread to be deleted simply by posting 'offensive' material in it. Anyone who thinks the indiscriminate removal of an entire thread is appropriate because they do not have the time to read the posts is either not fit to be a moderator or his duties are too onerous and additional moderators should be appointed.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 11, 2011, 09:32:15 AM
And religion, off course, could also have been a contributor ;) Or is there perhaps something such as "The inherent good of man"?

Oh, agreed, fully agreed. I just wonder at what stage in the development of Humankind that religion started to play a role? I mean, could it be that some of those life experiences found their way into early forms of religion?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 09:35:08 AM
I just wonder at what stage in the development of Humankind that religion started to play a role? I mean, could it be that some of those life experiences found their way into early forms of religion?

I am sure they have, soon after evolution caused humankind to develop a conscience ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 11, 2011, 09:38:29 AM
The implied threat that the entire thread may be deleted because one or two posts are deemed to be inappropriate is totally unacceptable. Such heavy-handed behaviour would be tantamount to a suppression of free speech and unjustified censorship. It also opens the door for any forum member to cause a thread to be deleted simply by posting 'offensive' material in it. Anyone who thinks the indiscriminate removal of an entire thread is appropriate because they do not have the time to read the posts is either not fit to be a moderator or his duties are too onerous and additional moderators should be appointed.
we've got enough going with this media act as it is, for once we agree and i hate it as it doesn't bring much to the debate table ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 11, 2011, 09:39:44 AM
I am sure they have, soon after evolution caused humankind to develop a conscience ;)

Evolution. *sigh* Gotta love it.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 09:42:28 AM
i hate it as it doesn't bring much to the debate table ;D

Not really, it just means someone at the debating table has a big gun and the others have pens ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 11, 2011, 09:44:32 AM
so all these concepts are a result of a chemical soup and a very big bang, so many billions of years ago?!

C'mon Arch, if you had read any literature on the topic, you would have known that there is a large body of research that shows altruism is favoured by natural selection. Steerpike was also not referring to 'concepts' but to deep-seated characteristics that are hardwired into our brains through the processes of evolution. As social animals, we would never have survived without some degree of altruism built into our neurological pathways. No one with any sense would deny that culture and belief systems played a role, but they only played that role because we were already neurologically predisposed to altruistic behaviour. The 'Prisoner's Dilemma' is a good illustration of how this works.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 09:53:56 AM
C'mon Arch, if you had read any literature on the topic, you would have known

Just an observation.

The quote above illustrates(consciously or unconsciously) the difference between a debate and an argument. An argument would contain phrases such as "if you did/did not" "You were/were not" "Why did/didn't you" and then the rest, where a debate will contain facts and counter arguments.

Audio Bug, except for that little bit, I totally agree with the point you make.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 11, 2011, 09:54:19 AM
I Always say
What if that was your daughter

I'd probably still be giving her a bath  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 11, 2011, 09:59:55 AM
Given circumstance and provided with opportunity....not a single man here would deny her.....we really haven't evolved that much at all come to think of it. ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 11, 2011, 10:07:55 AM
Given circumstance and provided with opportunity....not a single man here would deny her.....we really haven't evolved that much at all come to think of it. ;)

True, and why would you let some silly morals stand in the way?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 11, 2011, 10:09:39 AM
Just an observation.

The quote above illustrates(consciously or unconsciously) the difference between a debate and an argument. An argument would contain phrases such as "if you did/did not" "You were/were not" "Why did/didn't you" and then the rest, where a debate will contain facts and counter arguments.

Audio Bug, except for that little bit, I totally agree with the point you make.

Fair comment. Observation noted and accepted.




Note to peter: in fact, it shows how highly evolved we are - procreation, as you know, is necessary for the survival of the species. :-)
 
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 11, 2011, 10:12:46 AM
True, and why would you let some silly morals stand in the way?

Many wouldn't! And for those of us who would be guided by our morals, would we do it simply because we felt it was inherently wrong, or would we do it because we feared some sort of Divine Retribution?

Amongst both parties you would find the religious and the non-religious, which takes us back to an earlier question of where morals really come from?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 10:14:24 AM
True, and why would you let some silly morals stand in the way?

Whose morals? Yours or someone else's?

I saw a program last night about the British Gypsies and there was - in my mind - a serious contradiction. The girls/women in the Gypsy communities maintain high moral values, such as no living together, no sex before the wedding, etc, but they wear the skimpiest clothes imaginable. I am sure that the men in those communities are having a "hard" time.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 11, 2011, 10:15:05 AM
Many wouldn't! And for those of us who would be guided by our morals, would we do it simply because we felt it was inherently wrong, or would we do it because we feared some sort of Divine Retribution?

Or a third option: The fear of being caught :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 10:16:55 AM
Or a third option: The fear of being caught :D

True, but some personalities are challenged and excited by that and will see how far they can go before being caught.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 11, 2011, 10:20:59 AM
Many wouldn't! And for those of us who would be guided by our morals, would we do it simply because we felt it was inherently wrong, or would we do it because we feared some sort of Divine Retribution?

Amongst both parties you would find the religious and the non-religious, which takes us back to an earlier question of where morals really come from?

Ag no man, not the religion stuff again.

One thing of note, and this I've experienced amongst friends/piers and it doesn't necessarily pertain to this thread.

A lot of atheists claim religious people shove their religion down their throat. However, I've noticed given a chance, an atheist would try as hard as possible to prove that religion and Christianity is implausible BS.

So why the need to conquer the world?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 10:26:06 AM
Given circumstance and provided with opportunity....not a single man here would deny her.....we really haven't evolved that much at all come to think of it. ;)

You tell me not one man would rather go for the guy behind the camera??? Thought that was a possibilty we've evolved to... ;D

True, and why would you let some silly morals stand in the way?

Some would, some wouldn't - whatever the reason. Do I hear '...freedom of choice...'??
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 11, 2011, 10:28:45 AM
Ag no man, not the religion stuff again.

One thing of note, and this I've experienced amongst friends/piers and it doesn't necessarily pertain to this thread.

A lot of atheists claim religious people shove their religion down their throat. However, I've noticed given a chance, an atheist would try as hard as possible to prove that religion and Christianity is implausible BS.

So why the need to conquer the world?


 ;D  Because both sides claim to have the security of their beliefs/convictions, but deep down both need reassurance that they are right. So in some cases they are not trying to convince the other side of the truthfulness of their convictions, they are trying to convince themselves.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 10:30:58 AM
Some would, some wouldn't - whatever the reason. Do I hear '...freedom of choice...'??

In this specific instance, bear in mind that a man has only enough blood to operate one head at a time ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 11, 2011, 10:34:36 AM
;D  Because both sides claim to have the security of their beliefs/convictions, but deep down both need reassurance that they are right. So in some cases they are not trying to convince the other side of the truthfulness of their convictions, they are trying to convince themselves.

You're quite right.
Fear of the unknown is what caused all of it, probably!?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 11, 2011, 10:35:06 AM
There were also ancient civilisations who practiced human sacrifice as part of their culture / religion (They were intertwined with god kings).

The Romans, Pre Christian and during the conversion, are a good example to look at. They are seen today as an advanced civilization however look at their Gladiatorial Games. Most are aware of the standard course of gladiator combat, however there were all sorts of "immoral" acts including public bestiality with horses, giraffes & the like.

Given that the decline of the games was not simply due to the influence of Christianity, Constantine amongst others did outlaw some aspects of the games on grounds that they were inconsistent with the religion. Even though Constantine was never seen as a true convert this still demonstrates religion's possible influence over morals.

BTW - My chiro went to the Life University in the States and he is BRILLIANT. I believe they are an sub branch of the University of Life :)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 10:35:43 AM
Ag no man, not the religion stuff again.

One thing of note, and this I've experienced amongst friends/piers and it doesn't necessarily pertain to this thread.

A lot of atheists claim religious people shove their religion down their throat. However, I've noticed given a chance, an atheist would try as hard as possible to prove that religion and Christianity is implausible BS.

So why the need to conquer the world?

I think Andrew's statement covers both sides.

Also, I'm still feverishly looking for that verse that says: "Thou shalt not suffer the sight of a bare booby; for surely, thou shalt suffer eternal impotence! Oh yes, and you will burn in hell!"
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 10:37:56 AM
Fear of the unknown is what caused all of it, probably!?

Now herein lies the problem for me, the unknown excites me ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 10:39:12 AM
You're quite right.
Fear of the unknown is what caused all of it, probably!?

Or, MAYBE, I just think: "not bad, but I have better at home..."
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 11, 2011, 10:46:00 AM
I think Andrew's statement covers both sides.

Also, I'm still feverishly looking for that verse that says: "Thou shalt not suffer the sight of a bare booby; for surely, thou shalt suffer eternal impotence! Oh yes, verily thou shalt burn in hell!"

Fixed. But you were very close.  ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 10:52:24 AM
Fixed. But you were very close.  ;)

Thank you, Andrew! I believe my memory (you will say 'brain') has evolved into a state of great neglect...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 11, 2011, 11:07:37 AM
While we are on the subject of mammary glands, does anyone else find the hypocrisy/inconsistency in the age restrictions attached to movies disturbing? A film with 90 minutes of blood, guts and murder might attract an age restriction of 8 or 12, but a film with a two second view of a half-veiled female nipple will invariably get an age restriction of 16 or 18. What is the underlying message: violence is less harmful than nudity? Surely, that cannot be right?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: ViVoAudio on November 11, 2011, 11:10:13 AM
While we are on the subject of mammary glands, does anyone else find the hypocrisy/inconsistency in the age restrictions attached to movies disturbing? A film with 90 minutes of blood, guts and murder might attract an age restriction of 8 or 12, but a film with a two second view of a half-veiled female nipple will invariably get an age restriction of 16 or 18. What is the underlying message: violence is less harmful than nudity? Surely, that cannot be right?
I agree that is ridiculous.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 11:19:09 AM
What is the underlying message: violence is less harmful than nudity? Surely, that cannot be right?

Possibly because the members of the censor board has the same views as many other people ;)

Some of us have an enlightened view on nudity(or semi nudity) and others have a Voortrekker/Puritan view on it. Again a point of view that needs to be respected both ways.

For instance I walk naked in front of our kids and it scares them enough to listen to me ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 11:25:33 AM
For instance I walk naked in front of our kids and it scares them enough to listen to me ;D

Child abuse!  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 11, 2011, 11:29:47 AM
Child abuse!  ;D

Strainger, my thoughts exactly, but I was not brave enough to verbalise them. ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 11, 2011, 11:31:12 AM


For instance I walk naked in front of our kids and it scares them enough to listen to me ;D

I say again... Dirty ol man  :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 11:32:56 AM
I say again... Dirty ol man  :D

Not at all, its normally when I get out of the bath ;D And no, I am not a PDF File ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 11, 2011, 11:39:37 AM
Not at all, its normally when I get out of the bath ;D And no, I am not a PDF File ;D

Seriously, some child psychologists encourage it as means to teach children that nudity is nothing to be ashamed of.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 11, 2011, 11:43:40 AM
Seriously, some child psychologists encourage it as means to teach children that nudity is nothing to be ashamed of.

In that case we can safely assume Abe's folks walked around kaaalgat as well ;D

Traumatic for Abe I'm sure :D :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 11, 2011, 11:44:35 AM
Seriously, some child psychologists encourage it as means to teach children that nudity is nothing to be ashamed of.
Ah but psychology isn't really formal science. ;D

Who here remembers their parents walking around around naked in front of them? Who's parents still walk around naked in front of them?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 11:44:52 AM
Seriously, some child psychologists encourage it as means to teach children that nudity is nothing to be ashamed of.

Amen
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 11:46:06 AM
In that case we can safely assume Abe's folks walked around kaaalgat as well ;D

Not really, but there were no hangups about partial nudity and the respect that was required.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 11, 2011, 11:58:53 AM
.

For instance I walk naked in front of our kids and it scares them enough to listen to me ;D
this forum is full of sick members!! whatever happened to good old audiophiles?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 12:03:31 PM
And the Lord said: "Man/woman, why are you suddenly ashamed to be naked? Ok, nevermind, let me make you some clothes so that you can feel better".

And man thought: "Oi! This is much better. Now I can focus... Wait a minute, things look mighty enticing under that there coconut leave... uhm, Eve, you busy tonight, girl??"
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 11, 2011, 12:04:17 PM
this forum is full of sick members!! whatever happened to good old audiophiles?

We used our high end cables to tie up hot asians!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 12:05:36 PM
this forum is full of sick members!! whatever happened to good old audiophiles?

Prolly out there listening to Springbok Nude Girls...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 12:22:55 PM
this forum is full of sick members!! whatever happened to good old audiophiles?

Depends on the definition of "good old audiophiles" Also depends on the person's frame of reference ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: I Shot Tupac!!! on November 11, 2011, 12:30:19 PM
Because I'm pretty!  :D
(http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x400/SpudsZA/Chloe/DSC_9558.jpg)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 12:35:42 PM
Because I'm pretty!  :D

Are you quoting Juliaas, the dogs or yourself?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: I Shot Tupac!!! on November 11, 2011, 12:42:13 PM
Are you quoting Juliaas, the dogs or yourself?

Aw... Oom Juliaz is got problems...  :'(

I'm WAY too ugly to refer to myself as being pretty...  :D

Her name is Chloe... 8 weeks old tomorrow, and SOOO awesome! Travis the razor blade eating dumba$$ is in the background... I guess you could say he's pretty too.  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 12:45:48 PM
Her name is Chloe... 8 week old tomorrow, and SOOO awesome!

She is cute, yes. Hmm! I suppose this post has as much relevance to the original topic as me walking around naked at home ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: I Shot Tupac!!! on November 11, 2011, 12:46:18 PM
She is cute, yes. Hmm! I suppose this post has as much relevance to the original topic as me walking around naked at home ;D

I'm naked right now, but I'm sure nobody needed to know that.  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 11, 2011, 12:47:55 PM
I'm naked right now, but I'm sure nobody needed to know that.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

WAAAAAAAAAY too much info
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 11, 2011, 12:48:12 PM
Oh, agreed, fully agreed. I just wonder at what stage in the development of Humankind that religion started to play a role? I mean, could it be that some of those life experiences found their way into early forms of religion?

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I think religion began as soon as man evolved to the point where he began to wonder about the natural world. What was the sun? Why is it cold during one period and warm during the other? Where does the wind come from? Given that we knew precious little at the time, the natural thing to do would be to give these natural phenomena human characteristics, so as to better understand them, hence the giant snoring in a cave creating the wind.

Once you'd anthropomorphised various occurances in nature, you can begin to imagine that they possess certain character traits based on how you percieve them. The Sun, a warm and benevolent care giver, thunder a powerful warrior, the moon, mysterious and sinister. Based on these characteristics you might then formulate dances or offer gifts to gain favour with them, seeking to influence them. Eventually leading to a lifestyle you feel would endear the entity to you, and so religion grows.

That's my point of view at least. As for your view that atheists seek to "convert" the religious. Atheism is not a religion, there is no atheist club. Some may have an issue with religion, some may be unsure of their stance in regards to it and others might not give it a second thought. What I've been trying to get across is not that religion is wrong, it's that it is a lifestyle choice, you can take it or leave it, it can be real to you or it can simply be a collection of stories. Whereas science just is. Whether you "believe" in it or not doesn't stop your speakers from working.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 12:48:28 PM
I'm naked right now, but I'm sure nobody needed to know that.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

ROTFLMAO ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D As long as you are pointing in the right direction, you will be okay ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: I Shot Tupac!!! on November 11, 2011, 12:53:36 PM
anthropomorphised

 :o That's a big word...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 01:19:19 PM
While everybody is busy considering nudity and boobs, I cannot bring myself to let this one go:

If religion is just BS, what would one classify this as:

"the European race, following the inevitable laws of natural selection, will emerge as the distinct species, human being, and all the transitional forms—such as the gorilla, chimpanzee, Negro, Australian aborigine and so on—will be extinct".

Granted, it was written against a certain cultural, social background, but so was something like, say, the Bible.

Can't leave all the stirring to the Stirrer...  ;D



Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 11, 2011, 01:26:20 PM
While everybody is busy considering nudity and boobs, I cannot bring myself to let this one go:

If religion is just BS, what would one classify this as:

"the European race, following the inevitable laws of natural selection, will emerge as the distinct species, human being, and all the transitional forms—such as the gorilla, chimpanzee, Negro, Australian aborigine and so on—will be extinct".

Granted, it was written against a certain cultural, social background, but so was something like, say, the Bible.

Can't leave all the stirring to the Stirrer...  ;D

I believe you're confusing science with scripture. The idea of race (in terms of humans) is a social construct, we know today that there is only one human race. Also, our understanding of natural selection has also come a long way since it was initially proposed.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: I Shot Tupac!!! on November 11, 2011, 01:33:41 PM
If you lot are trying to confuse me... It's working...  :-[
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 11, 2011, 01:34:33 PM
While everybody is busy considering nudity and boobs, I cannot bring myself to let this one go:

If religion is just BS, what would one classify this as:

"the European race, following the inevitable laws of natural selection, will emerge as the distinct species, human being, and all the transitional forms—such as the gorilla, chimpanzee, Negro, Australian aborigine and so on—will be extinct".

Granted, it was written against a certain cultural, social background, but so was something like, say, the Bible.

Can't leave all the stirring to the Stirrer...  ;D

Absolute, unadulerated horse s**t, which sound like something from Mein Kampf. There is no such a thing as the "European race". In fact, the term 'race' carries very little explanatory power. Genetically, there is more variation within a so-called race than between 'races'. (In other words, a white person may have more in common, genetically, with a black person than that black person has with other black people). We are all descended from a common ancestor who lived in Africa.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 11, 2011, 01:36:57 PM
If you lot are trying to confuse me... It's working...  :-[

Use a thesaurus. It's what I do when some of them start using big words.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 01:43:19 PM
I believe you're confusing science with scripture. The idea of race (in terms of humans) is a social construct, we know today that there is only one human race. Also, our understanding of natural selection has also come a long way since it was initially proposed.

Absolute, unadulerated horse s**t, which sound like something from Mein Kampf. There is no such a thing as the "European race". In fact, the term 'race' carries very little explanatory power. Genetically, there is more variation within a so-called race than between 'races'. (In other words, a white person may have more in common, genetically, with a black person than that black person has with other black people). We are all descended from a common ancestor who lived in Africa.

So what Darwin said was BS? Considered in hindsight, or whatever?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stereophreak on November 11, 2011, 01:45:14 PM
Whatever you guys do, do NOT anthropomorphise computers - they HATE it.....
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 01:48:55 PM
So what Darwin said was BS? Considered in hindsight, or whatever?

Sorry, that came out wrong. Didn't mean to promote petty argument based on words.

Point is, he was wrong at that moment, even if it does not necessarily render his whole theory of evolution wrong.

Likewise, many things are said 'in the name of God' or 'based on scripture' that are utter BS, which does not render SCRIPTURE wrong, but only our understanding at that moment...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 11, 2011, 01:56:26 PM
Sorry, that came out wrong. Didn't mean to promote petty argument based on words.

Point is, he was wrong at that moment, even if it does not necessarily render his whole theory of evolution wrong.

Likewise, many things are said 'in the name of God' or 'based on scripture' that are utter BS, which does not render SCRIPTURE wrong, but only our understanding at that moment...

I'm not sure where that quote comes from, but Darwin, like everyone else, was a product of his times (1800s) and, if he did say that, it has very little bearing on his arguments in On the Origin of Species, which makes almost no reference to human evolution. In addition, Darwin did not have the benefit of modern genetic science, which has largely confirmed his basic theory of evolution.

Whatever you guys do, do NOT anthropomorphise computers - they HATE it.....

But my computer gets so lazy when it is hot and occasionally goes on strike when it encounters a virus. ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 11, 2011, 02:04:33 PM
Likewise, many things are said 'in the name of God' or 'based on scripture' that are utter BS, which does not render SCRIPTURE wrong, but only our understanding at that moment...

Yes, but the distinction I'm trying to make is that scripture is not a reliable tool for understanding the world around us.

If two believers of the same faith disagree on some religious point, then they can use their religious text to attempt to settle the disagreement. Outside of those that share the same faith though, it is not as valid as the scientific method
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 11, 2011, 02:07:48 PM
Yes, but the distinction I'm trying to make is that scripture is not a reliable tool for understanding the world around us.

For sure it is not.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 02:13:26 PM
I'm not sure where that quote comes from, but Darwin, like everyone else, was a product of his times (1800s) and, if he did say that, it has very little bearing on his arguments in On the Origin of Species, which makes almost no reference to human evolution. In addition, Darwin did not have the benefit of modern genetic science, which has largely confirmed his basic theory of evolution.

Quote is from 'Descent of man' 1871.

Like I said - it does not necessarily render his whole theory wrong. And I grant his social and cultural settings.

But, likewise, what A church, preacher, follower says does not necessarily render scripture wrong - whatever the religion.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: ViVoAudio on November 11, 2011, 02:14:58 PM
I think the problem with scripture is it was written so long ago and if you don't read it in context with the time it was written in, leading to gross mi-interpretations
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 02:24:42 PM
Yes, but the distinction I'm trying to make is that scripture is not a reliable tool for understanding the world around us.

If two believers of the same faith disagree on some religious point, then they can use their religious text to attempt to settle the disagreement. Outside of those that share the same faith though, it is not as valid as the scientific method

I agree, Ken, but then I will also say that science cannot and MUST not attempt to encompass all of human existence. If there is a manual on 'How to love your wife' - with step by step instructions - and 'love' itself is reduced to merely secretions by glands, surely the greatness of this blind, great feeling that I called 'love' in the first place is hugely reduced?

There is a huge part of human existence that is SUBJECTIVE, and I think it should be allowed to be otherwise (thus that part, in turn, must not intrude on the field of the non-subjective). I have a nasty feeling I'll have to correct myself somewhere in that sentence...

But, together, the subjective and the not-subjective form life, the universe and everything else.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 02:27:02 PM
Pffft.... should NOT be allowed to be otherwise ^^^^
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 11, 2011, 02:34:22 PM
I agree, Ken, but then I will also say that science cannot and MUST not attempt to encompass all of human existence. If there is a manual on 'How to love your wife' - with step by step instructions - and 'love' itself is reduced to merely secretions by glands, surely the greatness of this blind, great feeling that I called 'love' in the first place is hugely reduced?

There is a huge part of human existence that is SUBJECTIVE, and I think it should be allowed to be otherwise (thus that part, in turn, must not intrude on the field of the non-subjective). I have a nasty feeling I'll have to correct myself somewhere in that sentence...

But, together, the subjective and the not-subjective form life, the universe and everything else.

To me learning why something is doesn't lessen it. In fact I rather like knowing.

I guess I can see how it might disturb if you hold a certain belief. Take deja vu, I know it simply to be a side effect of one section of your brain interpreting the information before it reaches the part that actually renders the image. However, someone who likes to think they've lived multiple lives might be upset by that notion.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 02:41:15 PM
To me learning why something is doesn't lessen it. In fact I rather like knowing.

I guess I can see how it might disturb if you hold a certain belief. Take deja vu, I know it simply to be a side effect of one section of your brain interpreting the information before it reaches the part that actually renders the image. However, someone who likes to think they've lived multiple lives might be upset by that notion.

Even without any form of belief - just the experience of great raw, stupid emotions is friggin' great!   ;D

And, wether you understand where they come from or not, it's part of being human and still friggin' great!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 11, 2011, 02:50:07 PM
What I've been trying to get across is not that religion is wrong, it's that it is a lifestyle choice, you can take it or leave it, it can be real to you or it can simply be a collection of stories. Whereas science just is. Whether you "believe" in it or not doesn't stop your speakers from working.
my biggest gripe with atheists, evolution and big bang theory, is that they want to equate their beliefs with scientific truth, and that those who believe in the bible, do not  believe in science!!! the big bang theory as well as evolution has no scientific evidence to back it up! no hard physical science facts can explain BBT(not big bolo sheet theory) it's just speculation that appeals to people who want to believe that they have a scientific outlook!! if you have a scientific outlook, how come you can believe in something that cannot be proved physically, there's no experiment that can be conducted  under controlled conditions to back up the theories, all we is speculation!!! also the BBT(excuse me again!!!) is very counter to the physical law which states that you cannot create or destroy matter or energy. but no the BBT(excuse me once more) would have us believe that at first there was nothing ( no matter, no dog poop, or horse sheet, no nothing) and then there was poooof!! kabooom!!katziboom, and everything came out of this BBT(sorry for that!!!) what existed prior to this bang? how did this bang come about? how big was it? how much did it register on the Reichter scale, whereabout on earth was it? when exactly was this bang, not about so many billion years ago, not scientific enough for me!! how can we be sure of it if nobody heard it, what time was it, how long did it last, how did it look like, was there smoke or blue gas? there just isn't any tangible hard fact to the theory but it is touted as the be all end all of scientific explanation! physical laws exist which nobody disputes, but to stretch these laws to explain the big bang theory and evolution is boloshet in my opinion!!! both the BBT and creationist theories cannot and have not been proved!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 11, 2011, 02:56:19 PM
Wait...What?  ??? You have been here the past 83 pages, haven't you??!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 11, 2011, 03:03:48 PM
Wait...What?  ??? You have been here the past 83 pages, haven't you??!

+1000
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stereophreak on November 11, 2011, 03:09:03 PM
Wait...What?  ??? You have been here the past 83 pages, haven't you??!
+1
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 03:16:13 PM
Wait...What?  ??? You have been here the past 83 pages, haven't you??!

The great, raw joy of being a moderator... read on, dammit!  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 11, 2011, 03:18:49 PM
The great, raw joy of being a moderator... read on, dammit!  ;D

I'm waiting for Ken or Gordon to have a complete and utter apoplexy  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 11, 2011, 03:22:17 PM
Mr B is moderating again ?

COOL, bring out dem titties  :D

PS: not yours G :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 11, 2011, 03:24:16 PM
Mr B is moderating again ?

I got ambushed :-[
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: fdlsys on November 11, 2011, 03:24:30 PM
Eish...! I've missed the last 33 pages of this - could someone please summarise it for me?
At high level - fact by fact?
 ;D

@SS: Yeeeesss!!!! B0000BS!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 03:27:14 PM
apoplexy

I think I may have strained something...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 03:31:04 PM
Eish...! I've missed the last 33 pages of this - could someone please summarise it for me?
At high level - fact by fact?

Yes, ok: People get angry. A lot. Easily. Mostly because they talk past each other.

Uhmmm... did I leave out anything?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 11, 2011, 03:33:44 PM
Eish...! I've missed the last 33 pages of this - could someone please summarise it for me?
At high level - fact by fact?
 ;D

@SS: Yeeeesss!!!! B0000BS!

Creationists are right / wrong. Evolutionists are right / wrong.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 11, 2011, 03:35:08 PM
Eish...! I've missed the last 33 pages of this - could someone please summarise it for me?
At high level - fact by fact?
 ;D

@SS: Yeeeesss!!!! B0000BS!

Summary:

Group 1: Scientists dissing religious nuts

Group 2: Religious nuts calling scientists a bunch of factless whackadoos

plus the odd tittie here and there
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: fdlsys on November 11, 2011, 03:37:22 PM
...plus the odd tittie here and there
Where - where???

See how easily I lost focus on the summary ...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 11, 2011, 03:38:35 PM
Where - where???

I removed them because they were off-topic and placed them in my Private Folder for later viewing.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 11, 2011, 03:39:31 PM
Where - where???

See how easily I lost focus on the summary ...

Apparently the moral majority are absolutely horrified at the sight of them. Evolution is a bitch
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: fdlsys on November 11, 2011, 03:39:54 PM
...and placed them in my Private Folder for later viewing moderation.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 03:42:06 PM
We went through all of creation and evolution (and everything before) - and where do we end up?

Titties...

I rest my case. Sigh. Wonderful life.  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: fdlsys on November 11, 2011, 03:45:43 PM
Quote from: Sh1tStirrer
Apparently the moral majority are absolutely horrified at the sight of them. Evolution is a bitch

Quote from: Strainger
We went through all of creation and evolution (and everything before) - and where do we end up? Titties...

My belief system is simple - I believe in explainable, tangible, repeatable, manageable...

B00bs are all this, plus they really look nice.
They MUST have been given to us by [preferred deity].
SS, you are my religious leader and [preferred deity]'s mortal representative...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 11, 2011, 03:47:37 PM
Arch, I've given up 50 odd pages ago. I've given examples at least of where evolution took place. What have you given, a reference that just state the mathematical implausibilty written by some cult leader!? ;)

I suggest you also look up the meaning of the word 'cultivar'(cultivated variety) and that of plant propagation, plant selection etc. It's an 'articifial' form of natural selection(fundamental element of evolution), and that is what gives you a variety of fruit to enjoy from the supermarket.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 11, 2011, 03:48:06 PM


No, no, no, I don't moderate them at all. I like them just the way they are.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 03:51:41 PM
Arch, I've given up 50 odd pages ago. I've given examples at least of where evolution took place. What have you given, a reference that just state the mathematical implausibilty written by some cult leader!? ;)

I suggest you also look up the meaning of the word 'cultivar'(cultivated variety) and that of plant propagation, plant selection etc. It's an 'articifial' form of natural selection(fundamental element of evolution), and that is what gives you a variety of fruit to enjoy from the supermarket.

Stefan, no offence, but if you look at the trend of the last few posts, THIS is what I call an anti-climax! ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 11, 2011, 03:54:10 PM
Here, many people will enjoy this, then: Evolution of the breast

The primary function of the breasts — as mammary glands — is the feeding and the nourishing of an infant child with breast milk during the maternal lactation period. The round shape of the breast helps to limit the loss of maternal body heat, because milk production depends upon a higher-temperature environment for the proper, milk-production function of the mammary gland tissues, the lactiferous ducts. Regarding the shape of the breast, the study The Evolution of the Human Beast (2001) proposed that the rounded shape of a woman's breast evolved to prevent the sucking infant offspring from suffocating while feeding at the teat; that is, because of the human infant's small jaw, which did not project from the face to reach the nipple, he or she might block the nostrils against the mother's breast if it were of a flatter form (cf. chimpanzee); theoretically, as the human jaw receded into the face, the woman's body compensated with round breasts.[21]
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 11, 2011, 04:05:37 PM
my biggest gripe with atheists, evolution and big bang theory, is that they want to equate their beliefs with scientific truth, and that those who believe in the bible, do not  believe in science!

A scientist can be a man of faith and still employ the scientific method. As mentioned earlier, science and religion are not mutually exclusive, scientist does not equal atheist.

The big bang theory as well as evolution has no scientific evidence to back it up! no hard physical science facts can explain BBT(not big bolo sheet theory) it's just speculation that appeals to people who want to believe that they have a scientific outlook!

There are far too many evidences for evolution to go through here, but the main evidences for the Big Bang are more easily digestible:

Quote
The Big Bang is the leading theory that almost all astrophysicists believe explains the origin of the universe. This is because all observations so far made support the Big Bang theory; there are four main lines of evidence that are most-often used.

The first was discussed above: The expansion of the universe. The universe is expanding now, so in the past it must have been smaller. If it were smaller in the past, then there probably was a time when it was infinitesimally small. One could ask why don't we think that it might be expanding now but it could have been shrinking before and we just don't know about it. The answer is that there is simply no mechanism that we know about that could accomplish this transition on a universal scale.

The second line of evidence is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) that was discovered in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson from Bell Labs. They were working with a microwave receiver, but were getting noise from every direction they pointed the receiver. It was coming from all over the sky at what seemed to be exactly the same frequency. This was the first evidence for the CMB, and they later shared a Nobel Prize for this discovery.

The CMB is an "echo" left over from when the universe was approximately 300,000 years old, as predicted by the Big Bang model. As something becomes compressed, as matter was when the universe was young, it becomes hot. The actual "heat" comes from particles' movements - the faster they move, the more energetic they are, and so the more heat we see. The universe was so hot before it was 300,000 years old that atoms could not form. Because of this, photons - particles of light - could not move around, for they kept reacting with electrons.

Therefore, during this period, the universe was effectively opaque. Once the universe had reached 300,000 years old, atoms could form, and electrons were now bound to a nucleus. Once this happened, photons could move about freely. This "first light" is the CMB, and its existence is a very strong indication that the Big Bang occurred.

The third major pillar of the Big Bang theory lies in the abundance of the different elements of the universe. The theory predicts that certain amounts of hydrogen, helium, and other elements should be made. Observations have shown almost exactly the amounts that are predicted.

The fourth piece is that the Big Bang theory is the only one that comprehensively lays down a framework for the eventual evolution of the universe as we observe it today.

http://burro.cwru.edu/stu/cosmos_bigbang.html

Now remember, science is a developing body of knowledge, it doesn't claim to be absolute. All we know is at this moment in time, this is the theory that fits best with the evidence at hand. You can choose to believe God made it, we're just trying to figure out how.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 04:24:16 PM
Andrew, your evolution is much more interesting than Ken's!

Anyway:

A scientist can be a man of faith and still employ the scientific method. As mentioned earlier, science and religion are not mutually exclusive, scientist does not equal atheist.

Now remember, science is a developing body of knowledge, it doesn't claim to be absolute. All we know is at this moment in time, this is the theory that fits best with the evidence at hand. You can choose to believe God made it, we're just trying to figure out how.

Agreed! Many of the loose points during the thread brought together.

But:

"...leading theory that almost all astrophysicists believe explains..."

Do you see how that one word colours everything/anything you say from there on?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stereophreak on November 11, 2011, 04:29:27 PM
You can choose to believe God made it, we're just trying to figure out how.

Well said. The alternative is the "God of the gaps" approach that tries to put God into everything that hasn't been explained, but that unfortunately means that God is shrinking as science explains more and more.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 11, 2011, 04:34:48 PM
...that unfortunately means that God is shrinking as science explains more and more.

Errr... that only means that what man said/believed about God is changing, surely?
Title: Sod it...
Post by: chipwelder on November 11, 2011, 04:55:09 PM
Ok Stuff it got to 20 pages and I can't anymore... damn fieldwork...

A prof. of mine once said... Science is physical, Spirituality is meta-physical, you can't use the one to comment on the other. Science answered what and how it happens, Spirituality answers why it happened. It has stuck with me thus far... Although I must say the advances in Nuclear Physics is getting awfully close to the why, but I may be biased...

Steve Jobs sounded like he knew what he was talking about... The few religious books (Bible, Bhagavadgita, some budhist writings) I've read had one common thread... which in almost every last one gets wrapped up in an insane amount of cultural habits and dogma... and the people in all of them have the same spiritual "issues" that I have/had as a good christian boy. That common thread was: This is the way to walk close to God... It is better for you to walk close to God, you'll have a life more aligned with Him. Who/what Him is, is not that important. He is unknowable...

The biblical quotes of "nobody comes to the father through Me" is tempered by "you will know a tree by it's fruit, a good tree won't bear bad fruit and a bad tree won't bear good fruit." So what is Me? My person? or My way? which is in essence love.

The Catholic Church accepted in 1964 that a person may enter into the presence of God through another means than Christian Faith and a belief in Gracious. It was not widely publicised...

B00bs Rule
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 11, 2011, 05:11:29 PM
Please delete this post.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 11, 2011, 06:38:46 PM
Ok Stuff it got to 20 pages and I can't anymore... damn fieldwork...

A prof. of mine once said... Science is physical, Spirituality is meta-physical, you can't use the one to comment on the other. Science answered what and how it happens, Spirituality answers why it happened. It has stuck with me thus far... Although I must say the advances in Nuclear Physics is getting awfully close to the why, but I may be biased...

Steve Jobs sounded like he knew what he was talking about... The few religious books (Bible, Bhagavadgita, some budhist writings) I've read had one common thread... which in almost every last one gets wrapped up in an insane amount of cultural habits and dogma... and the people in all of them have the same spiritual "issues" that I have/had as a good christian boy. That common thread was: This is the way to walk close to God... It is better for you to walk close to God, you'll have a life more aligned with Him. Who/what Him is, is not that important. He is unknowable...

The biblical quotes of "nobody comes to the father through Me" is tempered by "you will know a tree by it's fruit, a good tree won't bear bad fruit and a bad tree won't bear good fruit." So what is Me? My person? or My way? which is in essence love.

The Catholic Church accepted in 1964 that a person may enter into the presence of God through another means than Christian Faith and a belief in Gracious. It was not widely publicised...

B00bs Rule
Proof of the miraculous! - I actually agree with Chipwelder for once ;D

Ken & Arch - you deserve each other! The flip side of the same coin.
Strainger - Lovely quote. Don't feel poorly that the intended audience did not understand. If they don't want to they wont.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Steerpike on November 11, 2011, 06:46:48 PM
B00bs are all this, plus they really look nice.
They MUST have been given to us by [preferred deity].

This would imply god is a mammal. What about a bird god, lizard god, insect god, amphibian god?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: I Shot Tupac!!! on November 11, 2011, 07:21:56 PM
Did someone say b00bs...  :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: fdlsys on November 11, 2011, 08:52:45 PM
Did someone say b00bs...  :D
I see you have your automated forum-search criteria set up correctly! Good man... ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 12, 2011, 12:36:26 AM
Ken & Arch - you deserve each other! The flip side of the same coin.

I would like to think my position has been a little more reasonable that that of the Arch Bishop's. I do understand where you're coming from however, and can understand how uncomfortable some of my views might make you feel.

For clarification, I do not look down on those with metaphysical outlooks on the world. Two of the people I most respect in the world are very devout Christians, and although I do not believe in their faith I admire their conviction to their principles a great deal. My own wife, while not religious, believes she can see ghosts and interact with them. I do not believe in ghosts myself, but I very much love and respect my wife.

Lastly, I leave you with this YouTube clip which puts forth, in a manner more eloquent than my own, my views on the discussion at hand. I would appreciate it if you took the time to view it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlaCq3dKvvI&feature=related
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 12, 2011, 09:23:51 AM
I would like to think my position has been a little more reasonable that that of the Arch Bishop's. I do understand where you're coming from however, and can understand how uncomfortable some of my views might make you feel.

For clarification, I do not look down on those with metaphysical outlooks on the world. Two of the people I most respect in the world are very devout Christians, and although I do not believe in their faith I admire their conviction to their principles a great deal. My own wife, while not religious, believes she can see ghosts and interact with them. I do not believe in ghosts myself, but I very much love and respect my wife.

Lastly, I leave you with this YouTube clip which puts forth, in a manner more eloquent than my own, my views on the discussion at hand. I would appreciate it if you took the time to view it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlaCq3dKvvI&feature=related
The only thing that makes me feel uncomfortable are statements made out to be as fact, by people who know little to nothing on the subject they are making the statement about, or for that matter the point of view they are aligning with. This is the reason I equate you and arch, he is pronouncing on science and you on theology. Surely you have the time to contemplate and formulate on your own position so that you can present it, instead of having to rely on links to others videos.

The other day I was watching this documentary and it proves without a doubt that we are genetically engineered as a slave race by aliens that visited the Earth in the past...

I wont try to show you in your words how you "look down" on those with metaphysical outlooks on the world, however out of love surely you will want to try and convince your wife on those others you respect and love that their views are "simply outdated superstitions".

Let us know when your balls have returned to normal size ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 12, 2011, 09:26:33 AM
I wont try to show you in your words how you "look down" on those with metaphysical outlooks on the world, however out of love surely you will want to try and convince your wife on those others you respect and love that their views are "simply outdated superstitions".

No, I respect my wife and others' point of view, the same as I would have them respect mine. Please do take the time to watch the clip.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 12, 2011, 09:47:33 AM
No, I respect my wife and others' point of view, the same as I would have them respect mine. Please do take the time to watch the clip.
Well at least mention to them that your view of their beliefs is that they are outdated superstitions.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 12, 2011, 09:54:21 AM
Well at least mention to them that your view of their beliefs is that they are outdated superstitions.

They know.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 12, 2011, 10:13:57 AM
They know.
In those words?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 12, 2011, 11:43:33 AM
In those words?

Of course. Why would atheists be atheists if they believed religion to be anything more than that?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: I Shot Tupac!!! on November 12, 2011, 12:30:03 PM
I see you have your automated forum-search criteria set up correctly! Good man... ;D

You better believe it.  ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 12, 2011, 02:07:52 PM
The only thing that makes me feel uncomfortable are statements made out to be as fact, by people who know little to nothing on the subject they are making the statement about, or for that matter the point of view they are aligning with. This is the reason I equate you and arch, he is pronouncing on science and you on theology. Surely you have the time to contemplate and formulate on your own position so that you can present it, instead of having to rely on links to others videos.


"Facts" is what it is all about, and after thousands of years not one religion has presented a single one!
He has presented his case repeatedly and very clearly - making untrue allegations is not going to win you the argument.



The other day I was watching this documentary and it proves without a doubt that we are genetically engineered as a slave race by aliens that visited the Earth in the past...


That would be the company that religion finds itself in - made up tales which are patently far-fetched.





I wont try to show you in your words how you "look down" on those with metaphysical outlooks on the world,

But he's told you repeatedly that he respects others right to believe what they will. To pretend that he also shares their beliefs would be the ultimate betrayal and disrespect.



Let us know when your balls have returned to normal size ;D

Ah, the little insinuations with the smiley -(can you say passive aggressive?). Have you considered that he might not be henpecked? ;D (See there, I did it too!)

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 12, 2011, 02:46:46 PM
my biggest gripe with atheists, evolution and big bang theory, is that they want to equate their beliefs with scientific truth, and that those who believe in the bible, do not  believe in science!!! the big bang theory as well as evolution has no scientific evidence to back it up! no hard physical science facts can explain BBT(not big bolo sheet theory) it's just speculation that appeals to people who want to believe that they have a scientific outlook!! if you have a scientific outlook, how come you can believe in something that cannot be proved physically, there's no experiment that can be conducted  under controlled conditions to back up the theories, all we is speculation!!! also the BBT(excuse me again!!!) is very counter to the physical law which states that you cannot create or destroy matter or energy. but no the BBT(excuse me once more) would have us believe that at first there was nothing ( no matter, no dog poop, or horse sheet, no nothing) and then there was poooof!! kabooom!!katziboom, and everything came out of this BBT(sorry for that!!!) what existed prior to this bang? how did this bang come about? how big was it? how much did it register on the Reichter scale, whereabout on earth was it? when exactly was this bang, not about so many billion years ago, not scientific enough for me!! how can we be sure of it if nobody heard it, what time was it, how long did it last, how did it look like, was there smoke or blue gas? there just isn't any tangible hard fact to the theory but it is touted as the be all end all of scientific explanation! physical laws exist which nobody disputes, but to stretch these laws to explain the big bang theory and evolution is boloshet in my opinion!!! both the BBT and creationist theories cannot and have not been proved!

Arch, please don't take this the wrong way, but EVERYTHING YOU STATED ABOVE IS UNADULTERATED HORSE S**T!!! ;D

* The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and conclusive. The fact that you are ignorant of this evidence does not mean it does not exist.
* Your understanding of scientific methodologies ranks right up there with my dog's understanding of quantum-electro dynamics.
* By evidence for the BBT, do you mean 9x12 glossy pictures or a Blu-Ray documentary?
* What evidence do you have for the existence of an omnipotent and omnipresent being?
* No one has ever seen an atom, but it is an accepted fact that all matter is composed of atoms. How do we know that? Scientists do experiments, the results of which can only be explained by the existence of things like atoms. Likewise, the behaviour and composition of the known universe is best explained by the big bang. Of course, this does not rule out the development of a new theory (based on research) that can explain everything the BBT does and more.

Now, let's look at the 'evidence' for your 'theory'. Some supernatural being created the universe and everything in it. How do you know that? A book containing reinterpreted and selected aspects of Iron Age folklore says so. The thing is that the claims that you made can easily be turned against your 'theory'. To paraphrase your account: "the idea of god creating the universe is very counter to the physical law which states that you cannot create or destroy matter or energy. but no religion would have us believe that at first there was nothing (no matter, no dog poop, or horse sheet, no nothing) and then there was poooof!! kabooom!!katziboom, and everything came out of this creation what existed prior to this act of creation? how did this creation come about? how big was it? how much did it register on the Reichter scale, whereabout on earth [sic] was it? when exactly was this bang, not about so many billion years ago, not scientific enough for me!! how can we be sure of it if nobody heard it, what time was it, how long did it last, how did it look like, was there smoke or blue gas? there just isn't any tangible hard fact to religion but it is touted as the be all end all of scientific explanation!". And, finally, care to explain to us who created this god that you believe in? (Don't forget to include sound and video in your explanation).
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 12, 2011, 03:14:37 PM
"Facts" is what it is all about, and after thousands of years not one religion has presented a single one!
He has presented his case repeatedly and very clearly - making untrue allegations is not going to win you the argument.


That would be the company that religion finds itself in - made up tales which are patently far-fetched.




But he's told you repeatedly that he respects others right to believe what they will. To pretend that he also shares their beliefs would be the ultimate betrayal and disrespect.


Ah, the little insinuations with the smiley -(can you say passive aggressive?). Have you considered that he might not be henpecked? ;D (See there, I did it too!)


What I said was quite plain and didn't imply Ken as being henpecked as you so clearly have some sort of issue with. Do you go fishing often down there?

Come round for lunch tomorrow.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 12, 2011, 03:16:43 PM
What I said was quite plain and didn't imply Ken as being henpecked as you so clearly have some sort of issue with. Do you go fishing often down there?

Come round for lunch tomorrow.

Naw, I leave the fishing to others!

Thanks for the invite but regretfully I won't make it...

Edit: No disrespect, but just imagine, if prayer worked you would have won the argument by now! ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 12, 2011, 03:24:44 PM
Just imagine, if prayer worked you would have won the argument by now! ;D

Priceless!!! :D :D :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 12, 2011, 03:53:32 PM
Arch, please don't take this the wrong way, but EVERYTHING YOU STATED ABOVE IS UNADULTERATED HORSE S**T!!! ;D

* The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and conclusive. The fact that you are ignorant of this evidence does not mean it does not exist.
* Your understanding of scientific methodologies ranks right up there with my dog's understanding of quantum-electro dynamics.
* By evidence for the BBT, do you mean 9x12 glossy pictures or a Blu-Ray documentary?
* What evidence do you have for the existence of an omnipotent and omnipresent being?
* No one has ever seen an atom, but it is an accepted fact that all matter is composed of atoms. How do we know that? Scientists do experiments, the results of which can only be explained by the existence of things like atoms. Likewise, the behaviour and composition of the known universe is best explained by the big bang. Of course, this does not rule out the development of a new theory (based on research) that can explain everything the BBT does and more.

Now, let's look at the 'evidence' for your 'theory'. Some supernatural being created the universe and everything in it. How do you know that? A book containing reinterpreted and selected aspects of Iron Age folklore says so. The thing is that the claims that you made can easily be turned against your 'theory'. To paraphrase your account: "the idea of god creating the universe is very counter to the physical law which states that you cannot create or destroy matter or energy. but no religion would have us believe that at first there was nothing (no matter, no dog poop, or horse sheet, no nothing) and then there was poooof!! kabooom!!katziboom, and everything came out of this creation what existed prior to this act of creation? how did this creation come about? how big was it? how much did it register on the Reichter scale, whereabout on earth [sic] was it? when exactly was this bang, not about so many billion years ago, not scientific enough for me!! how can we be sure of it if nobody heard it, what time was it, how long did it last, how did it look like, was there smoke or blue gas? there just isn't any tangible hard fact to religion but it is touted as the be all end all of scientific explanation!". And, finally, care to explain to us who created this god that you believe in? (Don't forget to include sound and video in your explanation).
You have to realise that your argument is flawed.

The arch is correct in a number/few ways. There is currently no "proof" for the BBT, however evidence points toward it. It is also an incomplete theory from our current logic paradigm with the cause / effect problem. This is the reason science still terms it a theory. We don't have a world sphere theory ... it is completely verifiable and therefore not a theory.

I have noticed that there is extreme reticence amongst certain variants of the scientific proponents to acknowledge that much of what we "know" in relation to these complex scientific matters is educated "guessing". There seems to be the desire to put forward science as a completely infallible record / account of the physical world around us.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 12, 2011, 04:11:54 PM
You have to realise that your argument is flawed.


I have noticed that there is extreme reticence amongst certain variants of the scientific proponents to acknowledge that much of what we "know" in relation to these complex scientific matters is educated "guessing". There seems to be the desire to put forward science as a completely infallible record / account of the physical world around us.


I'm sorry that it's me that has to call you out on it again, but there you go again with an untrue statement - nobody here and in science would ever claim that. You cannot make untrue allegations to try and make your case. In fact, doing so weakens it.

I get that you truly believe what you believe but by now you must realise that in this kind of discussion you cannot further your argument without bringing facts or proof to the table.

 
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 12, 2011, 06:47:30 PM
I'm sorry that it's me that has to call you out on it again, but there you go again with an untrue statement - nobody here and in science would ever claim that. You cannot make untrue allegations to try and make your case. In fact, doing so weakens it.

I get that you truly believe what you believe but by now you must realise that in this kind of discussion you cannot further your argument without bringing facts or proof to the table.

 

No one has ever seen an atom, but it is an accepted fact that all matter is composed of atoms. How do we know that? Scientists do experiments, the results of which can only be explained by the existence of things like atoms.
Knowledge based on interpretation of observed data / phenomena. IE I see certain things happening that I can't verify in my usual paradigms so I'll take a good guess at what is going on.

The word atom means indivisible, as it was first thought to be, but later was found to be in fact quite divisible . This was of course due to the limited resources & other scientific basis at the time, however the principle stands. In 200 years when we look back at the models we have today we will undoubtedly have a good chuckle at how completely wrong we had it.

Edit: If you want to get stupid. I could say that Pam's statement that all matter is composed of atoms is incorrect and therefore I am right - mahahaha
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 12, 2011, 06:59:47 PM
Knowledge based on interpretation of observed data / phenomena. IE I see certain things happening that I can't verify in my usual paradigms so I'll take a good guess at what is going on.

The word atom means indivisible, as it was first thought to be, but later was found to be in fact quite divisible .


Once again, and I'm getting tired of pointing this out, you're using untruths to try and further your argument.

Physics & Chemistry.
A unit of matter, the smallest unit of an element, having all the characteristics of that element and consisting of a dense, central, positively charged nucleus surrounded by a system of electrons. The entire structure has an approximate diameter of 10 -8 centimeter and characteristically remains undivided in chemical reactions except for limited removal, transfer, or exchange of certain electrons.




Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 12, 2011, 07:13:20 PM
Mmm, so you don't believe in nuclear physics then?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 12, 2011, 07:20:40 PM
You have to realise that your argument is flawed.

The arch is correct in a number/few ways. There is currently no "proof" for the BBT, however evidence points toward it. It is also an incomplete theory from our current logic paradigm with the cause / effect problem. This is the reason science still terms it a theory.

I don't think you understand the word "theory" as it pertains to science. I believe what you are refering to is a hypothesis, a prediction based on facts gained through observation.

When a scientific hypothesis / explanation becomes so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter it, it becomes a theory. Theories are not guesses, they are reliable accounts of the real world. That all forms of life on Earth are related by common descent with modification is one of the most reliable facts in the biological sciences.

Once a theory has become exceedingly well extablished, it is termed a law. Thus along side the law of gravity, we have the law of natural selection and the laws of evolution.

You should take the time to watch the clip.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 12, 2011, 07:29:41 PM
The law of the Big Bang?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 12, 2011, 07:32:53 PM
Mmm, so you don't believe in nuclear physics then?

 ???
Don't take this the wrong way but that just doesn't make sense! Maybe you don't understand some of the concepts. An atom was (and is) posited as the smallest unit of an element. Once you alter that by fission or fusion it becomes another element. The ancient atomists believed that an atom couldn't be split into any smaller bits but that idea predates modern science.

You have obviously read the "How to argue religion with the science proponents on their own level" article or blog but you have to stick to the "FACTS" - no use making it up as you go along. I can also tell that you know about existentialism, both theist and atheist, but you really need to go read your Kierkegaard again!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 12, 2011, 07:37:54 PM
The law of the Big Bang?

 ??? ??? ??? ???

Your comprehension can't be that lacking, can it?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 12, 2011, 07:38:42 PM
I have a date tonight - so tis discourse will have to wait.

Read Dalton's atomic works. You will see that as a "modern" scientist. He also started out there. Only toward the end of the 19th century did this view change.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 12, 2011, 07:45:11 PM
I have a date tonight - so tis discourse will have to wait.

Read Dalton's atomic works. You will see that as a "modern" scientist. He also started out there. Only toward the end of the 19th century did this view change.

So what's your point? It was ackowledged ages and pages ago that science evolves and welcomes change and make no claim at absolute truth. You are still deflecting instead of argueing facts.
Enjoy your evening.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 12, 2011, 09:27:39 PM
I have a date tonight - so tis discourse will have to wait.

Read Dalton's atomic works. You will see that as a "modern" scientist. He also started out there. Only toward the end of the 19th century did this view change.

His seminal work was published more than a century ago - things have moved on since then! He was a brilliant scientist but not infallible - was the first to develop a chart of atomic weights.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: mahleu on November 12, 2011, 09:39:16 PM
(http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/467563/81200531.jpg)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: jandre on November 13, 2011, 09:48:17 AM
Excuse me if this has been mentioned somewhere in the previous 37 pages - if have not read through all of it.

Why does science and religion have to be mutually exclusive? Could God not have created everything through the big bang?
 
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: I Shot Tupac!!! on November 13, 2011, 10:09:07 AM
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/275738_508613287_1766774_n.jpg)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 13, 2011, 11:56:51 AM
Could God not have created everything through the big bang?

I suppose it is possible, but extremely improbable. The key problems with this notion is that it raises more questions than answers and ultimately relies on faith rather than evidence. Allow me to demonstrate by means of a simple example. Which of these two accounts carries the greatest explanatory power and contains the fewest untestable assumptions: (1) rain is caused by angels crying; and (2) rain is the outcome of condensation? In the first account, we simply have to accept that angels exist and our understanding of the causes of rain cannot proceed beyond these articles of faith. In the second account, we can conduct experiments to deepen our understanding of condensation, we can study how molecules of water behave under different conditions, we can specify the preconditions necessary for condensation to take place thereby allowing us to predict when and where it is likely to rain, we can measure the rate of condensation, and so on. In short, the second account contains no assumptions that cannot be verified through research and it does not contradict other know laws in science.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 13, 2011, 12:30:31 PM
Also, astrophysicists have recently detected primordial clouds of hydrogen, helium and some other lighter elements, created during the big bang which went on to form the early very volatile stars where the other heavier elements including metals were formed through fusion. As these early stars were short lived they exploded eventually and spewed out the formed elements - contained in all that we can identify today.
The formation of these light elements were theorized to be likely during the big bang and were only recently observed to be true, bolstering the big bang theory.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/11/10/Gas-clouds-support-big-bang-theory/UPI-15871320958944/

http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_19310093
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 14, 2011, 09:16:33 AM
And to throw the spanner in the works oncee more: here's a few more theories to confuse you.

1. this creation does not exist, its an illusion!! you, me, we are illusions, we don't actually exist, we are not communicating on this forum! ::)
2. This is all a dream, one day we all going to wake up from this dream!! :o
3. its all relative, nothing is absolute!
4. Existence is all in the creators mind and we all made from dream stuff, or dram materials!
5. we exist in the creators mind, beyond that there's no existence.
6. Its all vibrations, the tea i'm drinking right now, is all vibrations, and the keyboard i'm striking and my head and the tea cup, its all vibrations :o
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 14, 2011, 09:18:20 AM
We're in The Matrix?!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: chipwelder on November 14, 2011, 09:22:05 AM
[\quote author=Arch Bishop link=topic=12659.msg157005#msg157005 date=1321254993]
And to throw the spanner in the works oncee more: here's a few more theories to confuse you.

1. this creation does not exist, its an illusion!! you, me, we are illusions, we don't actually exist, we are not communicating on this forum! ::)
2. This is all a dream, one day we all going to wake up from this dream!! :o
3. its all relative, nothing is absolute!
4. Existence is all in the creators mind and we all made from dream stuff, or dram materials!
5. we exist in the creators mind, beyond that there's no existence.
6. Its all vibrations, the tea i'm drinking right now, is all vibrations, and the keyboard i'm striking and my head and the tea cup, its all vibrations :o
[/quote]

Well Duh! Obviously! This is not news I mean wave / particle duality is so, what 1920's...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Kent Kassler on November 14, 2011, 09:31:58 AM
"The Long and Winding Intestine that leads to your Hole"
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 14, 2011, 10:52:54 AM
And to throw the spanner in the works oncee more: here's a few more theories to confuse you.

1. this creation does not exist, its an illusion!! you, me, we are illusions, we don't actually exist, we are not communicating on this forum! ::)
2. This is all a dream, one day we all going to wake up from this dream!! :o
3. its all relative, nothing is absolute!
4. Existence is all in the creators mind and we all made from dream stuff, or dram materials!
5. we exist in the creators mind, beyond that there's no existence.
6. Its all vibrations, the tea i'm drinking right now, is all vibrations, and the keyboard i'm striking and my head and the tea cup, its all vibrations :o

Arch, that's just the hyper-irrealism of post-modern discourse, which spawned a range of absurd notions such as the idea that reality is simply what we believe it to be. Feel free to test the notion that everything is just an illusion by getting someone to tie you to a railway track or taking a swim around Seal Island with sardines strapped to your body.  ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 14, 2011, 11:55:26 AM
After attempting to catch up after the weekend, I cannot help but making this comment.

One of my daughters has Celebral Palsy and her mental development is way behind, but somethings she throw in a comment(usually two or three words, sometimes more) that makes perfect sense in the situation. During the weekend our son was whining about something and she out of the blue said "And on and on and on"

Now to me this is what this topic has become, it goes on and on and on.......
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 14, 2011, 12:20:31 PM
After attempting to catch up after the weekend, I cannot help but making this comment.

One of my daughters has Celebral Palsy and her mental development is way behind, but somethings she throw in a comment(usually two or three words, sometimes more) that makes perfect sense in the situation. During the weekend our son was whining about something and she out of the blue said "And on and on and on"

Now to me this is what this topic has become, it goes on and on and on.......
It's great hey?

It started with a big bang and is still young and dense so it is quite hot, but as time goes on the thread expands and will eventualy grow cold ;D

"What we touch. What we smell. What we feel. They’re all part of our reality. But what if life as we know it reflects only one side of the full story? Some of the world’s leading physicists think that this may be the case. They believe that our reality is a projection—sort of like a hologram—of laws and processes that exist on a thin surface surrounding us at the edge of the universe. Although the notion seems outlandish, it’s a long-standing theory that initially emerged years ago from scientists studying black holes; recently, a breakthrough in string theory propelled the idea into the mainstream of physics. What took place was an intriguing discussion on the cutting-edge results that may just change the way we view reality."
http://worldsciencefestival.com/events/holographic_world

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: chipwelder on November 14, 2011, 12:27:19 PM
Wow Abe, catch up on THIS thread... you have a lot of time on your hands...
I somethimes think the deal with people who are challenged in one regard, gets to have this more direct connection to the deity/universal source of energy of their persuasion, which is probably more real than we can believe as it is unadulterated by fashions and dogma, so their take on things, is more spot-on, if not all that elaborate...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 14, 2011, 12:32:18 PM
Wow Abe, catch up on THIS thread... you have a lot of time on your hands...

Speed read and multi-task ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 14, 2011, 12:42:09 PM
is probably more real than we can believe as it is unadulterated by fashions and dogma

Chippy, not so sure if that claim would stand up to scrutiny. ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: chipwelder on November 14, 2011, 12:50:07 PM
The most trustworthy things in life are those nagging feelings that just won't go away... like cables...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 14, 2011, 01:00:00 PM
It's great hey?

It started with a big bang and is still young and dense so it is quite hot, but as time goes on the thread expands and will eventualy grow cold ;D

"What we touch. What we smell. What we feel. They’re all part of our reality. But what if life as we know it reflects only one side of the full story? Some of the world’s leading physicists think that this may be the case. They believe that our reality is a projection—sort of like a hologram—of laws and processes that exist on a thin surface surrounding us at the edge of the universe. Although the notion seems outlandish, it’s a long-standing theory that initially emerged years ago from scientists studying black holes; recently, a breakthrough in string theory propelled the idea into the mainstream of physics. What took place was an intriguing discussion on the cutting-edge results that may just change the way we view reality."
http://worldsciencefestival.com/events/holographic_world

Ja, it's an interesting idea. It's important to understand however, that they are not saying that the physical universe is an illusion, they mean that the space we percieve between things is an illusion and we are actually far more compact than we realise, like a sheet of paper.

I don't know if you heard the story a little while ago about the Neutrinos that were recorded by OPERA as travelling faster than the speed of light from CERN? Now many physicists think it's likely that this reading will prove false, but if it proves true, it would be super exciting.

Take this idea that our universe is in fact more like a flat sheet of paper (called the brane) and that it exists within a higher dimensional space-time (known as the bulk). Neutrinos are super light, rarely interacting with matter, it might be that they had just the right amount of energy to send them flying out from the brane, through the bulk, like a dolphin jumping across the surface of the ocean, and back, not travelling faster than the speed of light, but rather taking a shortcut. It would be an amazing discovery.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Robert_E on November 14, 2011, 01:03:21 PM
The most trustworthy things in life are those nagging feelings that just won't go away... like cables...

The first time I saw the heading of this thread I thought it was a cable discussion.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 14, 2011, 01:05:50 PM
The first time I saw the heading of this thread I thought it was a cable discussion.
it evolved ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 14, 2011, 01:07:31 PM
it evolved ;D ;D

Only after it was created. ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 14, 2011, 01:11:57 PM


I don't know if you heard the story a little while ago about the Neutrinos that were recorded by OPERA as travelling faster than the speed of light from CERN? Now many physicists think it's likely that this reading will prove false, but if it proves true, it would be super exciting.



Sadly they've discovered the error... Mr Einstein continues to be correct!

http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/17/remember-those-faster-than-light-neutrinos-great-now-forget-e/

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Blues on November 14, 2011, 01:13:54 PM
... as time goes on the thread expands and will eventualy grow cold ;D

happened roughly 500 posts ago... ::)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 14, 2011, 01:17:03 PM
My prophecy is that this thread will end when it reaches 666 posts!

Edit: If it doesn't, I'll just set a new date as is the fashion with prophecies... ;D

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 14, 2011, 03:17:43 PM
Sadly they've discovered the error... Mr Einstein continues to be correct!

http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/17/remember-those-faster-than-light-neutrinos-great-now-forget-e/

It's a possible explanation, but the OPERA collaboration did say they had considered the general relativistic effects on the two clocks (they spent three years checking for errors before making the announcement). It'll be some time before we know for sure I think.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Doogle on November 14, 2011, 10:09:34 PM
Well, well, well...... after 39 pages of discussion of belief systems, no-one has even mentioned the esoteric, spiritual realms, reincarnation, channelling, mediumship and the afterlives....... never mind whether there is any scientific basis for the world as we know it changing on 21.12.2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

How narrow minded are the thinkers here...............LOL
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 14, 2011, 10:42:32 PM
And then cameth the lord unto the forum known as AV with a massive spoon :D

Nice to see you around Barry.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Doogle on November 14, 2011, 10:51:33 PM
 ;) Some of us have a very different private belief system - and afterall, how arrogant is mankind in reality to think he is the one and only in a universe of the magnitude of ours? And how big are we really??? We are only relative to what we perceive - our entire galaxy may just be a molecule of particles spinning around in the cell of a much bigger creature!  ::) Who knows anything????????
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 15, 2011, 08:28:50 AM
Well, well, well...... after 39 pages of discussion of belief systems, no-one has even mentioned the esoteric, spiritual realms, reincarnation, channelling, mediumship and the afterlives....... never mind whether there is any scientific basis for the world as we know it changing on 21.12.2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

How narrow minded are the thinkers here...............LOL
I didn't want to give Audiobug some fits, it is apostic heresy to mention anything religious let alone spiritually esoteric in his hearing!! ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 15, 2011, 10:13:00 AM
Well, well, well...... after 39 pages of discussion of belief systems, no-one has even mentioned the esoteric, spiritual realms, reincarnation, channelling, mediumship and the afterlives....... never mind whether there is any scientific basis for the world as we know it changing on 21.12.2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

How narrow minded are the thinkers here...............LOL

An analytical dissection of those fairy tales is reserved for the next 39 pages!!! ;D ;D ;D

I didn't want to give Audiobug some fits, it is apostic heresy to mention anything religious let alone spiritually esoteric in his hearing!! ;D

I can hear it; I just don't believe it. ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 15, 2011, 01:30:48 PM
An analytical dissection of those fairy tales is reserved for the next 39 pages!!! ;D ;D ;D

I can hear it; I just don't believe it. ;D ;D ;D

ken masters wife deals with ghosts,maybe he should start the ball rolling
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 15, 2011, 01:59:53 PM
ken masters wife deals with ghosts,maybe he should start the ball rolling

Yea, she worked in what is supposed to be one of the most haunted hotels in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._James_Hotel_(Cimarron,_New_Mexico) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._James_Hotel_(Cimarron,_New_Mexico))

Since that experience she says she can see ghosts, just casually going about their business. For instance she'll go for a run and when she gets back she'll say she saw two ghosts standing under some doorway. She travels a lot and sometimes she says she sees them in the hotels she stays at, sometimes they wake her up, in which case she politely asks them if they could try not disturb her. She's a character.

Of course I don't believe it at all, but I think it's very cute and we have fun with it.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Steerpike on November 15, 2011, 02:19:19 PM
Of course I don't believe it at all, but I think it's very cute and we have fun with it.

There must be some explanation. A photon is a photon, if her eyes are receptive to them, so are yours. but yours apparently aren't. So is the conclusion that she isn't actually seeing them, but interpreting some other brain stimulus as vision? Is that the definition of a hallucination?
Or, like people under hypnosis, is there a way that you can be made to not see things that are clearly visible? Or made to see things that don't exist. In this case we know the cause is an artificially induced psychiatric state. Can we apply the same explanation to all religious matters ?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 15, 2011, 02:28:59 PM
(http://i41.tinypic.com/25k4ton.jpg)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 15, 2011, 02:29:30 PM
I see stupid dead people.  :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 15, 2011, 02:36:23 PM
Yea, she worked in what is supposed to be one of the most haunted hotels in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._James_Hotel_(Cimarron,_New_Mexico) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._James_Hotel_(Cimarron,_New_Mexico))

Since that experience she says she can see ghosts, just casually going about their business. For instance she'll go for a run and when she gets back she'll say she saw two ghosts standing under some doorway. She travels a lot and sometimes she says she sees them in the hotels she stays at, sometimes they wake her up, in which case she politely asks them if they could try not disturb her. She's a character.

Of course I don't believe it at all, but I think it's very cute and we have fun with it.
It would be nice to talk to your wife, I see ghosts too, I feel their presence, I can smell them or hear their laughter or giggles, sometimes I come across real hostile ones and I don't know how to deal with the situation. it started when I was about five or six years old! my family was visiting a family friend, i accidentally stumbled upon a grave and at that time wasn't aware it was a grave as it was in the compound we were visiting, actually i played right on top of the grave for a very long time, but I experienced something strange, I kept seeing this old woman who was hazy and kept disappearing out of my sight and it like she was trying to pinch me to get me out of that grave, i couldn't feel the pinching of course. later some kid came running and said I must get out from their grandma's grave, and when I didn't an elderly person came and pulled me roughly out from the grave. I didn't know then that it was a perculiar experience and when I told my mother, she reprimanded me for saying stuff like that. but its always difficult for me when I see ghosts!Just the other day, I went to a friend's girlfriend's mother's funeral, the ghost followed me all the way from qwaqwa to Witbank, the woman kept crying asking me to look after her kids. I don't partiularly like going to funerals or graveyards!! but yeah, there's a whole existence beyond the physical world!! and many of the ghosts have similar traits to people,some are outright hilarious, some are mean, some are sad, some would like a little bit of marijuana or liquor, their favorite happens to be cigarrettes, tobacco, marijuana  liquor and sweets.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Steerpike on November 15, 2011, 02:38:54 PM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBqw9gR0aHI
(@ Reply #585, not #587)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 15, 2011, 02:40:22 PM
It would be nice to talk to your wife, I see ghosts too, I feel their presence, I can smell them or hear their laughter or giggles, sometimes I come across real hostile ones and I don't know how to deal with the situation. it started when I was about five or six years old! my family was visiting a family friend, i accidentally stumbled upon a grave and at that time wasn't aware it was a grave as it was in the compound we were visiting, actually i played right on top of the grave for a very long time, but I experienced something strange, I kept seeing this old woman who was hazy and kept disappearing out of my sight and it like she was trying to pinch me to get me out of that grave, i couldn't feel the pinching of course. later some kid came running and said I must get out from their grandma's grave, and when I didn't an elderly person came and pulled me roughly out from the grave. I didn't know then that it was a perculiar experience and when I told my mother, she reprimanded me for saying stuff like that. but its always difficult for me when I see ghosts!Just the other day, I went to a friend's girlfriend's mother's funeral, the ghost followed me all the way from qwaqwa to Witbank, the woman kept crying asking me to look after her kids. I don't partiularly like going to funerals or graveyards!! but yeah, there's a whole existence beyond the physical world!! and many of the ghosts have similar traits to people,some are outright hilarious, some are mean, some are sad, some would like a little bit of marijuana or liquor, their favorite happens to be cigarrettes, tobacco, marijuana  liquor and sweets.

Methinks you shared a little too much of your weed
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 15, 2011, 02:42:30 PM
There must be some explanation. A photon is a photon, if her eyes are receptive to them, so are yours. but yours apparently aren't. So is the conclusion that she isn't actually seeing them, but interpreting some other brain stimulus as vision? Is that the definition of a hallucination?
Or, like people under hypnosis, is there a way that you can be made to not see things that are clearly visible? Or made to see things that don't exist. In this case we know the cause is an artificially induced psychiatric state. Can we apply the same explanation to all religious matters ?

I have a theory as to why she believes in them. Something very unfortunate happened while she was there and I think by believing in ghosts it helps her deal with it.

Neither I nor anyone else is ever present when she sees these ghosts. If asked how she knows they were ghosts, she says she can sense it (they don't look any different from us apparently). As for ghosts waking her up in the night, I attribute that to sleep paralysis.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 15, 2011, 02:57:56 PM
Methinks you shared a little too much of your weed
I don't do weed, cigarettes or liquor
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 15, 2011, 03:03:12 PM
and many of the ghosts have similar traits to people,some are outright hilarious, some are mean, some are sad, some would like a little bit of marijuana or liquor, their favorite happens to be cigarrettes, tobacco, marijuana  liquor and sweets.

ROFLMFAO :D :D :D :D That's funny on so many levels...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 15, 2011, 03:07:32 PM
I don't do weed, cigarettes or liquor

Nor humour I see :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 15, 2011, 03:34:07 PM
Nor humour I see :D


 ;D ;D;D ;D don't worry plenty of humor here mate!!!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: chipwelder on November 15, 2011, 07:30:52 PM
It's like babies and small children see angels and aura's, until they are told that there is nothing there enough.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 15, 2011, 07:51:00 PM
I'll have two of whatever you guys are tokin', thank you!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 15, 2011, 08:04:32 PM
It's like babies and small children see angels and aura's, until they are told that there is nothing there enough.
That reminded me of seeing a troll thing when I was small. He would sit in the corner above my bed. Red face, grey hair. It would have been before I was 3 because it was still at our house in Muizenburg which we left before I was 3. I have memories of my 3rd birthday on the farm on the South cost of KZN and also of my second birthday - got a Mr Plod Bubble bath as one of the presents.

Don't remember any angels though, maybe thats why I am such an evil bastard :)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 15, 2011, 08:09:42 PM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBqw9gR0aHI
(@ Reply #585, not #587)
:D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 16, 2011, 06:22:09 AM
It's like babies and small children see angels and aura's, until they are told that there is nothing there enough.

When I first started dating my wife, her family told me they had a ghost in their house. A female apparition who at night you could sometimes glimpse walking down the stairs. One evening I was over at their place watching TV with her and her mom when I caught a glipse out of the corner of my eye this white figure darting downstairs, I kept an eye on it and it turned out it was just car headlights catching the glass siding along the stairs as they drove by. They had lived in that house since she was a little girl and never figured that out.

If adults can so easily jump to supernatural conclusions, imagine how easy it is for a child to do so. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if much of the time it isn't the child that describes the phenomena to their parents and it's them that furnishes the supernatural explanation. Halos and angels do sound more like something adults would come up with.

That reminded me of seeing a troll thing when I was small. He would sit in the corner above my bed. Red face, grey hair. It would have been before I was 3 because it was still at our house in Muizenburg which we left before I was 3.

Again, as soon as I hear tales of anyone seeing anything in bed (especially when they're little, I myself saw the big bad wolf, dungarees and all), my default position is that it was most likely sleep paralysis.

Some might feel I'm being close minded in my approach, to those people I suggest they watch this YouTube clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI (Yes Byrd, I know your position on YouTube clips.)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 16, 2011, 07:33:46 AM
Again, as soon as I hear tales of anyone seeing anything in bed (especially when they're little, I myself saw the big bad wolf, dungarees and all), my default position is that it was most likely sleep paralysis.
When you are small yes, but when you are more mature that is more a hypnopompic state. I enjoy that state very much and try and get into it at least 3 to 4 times a week.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 16, 2011, 07:38:14 AM
When you are small yes, but when you are more mature that is more a hypnopompic state. I enjoy that state very much and try and get into it at least 3 to 4 times a week.

Sleep paralysis is something quite different altogether and affects both young and old:

The waking nightmare of sleep paralysis

Imagine awaking to a strong sense of a 'presence', pressure on your chest, intense fear and hallucinations, but being incapable of moving a muscle...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/02/sleep-paralysis
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 16, 2011, 07:58:37 AM
You mean a wet dream? :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 16, 2011, 08:02:57 AM
You mean a wet dream? :D

 :D the joys of puberty ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 16, 2011, 09:22:37 AM
I saw a terrible apparition last night and he told me in an icy-cold voice that sh1tstirrer is a moderator. I wanted to scream but the horror of his message stifled all sound. ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 16, 2011, 09:23:59 AM
I saw a terrible apparition last night and he told me in an icy-cold voice that sh1tstirrer is a moderator. I wanted to scream but the horror of his message stifled all sound. ;D ;D ;D

Don't worry - we all had the same experience.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stereophreak on November 16, 2011, 09:24:48 AM
Great disturbance in the Force I sense.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 16, 2011, 09:28:08 AM
I saw a terrible apparition last night and he told me in an icy-cold voice that sh1tstirrer is a moderator. I wanted to scream but the horror of his message stifled all sound. ;D ;D ;D

 ;D That could be a good or a bad thing  :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 16, 2011, 09:37:07 AM
I saw a terrible apparition last night and he told me in an icy-cold voice that sh1tstirrer is a moderator. I wanted to scream but the horror of his message stifled all sound. ;D ;D ;D

There is always a little maddness in my method:D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 16, 2011, 09:44:23 AM
There was method to the madness :D

I am so humbled by the AVF mod team! I don't know how I'd be able to ever thank them enough for just.giving.me.a.chance
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 16, 2011, 10:25:49 AM
There is always a little maddness in my method:D

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself  :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 16, 2011, 10:26:22 AM
Moderator wars  :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 16, 2011, 10:27:37 AM
There is always a little maddness in my method:D

Clearly I need to learn to spell as well
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 16, 2011, 10:28:16 AM
Clearly I need to learn to spell as well

<face-palm>
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 16, 2011, 10:29:16 AM
Can we get this thread back on topic again please, need my entertainment for the day
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 16, 2011, 10:33:33 AM
Can we get this thread back on topic again please, need my entertainment for the day

Religion is stupid. Discuss.  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 16, 2011, 10:38:20 AM
Religion is stupid. Discuss.  ;D

Stupid is also a religion  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 16, 2011, 12:03:36 PM
Can we get this thread back on topic again please, need my entertainment for the day

 :D this topic was about general lack of ignorance of science amongst europeans, but then bang, big bang and it evolved into moderator wars ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 16, 2011, 12:38:11 PM
What came first? Chicken or the egg?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Crankshaft on November 16, 2011, 12:43:05 PM
Chicken primordial soup.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Crankshaft on November 16, 2011, 12:59:25 PM
Did I just have the final say on this thread?   ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 16, 2011, 01:05:35 PM
^^ nope
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 16, 2011, 01:55:26 PM
You mean a wet dream? :D
:) glad somebody caught that - you might not if you are not in sa though
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 16, 2011, 03:31:57 PM
:) glad somebody caught that - you might not if you are not in sa though

This sort of humour tends to escape me, I don't typically enjoy set jokes either. I realise it's a social failing on my part.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 16, 2011, 03:36:49 PM
^^^ I didn't get it either. I blame my low IQ for that.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 16, 2011, 03:39:48 PM
^^^Me too, I was just thinking of about sex again. :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 16, 2011, 05:00:40 PM
Wow, 90% of posts on this board are now the moderators doing a group jerk-off! Get a room boys! ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: I Shot Tupac!!! on November 16, 2011, 05:13:34 PM
Wow, 90% of posts on this board are now the moderators doing a group jerk-off! Get a room boys! ;D

You just made me spit beer all over my laptop...  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 16, 2011, 05:16:09 PM
This sort of humour tends to escape me, I don't typically enjoy set jokes either. I realise it's a social failing on my part.
Set Jokes?

Do you mean jokes that are written before hand and then told or 'set' jokes, as in 'set' books that we had to study at school?

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 16, 2011, 05:19:48 PM
Set Jokes?

Do you mean jokes that are written before hand and then told or 'set' jokes, as in 'set' books that we had to study at school?



Oh, and poor Byrd trying so hard to understand... and have the last word at all costs! ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 16, 2011, 05:27:08 PM
Set Jokes?

Do you mean jokes that are written before hand and then told or 'set' jokes, as in 'set' books that we had to study at school?

I mean of the "three guys walk into a bar" variety, the sort that people pass on to one another. Sometimes such a joke can take me by surprise and be genuinely entertaining, but for the most part they always put me in the awkward position of having to pretend that I find them amusing. My wife laughs her ass off when somebody tries because I'm not very convincing.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 16, 2011, 05:33:46 PM
.. and have the last word at all costs! ;D
^^^^^
He has what looks like a sense of humor or is it irony or possibly neither.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Family_Dog on November 16, 2011, 07:04:25 PM
I saw a terrible apparition last night and he told me in an icy-cold voice that sh1tstirrer is a moderator. I wanted to scream but the horror of his message stifled all sound. ;D ;D ;D


It was the only way we could control him... ;D  ;D  ;D


-F_D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 16, 2011, 07:23:46 PM
... fap, fap, fap ...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fap%20fap%20fap

 :o ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 16, 2011, 08:21:22 PM
... fap, fap, fap ...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fap%20fap%20fap

 :o ;)

I didn't know our banter was fap-worthy. That's a little disturbing :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 16, 2011, 08:48:07 PM
I didn't know our banter was fap-worthy. That's a little disturbing :D

Yip, you're right, maybe a bit harsh - I was just getting a bit bored... should have kept it to myself!  ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: I Shot Tupac!!! on November 16, 2011, 08:54:26 PM
ARG! Overshare alert!  :o
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 16, 2011, 10:53:20 PM
I mean of the "three guys walk into a bar" variety, the sort that people pass on to one another. Sometimes such a joke can take me by surprise and be genuinely entertaining, but for the most part they always put me in the awkward position of having to pretend that I find them amusing. My wife laughs her ass off when somebody tries because I'm not very convincing.

A horse walks in to a bar. Barman says: "Why the long face?"

A termite walks into a bar. Asks "Where's the bar tender..."

Those kinds? ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Doogle on November 16, 2011, 11:45:38 PM
Well, well, well...... after 39 pages of discussion of belief systems, no-one has even mentioned the esoteric, spiritual realms, reincarnation, channelling, mediumship and the afterlives....... never mind whether there is any scientific basis for the world as we know it changing on 21.12.2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

How narrow minded are the thinkers here...............LOL

I am really disappointed at the lack of serious response to my statement above. Never mind an esoteric response about the dawning age of Aquarius, indigo children, higher vibrational energies et al, not even a scientific response to the question of plantetary alignments, axis tilts, or melting ice caps in 2012???

Are the members of our forum only a bunch of religious fundamentalists or analytical scientists?  No-one into spirituality? Makes one wonder if you even listen to your MUSIC, or if you're only a collection of audio technophiles!

Runs, ducks, hides in a corner.........
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on November 16, 2011, 11:56:13 PM
I am really disappointed at the lack of serious response to my statement above. Never mind an esoteric response about the dawning age of Aquarius, indigo children, higher vibrational energies et al, not even a scientific response to the question of plantetary alignments, axis tilts, or melting ice caps in 2012???

Are the members of our forum only a bunch of religious fundamentalists or analytical scientists?  No-one into spirituality? Makes one wonder if you even listen to your MUSIC, or if you're only a collection of audio technophiles!

Runs, ducks, hides in a corner.........
*A library filled with now defunct scientific, peer reviewed and 'thanks for the doctorate, Prof' journals hits the wall behind the spot you were standing.* Om te meet is om te weet, Doogle. En ons kan nie jou stelling meet nie, so screw dit. ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Doogle on November 17, 2011, 12:04:02 AM
Am I now gonna be labelled a troll or kakstirrer?  :P or just a d00s? Mind you, to some people a d00s is a useful thing  ;) for shipping audio goodies!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Blues on November 17, 2011, 03:02:35 AM
I am really disappointed at the lack of serious response to my statement above. Never mind an esoteric response about the dawning age of Aquarius, indigo children, higher vibrational energies et al, not even a scientific response to the question of plantetary alignments, axis tilts, or melting ice caps in 2012???

well as far as I'm concerned, the age of aquarius actually is part of my music collection. neither indigo nor any other children are allowed near my system, and high vibrational energies should be eliminated with a solid rack.
planetary alignment is much less important than proper speaker placement, axis tilt is easily countered with proper spikes and for the melting ice caps, we're back full circle at 'hair'. let the sunshine in... ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 17, 2011, 05:53:40 AM
I am really disappointed at the lack of serious response to my statement above. Never mind an esoteric response about the dawning age of Aquarius, indigo children, higher vibrational energies et al, not even a scientific response to the question of plantetary alignments, axis tilts, or melting ice caps in 2012???

Are the members of our forum only a bunch of religious fundamentalists or analytical scientists?  No-one into spirituality? Makes one wonder if you even listen to your MUSIC, or if you're only a collection of audio technophiles!

For me, lyrics are very important, I'd never listen to an artist who spoke on such things. I fit the definition of a freethinker, I believe that "opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas".
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 17, 2011, 07:27:39 AM
I believe that "opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas".

An opinion is an opinion is an opinion... Anyone can form there own opinions based on whatever they choose to. That is free thinking, what you allude to is narrow-minded, setting out a defined set of criteria on which opinoins sould be formed.

but this is all just my opinion
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on November 17, 2011, 07:44:22 AM
An opinion is an opinion is an opinion... Anyone can form there own opinions based on whatever they choose to. That is free thinking, what you allude to is narrow-minded, setting out a defined set of criteria on which opinoins sould be formed.

but this is all just my opinion
Thats a very sensible thing to say. You'd be ideal as a moderator. ;D I thinks its so precious for believers of the evolution theory, people whose entire opinion relies on the highly improbable being real, *given enough time*, to then discard other ideas based on being 'highly improbable'. But thats just my opinion...not to be taken seriously as its a very foolish thing to say. :)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 17, 2011, 08:04:16 AM
I fit the definition of a freethinker, I believe that "opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas".

I would also consider myself to be a freethinker on many aspects, however there are areas where I am absolutely set in my ways and would budge only with great effort.

One of those areas that I am set in is that everyone has a right to their opinion and the fact that their opinion differs from ours or are influenced by other things, does not mean they are wrong. Therefor it will be a fruitless exercise to impose your own opinion onto others who think differently.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Blues on November 17, 2011, 08:27:53 AM
"opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas".

and science is not influenced by authority, tradition or other dogmas ?

btw, opinions are like ass-holes, everybody's got one... ;)

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 17, 2011, 08:29:52 AM
btw, opinions are like ass-holes, everybody's got one... ;)

Absolutely ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 17, 2011, 09:23:59 AM
An opinion is an opinion is an opinion... Anyone can form there own opinions based on whatever they choose to. That is free thinking, what you allude to is narrow-minded, setting out a defined set of criteria on which opinoins sould be formed.

I didn't coin the term, Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint.

"Freethought holds that individuals should not accept ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their opinions on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or intellectually limiting effects of authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmas. Regarding religion, freethinkers hold that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 17, 2011, 09:37:46 AM
I didn't coin the term, Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint.

"Freethought holds that individuals should not accept ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their opinions on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or intellectually limiting effects of authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmas. Regarding religion, freethinkers hold that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought

and wikipedia is the final word ? or have you forgotten how wiki works ? any tom dick or harry can contribute.

Nice deflection though, but I doubt it'll work
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 17, 2011, 09:41:04 AM
and wikipedia is the final word ? or have you forgotten how wiki works ? any tom **** or harry can contribute.

Nice deflection though, but I doubt it'll work

It's not a deflection, Freethinking is a legitimate philosophical movement which began in the 1600's, it is closely related to Humanism (I would align myself with Humanism, but I don't like it's clubhouse mentality, although I do admire many of it's current and past members). Google it and you'll find plenty of information on the subject outside of Wikipedia.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 17, 2011, 09:48:56 AM
It's not a deflection, Freethinking is a legitimate philosophical movement whose present day incarnation began in the 1600's, it is closely related to Humanism. Google it and you'll find plenty of information on the subject outside of Wikipedia.

that differs to free thinking

you believe that opinions should be form based on fact, so does that mean that if I form an opinion not based on your fact my opinion is less than yours ?

I'm starting to form quite an opinion of you ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 17, 2011, 09:49:21 AM
I have always considered being a freethinker is not follow tradition and neither follow other people, but rather do your own investigation(into anything) and draw your own conclusions.

What you describe to me seems like it is just another group of people that follow a specific idea sheepishly, the same way that people who follow religion are labled.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 17, 2011, 09:51:52 AM


What you describe to me seems like it is just another group of people that follow a specific idea sheepishly, the same way that people who follow religion are labled.

Agreed
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: chipwelder on November 17, 2011, 09:59:19 AM
I am now only considering the text pasted in this thread Ken, there may be some nuances I missed.

In the case of Freethought, i believe it has a severe limitation if it is dependent on proven science... I would find it useful if that free-thinking person uses the skillset of science, logical inductive and deductive reasoning. But considers all manner of evidence, experiential included, even if it is only to guide the questions the person asks.

If the ultimate recourse is proven science, it means that although they would be extremely cognitive and on the balance of probabilities correct about a lot of things. The person would only be able to tread on the path where science has already gone, so it cannot bring new knowledge except as a synthesis of existing knowledge. This may be useful to the general populace, but where does it leave scientists, artists and other innovators.  
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 17, 2011, 10:04:05 AM
that differs to free thinking

you believe that opinions should be form based on fact, so does that mean that if I form an opinion not based on your fact my opinion is less than yours?

Why would you think that? I responded to Doogle's post questioning what we believe in by quoting the Freethought ethos, which is in line with my views.

You guys took issue with my use of the term, arguing the definition of free thinking. I defended myself by pointing out that Freethought was a defined philosphical point of view. Now you attack the philosophy of Freethought itself as well as accuse myself for looking down on you when I have done nothing other than simply state my point of view.

You seem uneccessarily hostile, I really don't think I'm the one passing judgement here.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Robert_E on November 17, 2011, 10:07:35 AM
(http://i41.tinypic.com/25k4ton.jpg)

+1 000 000
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 17, 2011, 10:17:20 AM
free thinking does not equal Freethinking

Perhaps thinking freely is what I'm trying to say to you, not some movement
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 17, 2011, 10:18:26 AM
I really don't think I'm the one passing judgement here.

Really ?

Nowhere in this thread did you pass judgement ? ? ?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 17, 2011, 10:24:38 AM
free thinking does not equal Freethinking

Perhaps thinking freely is what I'm trying to say to you, not some movement

Yes, but that was not what I was saying to you.

Really ?

Nowhere in this thread did you pass judgement ? ? ?

I don't believe so. I have spoken my mind but never derided anyone else's point of view.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 17, 2011, 10:45:26 AM
Yes, but that was not what I was saying to you.


Correct, you forgot to mention it was a movement, this was misleading until you clarified it


Perhaps being a Freethinker has clouded you ability to think freely  :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 17, 2011, 10:49:29 AM
One of those areas that I am set in is that everyone has a right to their opinion and the fact that their opinion differs from ours or are influenced by other things, does not mean they are wrong. Therefor it will be a fruitless exercise to impose your own opinion onto others who think differently.

This thread clearly demonstrates the futility of trying to 'impose' an 'opinion' on someone who does not accept it. Trying to convince someone of an established fact is another matter entirely. Moreover, no one here is saying that each individual is not entitled to his/her own opinion. However, the idea that each person's 'opinion' is correct from his/her own perspective is nonsense - nay, nonsense on stilts. The fact that X believes the tooth fairy exists does not mean he/she is correct. If solipsism was true, humanity would never have made any scientific or technological progress given the fact that such progress is a collective endeavour.

you believe that opinions should be form based on fact, so does that mean that if I form an opinion not based on your fact my opinion is less than yours?


If you are playing devil's advocate, this statement is passable. However, if you are being serious, this statement is meaningless. A person who does not base his/her opinions on facts is an idiot and incapable of conducting an intelligent and meaningful discussion. Likewise, the idea that a fact belongs to a particular person (as implied by the notion of 'your fact') is nonsensical. If your question is: 'if I form an opinion not based on fact, is it less than one based on fact?', the answer is an unequivocal 'YES'. For example: the opinion that fairies will break your fall if you jump off a skyscraper is NOT equivalent to the fact that, given the law of gravity and human physiology, you will die if you jump off a skyscraper. 

If the ultimate recourse is proven science, it means that although they would be extremely cognitive and on the balance of probabilities correct about a lot of things. The person would only be able to tread on the path where science has already gone, so it cannot bring new knowledge except as a synthesis of existing knowledge. This may be useful to the general populace, but where does it leave scientists, artists and other innovators.

If we are not to rely on science to explain reality, what else is there? Fairy tales? Folklore? Mystics? This question has been raised numerous times and is yet to receive a satisfactory answer from sceptics. I am not sure if you understand how innovations in science work. NO scientist starts with a blank slate. New knowledge ALWAYS builds on existing knowledge. It is also not necessarily confined to a particular path; that is precisely why innovation is possible. The fact that scientific progress HAS occurred contradicts your claims.

 
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 17, 2011, 11:32:26 AM
Correct, you forgot to mention it was a movement, this was misleading until you clarified it


Perhaps being a Freethinker has clouded you ability to think freely  :D

I try to be careful on this forum to not to make assumptions about what members are and are not aware of. In my original post I wrote freethinker as one word and provided a definition, I thought this was sufficient to indicate it was something more than just a grammatical error. If I were to go further and provide a short history on the subject, I risk someone thinking I'm insulting their intelligence.

I try to state things in a way that can be Googled if you don't know, but won't come across as condescending (hopefully). I don't always get it right.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 17, 2011, 11:41:44 AM
New knowledge ALWAYS builds on existing knowledge.  

You sure? Newton's law of gravity? Prior to that apple there was no established law to explain gravity.



Sorry, I just couldn't resist Frank :D :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 17, 2011, 11:44:00 AM
I don't always get it right.

 ;D ;D Neither do most of us, thats why we push buttons the way we do  ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 17, 2011, 11:57:07 AM
You sure? Newton's law of gravity? Prior to that apple there was no established law to explain gravity.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist Frank :D :D

To repeat: NEW knowledge builds on EXISTING knowledge. I was not denying that new knowledge is possible (Chippy did that), but rather asserting that innovations in science would be impossible in the absence of pre-existing knowledge. Newton derived his law of universal gravitation to explain Galileo's finding that the accelaration of any body in 'free fall' near the earth's surface is the constant g=980cm/sec2. Newton also used Kepler's law that for any orbiting body r3 w2=K to develop his theories.


No problem, Aldolfus. ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 17, 2011, 12:00:42 PM
Crap! I thought I had you there. ::)

OK, before Galileo and Kepler?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 17, 2011, 12:05:51 PM
Crap! I thought I had you there. ::)

OK, before Galileo and Kepler?

 ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 17, 2011, 12:08:17 PM
I'm reaching :P
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 17, 2011, 12:18:10 PM
OK, before Galileo and Kepler?

In no particular order: Copernicus, Tycho, Ursus, Vesalius, Aristotle, Plato, Huygens, Vieta, Gilbert, Pythagoras ....

The point is that each generation of scientists is schooled in the theories of the preceding generations. Even the most revolutionary developments in science are grounded in an in-depth understanding and assimilation of pre-existing knowledge. As Einstein observed, science is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: ViVoAudio on November 17, 2011, 12:25:35 PM
I'm Sooooo sorry I ever posted in this thread, no it pops up in my 'Show new replies to your posts.' tlink every time
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 17, 2011, 12:45:50 PM

If we are not to rely on science to explain reality, what else is there? Fairy tales? Folklore? Mystics? This question has been raised numerous times and is yet to receive a satisfactory answer from sceptics. I am not sure if you understand how innovations in science work. NO scientist starts with a blank slate. New knowledge ALWAYS builds on existing knowledge. It is also not necessarily confined to a particular path; that is precisely why innovation is possible. The fact that scientific progress HAS occurred contradicts your claims.
 
Quote
/
unfortunately the physical sciences have not explained existence adequately!! this is my point and I'll keep going back to it until you guys absorb it!! physical science approximately explains physical phenomena! that's all!!and even then,science laws approximate the physical truth, they are not even accurate, for example what is the correct value of π? 3.14.... to the blady bliksems decimal places and epsilon? and for your information physical science was born out of mysticism,and contrary to popular belief, many of the discoveries were not really the results of painstaking research and investigations, for example the apple falling from the tree!!! for instance,the guy that claims to have discovered the pattern of the DNA strand saw the pattern in the dream, it was an intuitive discovery he claimed! many scientists such as Newton, Benjamin Franklin, Francis Pascal and the DNA guy were studying mystics!! actually mathematics, chemistry and physics were metaphysical subjects a long time ago, they were only taught at mystery schools, thats why the catholic church initially had trouble with these subjects!! As well, some of the religious truths that are taught come from mystical studies, so the boundary between science and religion is an artificial one and results largely from ignorance from both school of thought! the religious uniformed fanatic and the all knowing arrogant scientist! they are both ignorant that is why they oppose each other even when they agree
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 17, 2011, 12:52:27 PM
^^^LOL
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 17, 2011, 12:57:07 PM
I'm Sooooo sorry I ever posted in this thread, no it pops up in my 'Show new replies to your posts.' tlink every time

 ???

Why? Scared that you may learn something new? Unable to formulate a coherent response to anything unrelated to hi-fi? Afraid of any views that may contradict your own? Can you define ignorance?

The solution is obvious: don't post in threads that may challenge your cosy and myopic views of the world. You are not nearly as sorry as I am that you ever posted in this thread.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 17, 2011, 12:58:08 PM
In no particular order: Copernicus, Tycho, Ursus, Vesalius, Aristotle, Plato, Huygens, Vieta, Gilbert, Pythagoras ....

Oh my goodness, would it appear that I am disturbed because I know who each of these are?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 17, 2011, 01:00:45 PM
The solution is obvious: don't post in threads that may challenge your cosy and myopic views of the world. You are not nearly as sorry as I am that you ever posted in this thread.

That's a bit harsh, don't you think? Especially if you were to look at the original post(start of this topic) and first few responses.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 17, 2011, 01:03:35 PM
That's a bit harsh, don't you think? Especially if you were to look at the original post(start of this topic) and first few responses.

Especially 675 posts later! :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: ViVoAudio on November 17, 2011, 01:04:13 PM
???

Why? Scared that you may learn something new? Unable to formulate a coherent response to anything unrelated to hi-fi? Afraid of any views that may contradict your own? Can you define ignorance?

The solution is obvious: don't post in threads that may challenge your cosy and myopic views of the world. You are not nearly as sorry as I am that you ever posted in this thread.

So now you read minds  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I'm not scared of any thing ' just don't really have the time to read and read and read and read and read and read
I find all science fascinating I just don't like it when science theorizes to much and then look only at fact that prove it's theory instead of just discovering. (said it before I think)

Knowledge is nothing if doesn't make you a better more respectful person
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 17, 2011, 01:17:22 PM
The age of rational thought and science itself was held back over centuries by religious dogma and zealotry. Early scientists were persecuted, banished, tortured and incarcerated for their beliefs.

When Isaac Newton produced work that was undeniably true and that once and forever broke the Earth-centric beliefs that were imposed by the church, a contemporary was moved to write:

Here is how James Gleick describes Newton's finest work:

As he wrote, computed, and wrote more, he saw the pins of a cosmic lock tumbling into place, one by one. The alchemical furnaces went cold; the theological manuscripts were shelved. A fever possessed him, like none since the plague years. He ate mainly in his room, a few bites standing up. He wrote standing at his desk. When he did venture outside, he would seem lost, walk erratically, turn and stop for no apparent reason, and disappear inside once again. Thousands of sheets of manuscripts lay all around, ink fading on parchment, the jots and scribbles of four decades, undated and disorganized. he had never written like this: with a great purpose, and meaning his words to be read.

On 1686, at the age of 44, Isaac Newton finished Book I of Philosophie Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
It is now established that this force he identified is gravity, and therefore we shall call it gravity from now on.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 17, 2011, 01:26:48 PM
The age of rational thought and science itself was held back over centuries by religious dogma and zealotry. Early scientists were persecuted, banished, tortured and incarcerated for their beliefs.


And people of faith weren't ?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 17, 2011, 01:34:42 PM
And people of faith weren't ?

The Catholic church basically screwed everything, so at least they don't count.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 17, 2011, 01:35:42 PM
And people of faith weren't ?

Of course they were.. by the church - as is known, most of these scientist were also religious but the church denied them the right to question long held beliefs.
Also two wrong don't make a right.


PS. Shouldn't you be moderating this thread Mr Sh!tty instead of trying so hard to impose your point of view?  ??? ??? ;) I mean at least try to be impartial if you're going to play prefect! ;D

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Blues on November 17, 2011, 01:40:27 PM
???

Why? Scared that you may learn something new?

so there's something new to be learned from this thread ?
like that nobody's ever to change their opinion ? that for some science is the holy grail ? or that people eventually resort to insults ?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 17, 2011, 01:41:51 PM
That's a bit harsh, don't you think? Especially if you were to look at the original post(start of this topic) and first few responses.

Perhaps, but suggesting that a thread is not worth posting in could be seen as equally harsh to everyone who has posted in that thread.

So now you read minds  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I'm not scared of any thing ' just don't really have the time to read and read and read and read and read and read. I find all science fascinating I just don't like it when science theorizes to much and then look only at fact that prove it's theory instead of just discovering. (said it before I think)

I was merely posing a question based your post and not claiming to read minds (Arch is the only one that can do that). I appreciate that you may not have the time to read through all posts in this thread, but are you suggesting that forum members refrain from extending any thread that you have posted in? Given the wide-ranging and sincere comments made in this thread, perhaps you could acknowledge that your comments may be interpreted as dismissive and condescending. No one has unique access to the truth (again, with the notable exception of Arch), but science at least tries to base its claims on evidence. What you describe above is dogma not science. No theory that blatantly ignores counter-evidence can ever be seen as science. The scientific community would not allow such a 'theory' to go unchallenged. Moreover, 'just discovering' (as you put it) would be impossible without theory. The process of discovery is only possible because a theory exists to guide the research and to explain the results. Contrary to popular belief, facts do not 'speak for themselves', but have to been interpreted through extant conceptual frameworks.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: u235 on November 17, 2011, 01:47:29 PM
so there's something new to be learned from this thread ?
like that nobody's ever to change their opinion ? that for some science is the holy grail ? or that people eventually resort to insults ?



Sadly, all of the above. Isn't it amusing how quickly the masks slip and the fangs show.......

One of the reasons that science has proved so robust is because scientists NEVER give up a point of view until they are beaten into submission by evidence and logic. So those doing the beating had better be really sure, really coherent, and really tough!

Whereas those who believe (in anything) NEVER give up a point of view at all, regardless of evidence or logic!

(all generalisations are wrong...) ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: chipwelder on November 17, 2011, 01:52:56 PM
AB ^^^^ You are reading between the lines a bit too vigorously today... That was not what was said...

...If we are not to rely on science to explain reality, what else is there? Fairy tales? Folklore? Mystics? This question has been raised numerous times and is yet to receive a satisfactory answer from sceptics. I am not sure if you understand how innovations in science work. NO scientist starts with a blank slate. New knowledge ALWAYS builds on existing knowledge. It is also not necessarily confined to a particular path; that is precisely why innovation is possible. The fact that scientific progress HAS occurred contradicts your claims.

I did not say the scientific process is invalid, in fact the opposite, it is extremely valid. I merely said that if the Freethought movement doctrine only base their opinions on proven science, then they might lose out on innovation. Furthermore i agreed that for the most parts it would not be a big loss and quite the opposite it may be quite beneficial.  
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 17, 2011, 01:55:26 PM
so there's something new to be learned from this thread ?
like that nobody's ever to change their opinion ? that for some science is the holy grail ? or that people eventually resort to insults ?

Absolutely, if you are open-minded.

Only a know-it-all will never learn anything new. Sensible people change their opinions when confronted with compelling counter-evidence. Holy grails are for those who harbour beliefs that do not require any evidence; science is simply the truths that we can prove. Finally, don't confuse robust discussion with insults. 
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: ViVoAudio on November 17, 2011, 01:59:55 PM
Perhaps, but suggesting that a thread is not worth posting in could be seen as equally harsh to everyone who has posted in that thread.

I was merely posing a question based your post and not claiming to read minds (Arch is the only one that can do that). I appreciate that you may not have the time to read through all posts in this thread, but are you suggesting that forum members refrain from extending any thread that you have posted in? Given the wide-ranging and sincere comments made in this thread, perhaps you could acknowledge that your comments may be interpreted as dismissive and condescending. No one has unique access to the truth (again, with the notable exception of Arch), but science at least tries to base its claims on evidence. What you describe above is dogma not science. No theory that blatantly ignores counter-evidence can ever be seen as science. The scientific community would not allow such a 'theory' to go unchallenged. Moreover, 'just discovering' (as you put it) would be impossible without theory. The process of discovery is only possible because a theory exists to guide the research and to explain the results. Contrary to popular belief, facts do not 'speak for themselves', but have to been interpreted through extant conceptual frameworks.

I Agree with 100%

I've actually made the mistake of generalizing my comment and I'm sorry for that.
Science by definition (I think, Knowing very little) Is as you describe it, but the media that most main stream people view tend to state only the facts arguing for a given theory or hypothesis and not against.
Yes if every one on the planet had all the fact and findings of every scientific discovery ever made they would laugh at what gets broadcast or publicized (excluding actual scientific print media etc.)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 17, 2011, 02:00:54 PM

PS. Shouldn't you be moderating this thread Mr Sh!tty instead of trying so hard to impose your point of view?  ??? ??? ;) I mean at least try to be impartial if you're going to play prefect! ;D


Being a moderator doesn't mean he can't participate? Does he suddenly not have the right to have an opinion?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 17, 2011, 02:02:39 PM

Sadly, all of the above. Isn't it amusing how quickly the masks slip and the fangs show.......


(all generalisations are wrong...) ;D

+100

I have learned more about some people around here during this thread, some good and some less so, than since I've joined this forum! A few have risen in my estimation, others unfortunately have sunk a bit while a couple has been confirmed as total tools! ;D So scientifically speaking it has all been worthwhile and quite instructive! ;D





Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 17, 2011, 02:05:41 PM
Being a moderator doesn't mean he can't participate? Does he suddenly not have the right to have an opinion?

Maybe there's no need to insert yourself quite so forcefully and with such disdain into the argument? Think referee instead of player? ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 17, 2011, 02:09:46 PM
Maybe there's no need to insert yourself quite so forcefully and with such disdain into the argument? Think referee instead of player? ;)

Asking you a question is 'forceful' and shows 'disdain'? Um, okay, if you say so. Stirrer is asking the same questions he did before he was a moderator, so I'm trying to see why you feel he shouldn't do so anymore?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 17, 2011, 02:16:38 PM
Asking you a question is 'forceful' and shows 'disdain'? Um, okay, if you say so. Stirrer is asking the same questions he did before he was a moderator, so I'm trying to see why you feel he shouldn't do so anymore?

The questions are fine, as is his very funny repartee and excellent wit, but... ahem.. maybe I'm just "pushing some buttons" back! Sweet that you feel so protective of him, is he you son? ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Blues on November 17, 2011, 02:17:38 PM
Absolutely, if you are open-minded.

Only a know-it-all will never learn anything new. 

I agree, and our common hobby is a good example. this thread much less so.

Sensible people change their opinions when confronted with compelling counter-evidence.   

so what's missing here, sensible people or compelling evidence ? ;)

Holy grails are for those who harbour beliefs that do not require any evidence; science is simply the truths that we can prove.

kinda missed my point there...

Finally, don't confuse robust discussion with insults. 

if you noticed my other posts in this thread it should be obvious that I'm more in the amused camp than in the confused one.  ;)




Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 17, 2011, 02:18:17 PM
The questions are fine, as is his very funny repartee and excellent wit, but... ahem.. maybe I'm just "pushing some buttons" back! Sweet that you feel so protective of him, is he you son? ;D

Oh, okay, no was just trying to understand your viewpoint.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 17, 2011, 02:21:40 PM
The questions are fine, as is his very funny repartee and excellent wit, but... ahem.. maybe I'm just "pushing some buttons" back! Sweet that you feel so protective of him, is he you son? ;D

:D











Edit:
Just realized it now, my 666th post! :D

"Woe to You Oh Earth and Sea
for the Devil sends the beast with wrath
because he knows the time is short
Let him who have understanding
reckon the number of the beast
for it is a human number
its number is six hundred and sixty six."
-iron maiden
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 17, 2011, 02:37:22 PM



PS. Shouldn't you be moderating this thread Mr Sh!tty instead of trying so hard to impose your point of view?  ??? ??? ;) I mean at least try to be impartial if you're going to play prefect! ;D



I'm not trying to impose my views, I'm merely stating them and questioning yours and others' - this is called debate. Is no one allowed to do that ? and since when does being a moderator exclude me or other mods from the discussion ?

 :P :P
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 17, 2011, 02:46:38 PM
I'm not trying to impose my views, I'm merely stating them and questioning yours and others' - this is called debate. Is no one allowed to do that ? and since when does being a moderator exclude me or other mods from the discussion ?

 :P :P

Since I said so, now shuttup and let the members get on with an intelligent debate! ;D

And you thought stirring was your sole domain! ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 17, 2011, 02:49:13 PM
I did not say the scientific process is invalid, in fact the opposite, it is extremely valid. I merely said that if the Freethought movement doctrine only base their opinions on proven science, then they might lose out on innovation. Furthermore i agreed that for the most parts it would not be a big loss and quite the opposite it may be quite beneficial.  

So you feel innovation stems from adhering to logical fallacies, intellectually limiting authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend and other dogmas? Because that's all that Freethought is about, not accepting ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 17, 2011, 02:49:45 PM
Since I said so, now shuttup and let the members get on with an intelligent debate! ;D

And you thought stirring was your sole domain! ;D ;D

 ;D ;D Hero worship  :D :D

Now that I cant stir, you're taking over the legacy ?  :D :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: chipwelder on November 17, 2011, 03:00:35 PM
So you feel innovation stems from adhering to logical fallacies, intellectually limiting authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend and other dogmas? Because that's all that Freethought is about, not accepting ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason.

Did the bold only not help at all???
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 17, 2011, 03:02:21 PM
I Agree with 100%

I've actually made the mistake of generalizing my comment and I'm sorry for that.
Science by definition (I think, Knowing very little) Is as you describe it, but the media that most main stream people view tend to state only the facts arguing for a given theory or hypothesis and not against.
Yes if every one on the planet had all the fact and findings of every scientific discovery ever made they would laugh at what gets broadcast or publicized (excluding actual scientific print media etc.)

Sorry, I probably over-reacted. :-[ Just found the recurring insinuation that the topics raised in this thread are not worthy of discussion a bit tedious. After all, no one is compelled to read anything that they do not wish to read.

I agree, and our common hobby is a good example. this thread much less so.

I do not agree - several of the posts in this thread raise stimulating food for thought.

so what's missing here, sensible people or compelling evidence ? ;)

I shall reserve comment on this point. ;D

kinda missed my point there...if you noticed my other posts in this thread it should be obvious that I'm more in the amused camp than in the confused one.  ;)

Fair enough, but are you prepared to concede that some comments from the 'amused camp' come perilously close to the I-know-everything camp?

 
I have learned more about some people around here during this thread, some good and some less so, than since I've joined this forum! A few have risen in my estimation, others unfortunately have sunk a bit while a couple has been confirmed as total tools! ;D

PLEASE elaborate.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 17, 2011, 03:02:33 PM
The Catholic church basically screwed everything, so at least they don't count.

Don't make me set my Pope on you!  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 17, 2011, 03:04:25 PM
Pope

Is that what you call your pink thong nowadays  :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 17, 2011, 03:10:29 PM
Is that what you call your pink thong nowadays  :D

Shirt...pink shirt... >:(
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 17, 2011, 03:12:02 PM
;D ;D Hero worship  :D :D

Now that I cant stir, you're taking over the legacy ?  :D :D

It would be an honour but I fear I would be judged lacking..! ;D

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 17, 2011, 03:12:54 PM
Is that what you call your pink thong nowadays  :D

Of om aan 'n kleuter te peuter!?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 17, 2011, 03:16:04 PM

Just realized it now, my 666th post! :D

"Woe to You Oh Earth and Sea
for the Devil sends the beast with wrath
because he knows the time is short
Let him who have understanding
reckon the number of the beast
for it is a human number
its number is six hundred and sixty six."
-iron maiden

The Devil plays a Stratocaster?

(http://i39.tinypic.com/10q085u.jpg)

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 17, 2011, 03:21:33 PM


 
PLEASE elaborate.


Well, I now think that you are a very mature and intelligent person and I wouldn't be surprised if you're quite handsome as well!

Enough? ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Robert_E on November 17, 2011, 03:21:59 PM
AND:

My prophecy is that this thread will end when it reaches 666 posts!

Edit: If it doesn't, I'll just set a new date as is the fashion with prophecies... ;D

That didn't happen maybe we get lucky and it dies off at post 777
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Blues on November 17, 2011, 03:28:48 PM
Fair enough, but are you prepared to concede that some comments from the 'amused camp' come perilously close to the I-know-everything camp?

I do, but then that's true for some posts of any 'camp', isn't it...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 17, 2011, 03:29:58 PM
It would be an honour but I fear I would be judged lacking..! ;D



LOL I doubt that, your sh1t stirring abilities are well documented  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 17, 2011, 04:07:59 PM
The Devil plays a Stratocaster?

(http://i39.tinypic.com/10q085u.jpg)



Did you draw a fish around it? :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 17, 2011, 04:58:59 PM
Did you draw a fish around it? :D

^^^ ;D Must've been divine inspiration or intervention or my k@k attempt to draw a circle!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Steerpike on November 17, 2011, 05:03:21 PM
(http://www.uploads.co.za/files/fmr0bkyct1c2d9taffe7.jpg)

1 Kings 14:9 You have done more evil than all who lived before you. You have made for yourself other gods, idols of metal.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 17, 2011, 06:04:32 PM
^^^brilliant!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 17, 2011, 10:22:37 PM
Seems to me like most arguments in this thread against religion is against religion and not against a Creator - existence or none-existence.

Seems to me like the only proof that a Creator does not exist, is the lack of evidence that he/she/they/it exists.
If you consider for one moment that a Creator MAY exist, it sounds logical to also consider that he(etc) also exists outside of matter, time and (wait for it) science, since all of those were then created.

Sounds very much like the existence of a Creator cannot be proven, which must probably then be considered as proof that he does indeed not exist...

Or, no, wait, err...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 17, 2011, 10:35:02 PM
Seems to me like everyone participating on this thread should be worthy of my consideration (and estimation), because he is inserting something of which makes him human - be it knowledge, humour, logic, spirit - at least he is THINKING about everything, even if his OPINION differs from mine.

And even if he doesn't (think, that is), if he is mindlessly and stupidly happy, he has achieved something that most of us strive a whole lifetime to achieve, but rarely does. So, respect dude!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on November 17, 2011, 11:14:26 PM
Don't make me set my Pope on you!  ;D
Surely you mean your Arch Bishop?  ::)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on November 17, 2011, 11:15:41 PM
+100

I have learned more about some people around here during this thread, some good and some less so, than since I've joined this forum! A few have risen in my estimation, others unfortunately have sunk a bit while a couple has been confirmed as total tools! ;D So scientifically speaking it has all been worthwhile and quite instructive! ;D


The TRUTH!

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 18, 2011, 07:06:47 AM
Seems to me like most arguments in this thread against religion is against religion and not against a Creator - existence or none-existence.

Seems to me like the only proof that a Creator does not exist, is the lack of evidence that he/she/they/it exists.
If you consider for one moment that a Creator MAY exist, it sounds logical to also consider that he(etc) also exists outside of matter, time and (wait for it) science, since all of those were then created.

Sounds very much like the existence of a Creator cannot be proven, which must probably then be considered as proof that he does indeed not exist...

Or, no, wait, err...

Religion is not the primary focus of this discussion. It has been a prominant theme but only because it is the primary reason why some members are opposed to the Big Bang and evolution. Take away religion and there would be little argument.

I for one have not been trying to argue against religion or the existence of deities, everyone has a right to their beliefs. My only argument is that faith based beliefs are not good arguments against the facts and evidences science uses to build it's theories. Simply because science can't explain all definitively is not proof that your religion has it right.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 18, 2011, 07:12:14 AM
Take away religion and there would be little argument.

Agreed, religion is a scourge, its is man moulding faith to suit themselves.

Faith and belief in a creator does not require religion
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 18, 2011, 07:15:31 AM
Agreed, religion is a scourge, its is man moulding faith to suit themselves.

Faith and belief in a creator does not require religion

By religion I mean faith, belief in a creator, all such things. Perhaps I should just use the word "faith" going forward?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 18, 2011, 07:17:58 AM
By religion I mean faith, belief in a creator, all such things. Perhaps I should just use the word "faith" going forward?

Make up your mind :D, you sound religious now, changing things to suit yourself ;D

Religion does not equal faith - If you applied a scientific logic to it you will agree  :D :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 18, 2011, 07:22:23 AM
Make up your mind :D, you sound religious now, changing things to suit yourself ;D

Religion does not equal faith - If you applied a scientific logic to it you will agree  :D :D

I am trying to tread carefully. I would simply say superstitions, but I am trying to be sensitive. What term would satisfy you?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 18, 2011, 07:29:35 AM
I am trying to tread carefully. I would simply say superstitions, but I am trying to be sensitive. What term would satisfy you?

Either or really (playing the DA here)

I just dont think you or anyone can classify religion and faith as being the same thing,

But now we're back to a$$holes I mean opinions again  :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 18, 2011, 07:38:13 AM
I just dont think you or anyone can classify religion and faith as being the same thing,

I agree 100%. Faith is believing in a Creator. Religion is a human attempt at interpreting the rules and regulations to get through the Pearly gates. I think I've said this before in this thread
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 18, 2011, 07:41:28 AM
Either or really (playing the DA here)

I just dont think you or anyone can classify religion and faith as being the same thing,

But now we're back to a$$holes I mean opinions again  :D

Well, I'll keep using a mix of both. My understanding goes like this. Faith is the cornerstone of religion. Your religion is the particular belief system you subscribe to, for example you believe in Goodness Gracious, therefore you're a Christian.

But I understand how someone might consider themselves Christian but not agree with a certain Christian church's teachings. You might label their particular flavour of Chrisitan dogma as "relgion" in order to separate it from your own view on what it is to be a Christian.

Just know when I refer to religion, I refer to the sort in my first paragraph.

EDIT: This argument really has little to do with my post at the top.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Robert_E on November 18, 2011, 08:03:30 AM
(http://cdn.babble.com/being-pregnant/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/groundhog_day.jpg)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 18, 2011, 08:09:42 AM
(http://cdn.babble.com/being-pregnant/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/groundhog_day.jpg)

BWAHAHAHA, classic movie and very apt.

But how would science explain it  :D :D :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 18, 2011, 01:56:58 PM
Bump!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Robert_E on November 18, 2011, 02:00:02 PM
Pahahaha!

NOOOOOOO! WHAT HAVE YOU DONEEEE
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: u235 on November 18, 2011, 06:19:03 PM
Bump!

STEVE!!!!

LIE DOWN!!!!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: I Shot Tupac!!! on November 18, 2011, 06:24:08 PM
Almost at 50 now guys! Keep up the good work!  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 18, 2011, 06:47:29 PM
Almost a half century!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 18, 2011, 09:13:14 PM
Religion is not the primary focus of this discussion. It has been a prominant theme but only because it is the primary reason why some members are opposed to the Big Bang and evolution. Take away religion and there would be little argument.

I for one have not been trying to argue against religion or the existence of deities, everyone has a right to their beliefs. My only argument is that faith based beliefs are not good arguments against the facts and evidences science uses to build it's theories. Simply because science can't explain all definitively is not proof that your religion has it right.

Hence my attempt to distinguish between religion and Creator. Now forget about religion.

What IS relevant to this discussion, is if the universe was created or if all the 'stuff' decided at a specific moment: 'Hey! The time feels RIGHT! Let's baddaboom! Oh, and what is this 'time' thingy..." BANG!

Both seems to stretch a bit.

The question is if 'sound reasoning' and 'free thinking' (two words  ;D) applies where we go beyond what we know. For both.

If you read that bit about the Creator again, and then address my logic (or attempt at), we'll soon go beyond merely 50 pages!

 

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 18, 2011, 09:40:03 PM
Is science based on physical principles and laws contained within the universe?

Is logic based on (known) science? Or, can it only be based on science?

(If the answer to this question is 'yes', we are indeed in the Time of the Machines!  ;D)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Doogle on November 18, 2011, 09:56:04 PM
http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/New-test-confirms-faster-than-light-neutrinos-20111118
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 18, 2011, 10:37:41 PM

(http://www.atheistcartoons.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/tocut.jpg)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 18, 2011, 11:26:52 PM
The 'moonstruck nomad' being?

See, though it is certainly funny to some, it is only funny to them because of a certain context adhered. And as soon as this context is taken into consideration, can you see that it may be offensive to others?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 18, 2011, 11:41:26 PM
The 'moonstruck nomad' being?

See, though it is certainly funny to some, it is only funny to them because of a certain context adhered. And as soon as this context is taken into consideration, can you see that it may be offensive to others?

Are you Jewish... or just pretending to be offended on their behalf?

Is circumcision even in the bible, I dunno?

Edit:  ;D ;) 8) :o ::) :-* ??? (it's "Pick an Emoticon" day.)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 19, 2011, 12:14:19 AM
Are you Jewish... or just pretending to be offended on their behalf?

Do you find any notion of 'pretend'-ing anything in my post? And here I thought I put it kinda logically...

Is circumcision even in the bible, I dunno?

So, why did you find it funny enough to post then? Didn't think there are any Jews on the forum, or didn't think it was in the Bible?

As for the emoticon:  :)  There ya go...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 19, 2011, 02:05:39 AM
Do you find any notion of 'pretend'-ing anything in my post? And here I thought I put it kinda logically...

So, why did you find it funny enough to post then? Didn't think there are any Jews on the forum, or didn't think it was in the Bible?

As for the emoticon:  :)  There ya go...


You're answering a question with a question so you must be Jewish! ;D

Never a good idea to justify or explain a "joke" to anyone... but I will say this, if you think about it, circumcision is  more a custom than a religious or biblical edict as far as I know. In Africa it has other interpretations as well and serves other purposes to do with reaching manhood etc. On this continent women are also still routinely mutilated by female circumcision, leaving them unable to experience sexual pleasure. So it would seem that the cartoonist has not only offended a whole people but a whole continent!

For what it's worth, circumcision has been fodder for comedians for a very long time, including Jewish comedians. Google "circumcision jokes" and you will get over half a million results! Even Jewish people laugh at circumcision jokes, ask Set Rogen:

"The "Knocked Up" actor has been making wee-wee gags since a mohel - someone who performs the Jewish circumcision ritual of Brit milah - hired him when he was a teenager.

Seth, 26, told E!: "My first break was when I did stand up comedy at a lesbian bar for the first time, and it went well."

"Soon after that I was hired by a mohel to write jokes. He saw me perform and he wanted his circumcision ceremonies to be funny."

"He approached me - I was 15 years old - and he said to me, 'I'll pay you $50 an hour to write circumcision jokes for me.'"

"So, I did it. See - I've been writing d**k jokes since day one."



Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 19, 2011, 02:54:45 AM

Rabbi Jason Tells His Favorite Jewish Jokes (including a couple of bris (circumcision) jokes) at Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmojECk7QZk

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 19, 2011, 08:10:06 AM
I'd like to pose a question to those who require scientific fact before they accept anything as the truth, particularily those among you who are married.

Do you have faith in your spouse when they tell you you can trust them ? do you love them unconditionally? Or do they need to pass some sort of scientific test proving themselves first ?

Or will you ignore your standpoint that you defend so strongly when its convenient?


Put that in your weekend pipe and smoke it  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 19, 2011, 08:18:54 AM
The Relativity of Wrong
by Isaac Asimov
I received a letter from a reader the other day. It was handwritten in crabbed penmanship so that it was very difficult to read. Nevertheless, I tried to make it out just in case it might prove to be important.
In the first sentence, he told me he was majoring in English Literature, but felt he needed to teach me science. (I sighed a bit, for I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me science, but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, however low on the social scale, so I read on.)
It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, here and elsewhere, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the Universe straight.
I didn't go into detail in the matter, but what I meant was that we now know the basic rules governing the Universe, together with the gravitational interrelationships of its gross components, as shown in the theory of relativity worked out between 1905 and 1916. We also know the basic rules governing the subatomic particles and their interrelationships, since these are very neatly described by the quantum theory worked out between 1900 and 1930. What's more, we have found that the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are the basic units of the physical Universe, as discovered between 1920 and 1930.
These are all twentieth-century discoveries, you see.
The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the Universe at last, and in every century they were proven to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about out modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong.
The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." The implication was that I was very foolish because I knew a great deal.
Alas, none of this was new to me. (There is very little that is new to me; I wish my corresponders would realize this.) This particular thesis was addressed to me a quarter of a century ago by John Campbell, who specialized in irritating me. He also told me that all theories are proven wrong in time.
My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.
However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so.
First, let me dispose of Socrates because I am sick and tired of this pretense that knowing you know nothing is a mark of wisdom.
No one knows nothing. In a matter of days, babies learn to recognize their mothers.
Socrates would agree, of course, and explain that knowledge of trivia is not what he means. He means that in the great abstractions over which human beings debate, one should start without preconceived, unexamined notions, and that he alone knew this. (What an enormously arrogant claim!)
In his discussions of such matters as "What is justice?" or "What is virtue?" he took the attitude that he knew nothing and had to be instructed by others. (This is called "Socratic irony," for Socrates knew very well that he knew a great deal more than the poor souls he was picking on.) By pretending ignorance, Socrates lured others into propounding their views on such abstractions. Socrates then, by a series of ignorant-sounding questions, forced the others into such a mélange of self-contradictions that they would finally break down and admit they didn't know what they were talking about.
It is the mark of the marvelous toleration of the Athenians that they let this continue for decades and that it wasn't till Socrates turned seventy that they broke down and forced him to drink poison.
Now where do we get the notion that "right" and "wrong" are absolutes? It seems to me that this arises in the early grades, when children who know very little are taught by teachers who know very little more.
Young children learn spelling and arithmetic, for instance, and here we tumble into apparent absolutes.
How do you spell "sugar?" Answer: s-u-g-a-r. That is right. Anything else is wrong.
How much is 2 + 2? The answer is 4. That is right. Anything else is wrong.
Having exact answers, and having absolute rights and wrongs, minimizes the necessity of thinking, and that pleases both students and teachers. For that reason, students and teachers alike prefer short-answer tests to essay tests; multiple-choice over blank short-answer tests; and true-false tests over multiple-choice.
But short-answer tests are, to my way of thinking, useless as a measure of the student's understanding of a subject. They are merely a test of the efficiency of his ability to memorize.
You can see what I mean as soon as you admit that right and wrong are relative.
How do you spell "sugar?" Suppose Alice spells it p-q-z-z-f and Genevieve spells it s-h-u-g-e-r. Both are wrong, but is there any doubt that Alice is wronger than Genevieve? For that matter, I think it is possible to argue that Genevieve's spelling is superior to the "right" one.
Or suppose you spell "sugar": s-u-c-r-o-s-e, or C12H22O11. Strictly speaking, you are wrong each time, but you're displaying a certain knowledge of the subject beyond conventional spelling.
Suppose then the test question was: how many different ways can you spell "sugar?" Justify each.
Naturally, the student would have to do a lot of thinking and, in the end, exhibit how much or how little he knows. The teacher would also have to do a lot of thinking in the attempt to evaluate how much or how little the student knows. Both, I imagine, would be outraged.
Again, how much is 2 + 2? Suppose Joseph says: 2 + 2 = purple, while Maxwell says: 2 + 2 = 17. Both are wrong but isn't it fair to say that Joseph is wronger than Maxwell?
Suppose you said: 2 + 2 = an integer. You'd be right, wouldn't you? Or suppose you said: 2 + 2 = an even integer. You'd be righter. Or suppose you said: 2 + 2 = 3.999. Wouldn't you be nearly right?
If the teacher wants 4 for an answer and won't distinguish between the various wrongs, doesn't that set an unnecessary limit to understanding?
Suppose the question is, how much is 9 + 5?, and you answer 2. Will you not be excoriated and held up to ridicule, and will you not be told that 9 + 5 = 14?
If you were then told that 9 hours had pass since midnight and it was therefore 9 o'clock, and were asked what time it would be in 5 more hours, and you answered 14 o'clock on the grounds that 9 + 5 = 14, would you not be excoriated again, and told that it would be 2 o'clock? Apparently, in that case, 9 + 5 = 2 after all.
Or again suppose, Richard says: 2 + 2 = 11, and before the teacher can send him home with a note to his mother, he adds, "To the base 3, of course." He'd be right.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 19, 2011, 08:20:03 AM
Here's another example. The teacher asks: "Who is the fortieth President of the United States?" and Barbara says, "There isn't any, teacher."
"Wrong!" says the teacher, "Ronald Reagan is the fortieth President of the United States."
"Not at all," says Barbara, "I have here a list of all the men who have served as President of the United States under the Constitution, from George Washington to Ronald Reagan, and there are only thirty-nine of them, so there is no fortieth President."
"Ah," says the teacher, "but Grover Cleveland served two nonconsecutive terms, one from 1885 to 1889, and the second from 1893 to 1897. He counts as both the twenty-second and twenty-fourth President. That is why Ronald Reagan is the thirty-ninth person to serve as President of the United States, and is, at the same time, the fortieth President of the United States."
Isn't that ridiculous? Why should a person be counted twice if his terms are nonconsecutive, and only once if he served two consecutive terms? Pure convention! Yet Barbara is marked wrong—just as wrong as if she had said that the fortieth President of the United States is Fidel Castro.
Therefore, when my friend the English Literature expert tells me that in every century scientists think they have worked out the Universe and are always wrong, what I want to know is how wrong are they? Are they always wrong to the same degree? Let's take an example.
In the early days of civilization, the general feeling was that the Earth was flat.
This was not because people were stupid, or because they were intent on believing silly things. They felt it was flat on the basis of sound evidence. It was not just a matter of "That's how it looks," because the Earth does not look flat. It looks chaotically bumpy, with hills, valleys, ravines, cliffs, and so on.
Of course, there are plains where, over limited areas, the Earth's surface does look fairly flat. One of those plains is in the Tigris-Euphrates area where the first historical civilization (one with writing) developed, that of the Sumerians.
Perhaps it was the appearance of the plain that may have persuaded the clever Sumerians to accept the generalization that the Earth was flat; that if you somehow evened out all the elevations and depressions, you would be left with flatness. Contributing to the notion may have been the fact that stretches of water (ponds and lakes) looked pretty flat on quiet days.
Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the "curvature" of Earth's surface. Over a considerable length, how much does the surface deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness. The flat-Earth theory would make it seem that the surface doesn't deviate from flatness at all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile.
Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-Earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn't. The curvature of the Earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-Earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That's why the theory lasted so long.
There were reasons, to be sure, to find the flat-Earth theory unsatisfactory and, about 350 B.C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle summarized them. First, certain stars disappeared beyond the Southern Hemisphere as one traveled north, and beyond the Northern Hemisphere as one traveled south. Second, the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was always the arc of a circle. Third, here on Earth itself, ships disappeared beyond the horizon hull-first in whatever direction they were traveling.
All three observations could not be reasonably explained if the Earth's surface were flat, but could be explained by assuming the Earth to be a sphere.
What's more, Aristotle believed that all solid matter tended to move toward a common center, and if solid matter did this, it would end up as a sphere. A given volume of matter is, on the average, closer to a common center if it is a sphere than if it is any other shape whatever.
About a century after Aristotle, the Greek philosopher Eratosthenes noted that the Sun cast a shadow of different lengths at different latitudes (all the shadows would be the same length if the Earth's surface were flat). From the difference in shadow length, he calculated the size of the earthly sphere and it turned out to be 25,000 miles in circumference.
The curvature of such a sphere is about 0.000126 per mile, a quantity very close to 0 per mile as you can see, and one not easily measured by the techniques at the disposal of the ancients. The tiny difference between 0 and 0.000126 accounts for the fact that it took so long to pass from the flat Earth to the spherical Earth.
Mind you, even a tiny difference, such at that between 0 and 0.000126, can be extremely important. That difference mounts up. The Earth cannot be mapped over large areas with any accuracy at all if the difference isn't taken into account and if the Earth isn't considered a sphere rather than a flat surface. Long ocean voyages can't be undertaken with any reasonable way of locating one's own position in the ocean unless the Earth is considered spherical rather than flat.
Furthermore, the flat Earth presupposes the possibility of an infinite Earth, or of the existence of an "end" to the surface. The spherical Earth, however, postulates an Earth that is both endless and yet finite, and it is the latter postulate that is consistent with all later findings.
So although the flat-Earth theory is only slightly wrong and is a credit to its inventors, all things considered, it is wrong enough to be discarded in favor of the spherical-Earth theory.
And yet is the Earth a sphere?
No, it is not a sphere; not in the strict mathematical sense. A sphere has certain mathematical properties—for instance, all diameters (that is, all straight lines that pass from one point on its surface, through the center, to another point on its surface) have the same length.
That, however, is not true of the Earth. Various diameters of the Earth differ in length.
What gave people the notion the Earth wasn't a true sphere? To begin with, the Sun and the Moon have outlines that are perfect circles within the limits of measurement in the early days of the telescope. This is consistent with the supposition that the Sun and Moon are perfectly spherical in shape.
However, when Jupiter and Saturn were observed by the first telescopic observers, it became quickly apparent that the outlines of those planets were not circles, but distinct ellipses. That meant that Jupiter and Saturn were not true spheres.
Isaac Newton, toward the end of the seventeenth century, showed that a massive body would form a sphere under the pull of gravitational forces (exactly as Aristotle had argued), but only if it were not rotating. If it were rotating, a centrifugal effect would be set up which would lift the body's substance against gravity, and the effect would be greater the closer to the equator you progressed. The effect would also be greater the more rapidly a spherical object rotated and Jupiter and Saturn rotated very rapidly indeed.
The Earth rotated much more slowly than Jupiter or Saturn so the effect should be smaller, but it should still be there. Actual measurements of the curvature of the Earth were carried out in the eighteenth century and Newton was proved correct.
The Earth has an equatorial bulge, in other words. It is flattened at the poles. It is an "oblate spheroid" rather than a sphere. This means that the various diameters of the earth differ in length. The longest diameters are any of those that stretch from one point on the equator to an opposite point on the equator. The "equatorial diameter" is 12,755 kilometers (7,927 miles). The shortest diameter is from the North Pole to the South Pole and this "polar diameter" is 12,711 kilometers (7,900 miles).
The difference between the longest and shortest diameters is 44 kilometers (27 miles), and that means that the "oblateness" of the Earth (its departure from true sphericity) is 44/12,755, or 0.0034. This amounts to 1/3 of 1 percent.
To put it another way, on a flat surface, curvature is 0 per mile everywhere. On Earth's spherical surface, curvature is 0.000126 per mile everywhere (or 8 inches per mile). On Earth's oblate spheroidical surface, the curvature varies from 7.973 inches to the mile to 8.027 inches to the mile.
The correction in going from spherical to oblate spheroidal is much smaller than going from flat to spherical. Therefore, although the notion of the Earth as sphere is wrong, strictly speaking, it is not as wrong as the notion of the Earth as flat.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 19, 2011, 08:20:28 AM
The Relativity of Wrong
by Isaac Asimov
I received a letter from a reader the other day. It was handwritten in crabbed penmanship so that it was very difficult to read. Nevertheless, I tried to make it out just in case it might prove to be important.
In the first sentence, he told me he was majoring in English Literature, but felt he needed to teach me science. (I sighed a bit, for I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me science, but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, however low on the social scale, so I read on.)
It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, here and elsewhere, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the Universe straight.
I didn't go into detail in the matter, but what I meant was that we now know the basic rules governing the Universe, together with the gravitational interrelationships of its gross components, as shown in the theory of relativity worked out between 1905 and 1916. We also know the basic rules governing the subatomic particles and their interrelationships, since these are very neatly described by the quantum theory worked out between 1900 and 1930. What's more, we have found that the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are the basic units of the physical Universe, as discovered between 1920 and 1930.
These are all twentieth-century discoveries, you see.
The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the Universe at last, and in every century they were proven to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about out modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong.
The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." The implication was that I was very foolish because I knew a great deal.
Alas, none of this was new to me. (There is very little that is new to me; I wish my corresponders would realize this.) This particular thesis was addressed to me a quarter of a century ago by John Campbell, who specialized in irritating me. He also told me that all theories are proven wrong in time.
My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."


I'll read that on Monday :D

Faaar to long for a hangover ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 19, 2011, 08:20:51 AM
…The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.
However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so.
First, let me dispose of Socrates because I am sick and tired of this pretense that knowing you know nothing is a mark of wisdom.
No one knows nothing. In a matter of days, babies learn to recognize their mothers.
Socrates would agree, of course, and explain that knowledge of trivia is not what he means. He means that in the great abstractions over which human beings debate, one should start without preconceived, unexamined notions, and that he alone knew this. (What an enormously arrogant claim!)
In his discussions of such matters as "What is justice?" or "What is virtue?" he took the attitude that he knew nothing and had to be instructed by others. (This is called "Socratic irony," for Socrates knew very well that he knew a great deal more than the poor souls he was picking on.) By pretending ignorance, Socrates lured others into propounding their views on such abstractions. Socrates then, by a series of ignorant-sounding questions, forced the others into such a mélange of self-contradictions that they would finally break down and admit they didn't know what they were talking about.
It is the mark of the marvelous toleration of the Athenians that they let this continue for decades and that it wasn't till Socrates turned seventy that they broke down and forced him to drink poison.
Now where do we get the notion that "right" and "wrong" are absolutes? It seems to me that this arises in the early grades, when children who know very little are taught by teachers who know very little more.
Young children learn spelling and arithmetic, for instance, and here we tumble into apparent absolutes.
How do you spell "sugar?" Answer: s-u-g-a-r. That is right. Anything else is wrong.
How much is 2 + 2? The answer is 4. That is right. Anything else is wrong.
Having exact answers, and having absolute rights and wrongs, minimizes the necessity of thinking, and that pleases both students and teachers. For that reason, students and teachers alike prefer short-answer tests to essay tests; multiple-choice over blank short-answer tests; and true-false tests over multiple-choice.
But short-answer tests are, to my way of thinking, useless as a measure of the student's understanding of a subject. They are merely a test of the efficiency of his ability to memorize.


and that  :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 19, 2011, 08:20:51 AM
Even the oblate-spheroidal notion of the Earth is wrong, strictly speaking. In 1958, when the satellite Vanguard 1 was put into orbit about the Earth, it was able to measure the local gravitational pull of the Earth—and therefore its shape—with unprecedented precision. It turned out that the equatorial bulge south of the equator was slightly bulgier than the bulge north of the equator, and that the South Pole sea level was slightly nearer the center of the Earth than the North Pole sea level was.
There seemed no other way of describing this than by saying the Earth was pearshaped and at once many people decided that the Earth was nothing like a sphere but was shaped like a Bartlett pear dangling in space. Actually, the pearlike deviation from oblate-spheroid perfect was a matter of yards rather than miles and the adjustment of curvature was in the millionths of an inch per mile.
In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the Earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.
What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend if with a greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.
This can be pointed out in many other cases than just the shape of the Earth. Even when a new theory seems to represent a revolution, it usually arises out of small refinements. If something more than a small refinement were needed, then the old theory would never have endured.
Copernicus switched from an Earth-centered planetary system to a Sun-centered one. In doing so, he switched from something that was obvious to something that was apparently ridiculous. However, it was a matter of finding better ways of calculating the motion of the planets in the sky and, eventually, the geocentric theory was just left behind. It was precisely because the old theory gave results that were fairly good by the measurement standards of the time that kept it in being so long.
Again, it is because the geological formations of the Earth change so slowly and the living things upon it evolve so slowly that it seemed reasonable at first to suppose that there was no change and that Earth and life always existed as they do today. If that were so, it would make no difference whether Earth and life were billions of years old or thousands. Thousands were easier to grasp.
But when careful observation showed that Earth and life were changing at a rate that was very tiny but not zero, then it became clear that Earth and life had to be very old. Modern geology came into being, and so did the notion of biological evolution.
If the rate of change were more rapid, geology and evolution would have reached their modern state in ancient times. It is only because the difference between the rate of change in a static Universe and the rate of change in an evolutionary one is that between zero and very nearly zero that the creationists can continue propagating their folly.
Again, how about the two great theories of the twentieth century; relativity and quantum mechanics?
Newton's theories of motion and gravitation were very close to right, and they would have been absolutely right if only the speed of light were infinite. However, the speed of light is finite, and that had to be taken into account in Einstein's relativistic equations, which were an extension and refinement of Newton's equations.
You might say that the difference between infinite and finite is itself infinite, so why didn't Newton's equations fall to the ground at once? Let's put it another way, and ask how long it takes light to travel over a distance of a meter.
If light traveled at infinite speed, it would take light 0 seconds to travel a meter. At the speed at which light actually travels, however, it takes it 0.0000000033 seconds. It is that difference between 0 and 0.0000000033 that Einstein corrected for.
Conceptually, the correction was as important as the correction of Earth's curvature from 0 to 8 inches per mile was. Speeding subatomic particles wouldn't behave the way they do without the correction, nor would particle accelerators work the way they do, nor nuclear bombs explode, nor the stars shine. Nevertheless, it was a tiny correction and it is no wonder that Newton, in his time, could not allow for it, since he was limited in his observations to speeds and distances over which the correction was insignificant.
Again, where the prequantum view of physics fell short was that it didn't allow for the "graininess" of the Universe. All forms of energy had been thought to be continuous and to be capable of division into indefinitely smaller and smaller quantities.
This turned out to be not so. Energy comes in quanta, the size of which is dependent upon something called Planck's constant. If Planck's constant were equal to 0 erg-seconds, then energy would be continuous, and there would be no grain to the Universe. Planck's constant, however, is equal to 0.000000000000000000000000066 erg-seconds. That is indeed a tiny deviation from zero, so tiny that ordinary questions of energy in everyday life need not concern themselves with it. When, however, you deal with subatomic particles, the graininess is sufficiently large, in comparison, to make it impossible to deal with them without taking quantum considerations into account.
Since the refinements in theory grow smaller and smaller, even quite ancient theories must have been sufficiently right to allow advances to be made; advances that were not wiped out by subsequent refinements.
The Greeks introduced the notion of latitude and longitude, for instance, and made reasonable maps of the Mediterranean basin even without taking sphericity into account, and we still use latitude and longitude today.
The Sumerians were probably the first to establish the principle that planetary movements in the sky exhibit regularity and can be predicted, and they proceeded to work out ways of doing so even though they assumed the Earth to be the center of the Universe. Their measurements have been enormously refined but the principle remains.
Newton's theory of gravitation, while incomplete over vast distances and enormous speeds, is perfectly suitable for the Solar System. Halley's Comet appears punctually as Newton's theory of gravitation and laws of motion predict. All of rocketry is based on Newton, and Voyager II reached Uranus within a second of the predicted time. None of these things were outlawed by relativity.
In the nineteenth century, before quantum theory was dreamed of, the laws of thermodynamics were established, including the conservation of energy as first law, and the inevitable increase of entropy as the second law. Certain other conservation laws such as those of momentum, angular momentum, and electric charge were also established. So were Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism. All remained firmly entrenched even after quantum theory came in.
Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete.
For instance, quantum theory has produced something called "quantum weirdness" which brings into serious question the very nature of reality and which produces philosophical conundrums that physicists simply can't seem to agree upon. It may be that we have reached a point where the human brain can no longer grasp matters, or it may be that quantum theory is incomplete and that once it is properly extended, all the "weirdness" will disappear.
Again, quantum theory and relativity seem to be independent of each other, so that while quantum theory makes it seem possible that three of the four known interactions can be combined into one mathematical system, gravitation—the realm of relativity—as yet seems intransigent.
If quantum theory and relativity can be combined, a true "unified field theory" may become possible.
If all this is done, however, it would be a still finer refinement that would affect the edges of the known—the nature of the big bang and the creation of the Universe, the properties at the center of black holes, some subtle points about the evolution of galaxies and supernovas, and so on.
Virtually all that we know today, however, would remain untouched and when I say I am glad that I live in a century when the Universe is essentially understood, I think I am justified.




now eat **** ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 19, 2011, 08:36:24 AM
I'll read that on Monday :D

Faaar to long for a hangover ;D

;D

try waking up drunk!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 19, 2011, 08:39:09 AM
;D

try waking up drunk!

 ;D ;D LOOOOOvely
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 19, 2011, 08:44:16 AM
;D ;D LOOOOOvely

On the contrary yes, but waking up with a hang over means that your day can only get better!

Also, who ever came up the theory that whisky doesn't give hang-overs. Sorry, I got some kak news for him, proved him wrong, again!








So much for being Tom Cruise last night, today I feel like Dom Puise
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: frikkie on November 19, 2011, 08:45:37 AM
So much for being Tom Cruise last night, today I feel like Dom Puise

flipping LOL! :D :D :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 19, 2011, 09:12:50 AM
So... after all the mumblings and rumblings and meanderings into the realms of sound reason, logic, etc, we get the conclusion: 'Now eat ****'.

Fascinating.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 19, 2011, 09:46:21 AM
Never a good idea to justify or explain a "joke" to anyone...

No, please, explain some more. Especially the part about how you explain a lot about d**k jokes, but nothing about 'moonstruck nomad' jokes.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 19, 2011, 09:54:35 AM
Or, no, wait... If I can use your words:

Deleted - bored!

Can you spell: 'passive aggressive'...? (Couldn't leave out the question, could I )
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 19, 2011, 10:05:39 AM
Also, who ever came up the theory that whisky doesn't give hang-overs. Sorry, I got some kak news for him, proved him wrong, again!

I agree. But I cheated by mixing beer, Potency, Jagermeister, Captain Morgan and a few shots of house mampoer. I don't think I'll be able to tackle the Comrades Marathon today.

So much for being Tom Cruise last night, today I feel like Dom Puise

Looooool!!!!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 19, 2011, 10:13:19 AM

You're answering a question with a question so you must be Jewish! ;D

Never a good idea to justify or explain a "joke" to anyone... but I will say this, if you think about it, circumcision is  more a custom than a religious or biblical edict as far as I know. In Africa it has other interpretations as well and serves other purposes to do with reaching manhood etc. On this continent women are also still routinely mutilated by female circumcision, leaving them unable to experience sexual pleasure. So it would seem that the cartoonist has not only offended a whole people but a whole continent!
This does not explain the humour behind the cartoon.

The fact that it is linked from www.atheistcartoons.com, shows that it is meant to put forward some sort of ideology.

Now Gordon doesn't call you out for being biting  comments such as this, but if similar comments were made in a racist vein, he would rush to the cause. This shows that he is not about the principles, but rather about the agenda. Unprincipled in essence.

NO scientist starts with a blank slate. New knowledge ALWAYS builds on existing knowledge. It is also not necessarily confined to a particular path; that is precisely why innovation is possible. The fact that scientific progress HAS occurred contradicts your claims.

To repeat: NEW knowledge builds on EXISTING knowledge. I was not denying that new knowledge is possible (Chippy did that), but rather asserting that innovations in science would be impossible in the absence of pre-existing knowledge. Newton derived his law of universal gravitation to explain Galileo's finding that the accelaration of any body in 'free fall' near the earth's surface is the constant g=980cm/sec2. Newton also used Kepler's law that for any orbiting body r3 w2=K to develop his theories.

In the beginning there was literally nothing including no knowledge or data. Then the big bang occurred, the reason is still unknown. Somebody somewhere started with nothing ...




so there's something new to be learned from this thread ?
like that nobody's ever to change their opinion ? that for some science is the holy grail ? or that people eventually resort to insults ?
Too true.

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on November 19, 2011, 10:20:01 AM
Can you spell: 'passive aggressive'...? (Couldn't leave out the question, could I )
This in conjunction with the frequent references to masturbation are troubling .Fap Fap. PM Andre, I am sure has the number of a traveling Thai lady for you, but she charges extra for paddling ey. And be warey, sometimes the price you get is per stroke, not for the whole deal.

Edit: ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 19, 2011, 11:43:32 AM
No, please, explain some more. Especially the part about how you explain a lot about d**k jokes, but nothing about 'moonstruck nomad' jokes.

I really don't know what you're on about - read your bible, they were nomads and the moon presumably shone then as well - he's not referring to Goodness if that is what is offending you!

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 19, 2011, 11:57:16 AM
Or, no, wait... If I can use your words:

Deleted - bored!

Can you spell: 'passive aggressive'...? (Couldn't leave out the question, could I )

I have been quoted - I have a fan! ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 19, 2011, 12:15:30 PM
This does not explain the humour behind the cartoon.

The fact that it is linked from www.atheistcartoons.com, shows that it is meant to put forward some sort of ideology.

What you don't get is that there's a long Jewish tradition of these kinds of jokes.

The fact that the cartoon was found where it was does not point to an ideology or conspiracy but simply that I used Google.
I cannot speak for the author as I don't know if his humor is ideological or just his job!


Now Gordon doesn't call you out for being biting  comments such as this, but if similar comments were made in a racist vein, he would rush to the cause. This shows that he is not about the principles, but rather about the agenda. Unprincipled in essence.


Why drag racism into it? Your argument doesn't make sense.
Unprincipled? Are you unaware that highly principled people are standing up against all kinds of mutilation in the name of religion and custom as the human cost is just too high. Ask (Jewish) comedian Billy Crystal why he's against circumcision and not afraid to speak up against it.
It's obvious that you're the one with the agenda.


In the beginning there was literally nothing including no knowledge or data. Then the big bang occurred, the reason is still unknown. Somebody somewhere started with nothing ...


There was nothing but there was Somebody? ??? ???



Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 19, 2011, 12:19:24 PM
This in conjunction with the frequent references to masturbation are troubling .Fap Fap. PM Andre, I am sure has the number of a traveling Thai lady for you, but she charges extra for paddling ey. And be warey, sometimes the price you get is per stroke, not for the whole deal.

Edit: ;D

Thanks for the heads up but seeing that I know so much about masturbation I won't require Andre's ladies.

Finding references to masturbation troubling? It's all that religious guilt trip thing isn't it? Fortunately I don't have that and consider wanking extremely healthy! ;D

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 19, 2011, 12:31:13 PM
Thanks for the lengthy extract from Asimov, Stefan. His writings contain several devastating critiques of religion and the ignorance of science that it invariably entails.

The fact that it is linked from www.atheistcartoons.com, shows that it is meant to put forward some sort of ideology. Now Gordon doesn't call you out for being [sic] biting  comments such as this, but if similar comments were made in a racist vein, he would rush to the cause. This shows that he is not about the principles, but rather about the agenda. Unprincipled in essence.

F**K YOU BERNARD!!! You just don't get it, do you? Unlike religion, atheism is NOT an 'ideology' and does NOT have an 'agenda'. Unlike the religious, atheists do not construct large buildings in which they compel people, on the pain of everlasting suffering in hell, to listen to their lies and propaganda every Sunday. As an atheist, I find that cartoon about as offensive as the claim that the toothfairy is gay or that Father Christmas is a paedophile. If I do not find something offensive, why should I 'rush to the cause'? In fact, the more people who challenge religion and expose its ridiculous doctrines, the better. Atheists are some of the most principled people that you would ever meet. So, if you want to find 'unprincipled' people, look no further that the hypocrites who call themselves religious and yet harbour the most offensive beliefs and commit the most heinous deeds.

NEWS FLASH: the guy who was recently arrested for firing shots at the White House claims that God told him to assassinate Obama because he is the Doubter. This is the kind of f**ked-up s**t that religion does to the minds of ordinary people.

 
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 19, 2011, 12:35:26 PM
I'd like to pose a question to those who require scientific fact before they accept anything as the truth, particularily those among you who are married.

Do you have faith in your spouse when they tell you you can trust them ? do you love them unconditionally? Or do they need to pass some sort of scientific test proving themselves first ?

Or will you ignore your standpoint that you defend so strongly when its convenient?


Put that in your weekend pipe and smoke it  ;D ;D ;D

What you're talking about is trust. Faith in a person follows if they're worthy of trust. Should that trust be broken however, faith will fly out the window. That's why it's called being "unfaithful".  Cause and effect bru, you can't get away from it! ;)

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 19, 2011, 01:36:44 PM
(http://www.rockettshirts.com/Images/icons/NR5/GodLovesUs_5.jpg)

Stefan would probably say wine instead of beer! ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 19, 2011, 01:40:40 PM
I really don't know what you're on about - read your bible, they were nomads and the moon presumably shone then as well - he's not referring to Goodness if that is what is offending you!

And here I thought you said you didn't know what is in the Bible...

What I am on about (and please think about this):

Whether you care for religion or not, some people do, and to them their god (imagined or not) and their religious principles might be as real and as close to their hearts to be compared to, say, you and your mother and father and your relationship with them. Just like you would not like your parents or your relationship with them to be ridiculed... I think you can deduct the rest.

Why keep on making your points by showing how fallible religion is? I think everybody will grant that.

There was nothing but there was Somebody? ??? ???

A question... can it be?! Are you a Jew?!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 19, 2011, 01:58:17 PM
F**K YOU BERNARD!!! You just don't get it, do you? Unlike religion, atheism is NOT an 'ideology' and does NOT have an 'agenda'.

Dammit, Bernard! Atheism doesn't have an agenda! Not even this:

In fact, the more people who challenge religion and expose its ridiculous doctrines, the better.

Dammit, Bernard! The sooner you realize this, the sooner one will stop to be tempted to lose one's principles:

Atheists are some of the most principled people that you would ever meet. 

In fact, a lesser man might already have lost his marbles and bliks****d  you!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 19, 2011, 02:08:50 PM
And here I thought you said you didn't know what is in the Bible...


Just exactly where did I say this?

And here I thought you said you didn't know what is in the Bible...

What I am on about (and please think about this):

Whether you care for religion or not, some people do, and to them their god (imagined or not) and their religious principles might be as real and as close to their hearts to be compared to, say, you and your mother and father and your relationship with them. Just like you would not like your parents or your relationship with them to be ridiculed... I think you can deduct the rest.


If you see argument and a light hearted cartoon as ridicule then you shouldn't be in this thread because it might happen again. Nobody is holding religion as such up for ridicule. That doesn't mean we can't question its precepts.
When I cared for my mother when she had cancer I was quite happy to be called "mommy's boy" - it's all in the context you take it.


Why keep on making your points by showing how fallible religion is? I think everybody will grant that.


Thank you.



A question... can it be?! Are you a Jew?!


He he!
Wouldn't have minded at all, great sense of humour and lots of other great attributes - what's not to like?

PS. don't take any of my words as intended to be hurtful or denigrating of you or anyone personally - I'm still playing the ball, not the man!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 19, 2011, 02:19:03 PM
Okay guys, I'm stepping off the train here. The conversation has come to a point where I feel it no longer serves a constructive purpose. It has been a good conversation and I have gained insight from it, thanks all.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on November 19, 2011, 02:27:59 PM

I'm out too.

(http://manwithoutqualities.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/new_yorker_cartoon_1000.jpg)

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 19, 2011, 02:36:32 PM
PS. don't take any of my words as intended to be hurtful or denigrating of you or anyone personally - I'm still playing the ball, not the man!

But, then, Wes, how can you say that some participating in the thread have risen in your estimation, but some have gone the opposite way? Some are 'tools'?

How did you get to that? Because they do not equal you in evolutionary IQ and reasoning skills, or because they differ from you regarding science or religion? Surely you do not know the man behind the post?

If you tell me I misunderstood you, I most sincerely apologise, and I am indeed a tool...

And I apologise anyway - broke my own rule and got personal, but things started to accumulate somewhat.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 19, 2011, 04:54:51 PM
So....can I check in with the other mods about possibly locking this topic and let it be an interesting 'educational' thread  ;D , or do any of you feel you still need to debate further? I'd really like to avoid any of the mods having to start deleting posts because it starting degrading into personal insults - or can all those involved keep it above board?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: --------- on November 19, 2011, 06:16:20 PM
H2OK9 and Ken, perhaps you are correct in your decision to jump ship. However, please allow me to state for the record that being called 'unprincipled' for no logical or valid reason is deeply insulting. And being referred to by someone else's name, despite repeated requests not to do so, simply compounded the insult.

Andrew, it would be a pity if it is decided that this thread should be locked. It raised many interesting and informative ideas, and could be the repository of future 'philosophical' debates. The reality is that 'debates' are never interesting if everyone is in agreement. In the interest of preventing this thread from being locked, I shall recuse myself from any further discussion on these matters.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on November 19, 2011, 07:19:23 PM
H2OK9 and Ken, perhaps you are correct in your decision to jump ship. However, please allow me to state for the record that being called 'unprincipled' for no logical or valid reason is deeply insulting. And being referred to by someone else's name, despite repeated requests not to do so, simply compounded the insult.

Andrew, it would be a pity if it is decided that this thread should be locked. It raised many interesting and informative ideas, and could be the repository of future 'philosophical' debates. The reality is that 'debates' are never interesting if everyone is in agreement. In the interest of preventing this thread from being locked, I shall recuse myself from any further discussion on these matters.

Hi Bug,

No worries - no need to recuse yourself. I'd just like to keep this thread on record as an example of how mature debate can take place on contentious issues, without the need for the mods to step in and start deleting posts because it becomes personal. Self-moderation is always the best form of moderation, and I believe those involved have by large done very well so far. If you feel the debate still needs to go on, then I will not stand in your way (or anyone else's). All I ask, and so do the other mods, I would suspect, is that we keep it polite. If it degenerates into a mud-slinging match, then in the end we're all the poorer for it.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: legro on November 19, 2011, 07:51:26 PM
As one who has been on both sides of this fence - belief to unbelief and back to  belief - I have sympathy for both sides. I also know that the atheist side ( to its detriment ) often greatly underestimates the amount of thought that has gone and still goes into formulating Christian religious ethics and beliefs.
On that note I'm currently reading Charles Taylor's ( obviously NOT the Sierra Leone "freedom fighter" ) A Secular Age in which he discusses how we have come from a society in which it was virtually impossible not to believe in God to one in which faith is just one possibility amongst many.
At 900 odd pages of philosophy and history hardly easy bedtime reading, but fascinating nonetheless.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 19, 2011, 11:49:38 PM
Think I killed the thread...

I apologise to Wes and Audio Bug for being an a$$.

Now come back, dammit!  :)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Strainger on November 19, 2011, 11:52:32 PM
As for you, legro, where have you been these past 52 pages?!  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: u235 on November 20, 2011, 06:54:05 PM
One thing is apparent to me, strainger - you have a sense of humour and balance that prevent you from becoming an extremist of any sort. I've enjoyed your posts - you are definitely one of those who, once you see yourself being something, you are not that thing any more. That's how civilisation moves forward.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: dean on November 20, 2011, 10:04:04 PM
dont forget catholic priests and little boys
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on November 20, 2011, 10:06:53 PM
Perhaps the thread should have been called:"Science vs Religion?" I've tried replying to the actual thread subject but to no avail. In the case of the alternative, I say "No".
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 21, 2011, 12:02:36 PM
According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.


Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.

You will all agree with me that this is all bulshet, wouldn't you? 8)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 21, 2011, 12:22:24 PM

You will all agree with me that this is all bulshet, wouldn't you? 8)

Nope, sorry Desmond.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 21, 2011, 12:51:42 PM
Nope, sorry Desmond.
so how do you explain that there was no time? I mean the moments just before the explosion!!! surely there were moments just before the explosion took place?!what do you refer to those things as? time actually? and no space?! where did this explosion take place?! and no matter, no horseshet, dog poop!! no nothing?! what exploded and what caused it to explode? and we want to say this is scientific facts?! I'll tell you what, this is cr@p!! there can't just be nothing!! and the worst boolshet, the universe started small, very small, smaller than a sub atomic particle,everything was compact and it expanded until it reached an infinite size, you know what, if you going to give me cr@p, give me something I can swallow at least!!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 21, 2011, 01:08:13 PM

Evolution Of Man - What is it?
The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago. The theory states that man, through a combination of environmental and genetic factors, emerged as a species to produce the variety of ethnicities seen today, while modern apes evolved on a separate evolutionary pathway. Perhaps the most famous proponent of evolutionary theory is Charles Darwin (1809-82) who authored The Origin of Species (1859) to describe his theory of evolution. It was based largely on observations which he made during his 5-year voyage around the world aboard the HMS Beagle (1831-36). Since then, mankind's origin has generally been explained from an evolutionary perspective. Moreover, the theory of man's evolution has been and continues to be modified as new findings are discovered, revisions to the theory are adopted, and earlier concepts proven incorrect are discarded.

Evolution Of Man - Concepts in Evolutionary Theory
The currently-accepted theory of the evolution of man rests on three major principles. These principles hinge on the innate ability which all creatures have to pass on their genetic information to their offspring through the reproductive process. An alternative explanation for homology is a common designer. According to this reasoning, the similarities in anatomical features between species point to a blueprint used by a Creator/Designer.

The first tenet is microevolution, the occurrence and build-up of mutations in the genetic sequence of an organism. Mutations are predominantly random and can occur naturally through errors in the reproductive process or through environmental impacts such as chemicals or radiation.

The second tenet of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is a natural mechanism by which the fittest members of a species survive to pass on their genetic information, while the weakest are eliminated (die off) because they are unable to compete in the wild. Natural selection is often termed "survival of the fittest" or "elimination of the weakest."

The third tenet is speciation, which occurs when members of a species mutate to the point where they are no longer able to breed with other members of the same species. The new population becomes a reproductively isolated community that is unable to breed with its former community. Through speciation, the genes of the new population become isolated from the previous group.

Evolution Of Man - Scientific Evidence
The theory of evolution of man is supported by a set of independent observations within the fields of anthropology, paleontology, and molecular biology. Collectively, they depict life branching out from a common ancestor through gradual genetic changes over millions of years, commonly known as the "tree of life." Although accepted in mainstream science as altogether factual and experimentally proven, a closer examination of the evidences reveal some inaccuracies and reasonable alternative explanations. This causes a growing number of scientists to dissent from the Darwinian theory of evolution for its inability to satisfactorily explain the origin of man.

One of the major evidences for the evolution of man is homology, that is, the similarity of either anatomical or genetic features between species. For instance, the resemblance in the skeleton structure of apes and humans has been correlated to the homologous genetic sequences within each species as strong evidence for common ancestry. This argument contains the major assumption that similarity equals relatedness. In other words, the more alike two species appear, the more closely they are related to one another. This is known to be a poor assumption. Two species can have homologous anatomy even though they are not related in any way. This is called "convergence" in evolutionary terms. It is now known that homologous features can be generated from entirely different gene segments within different unrelated species. The reality of convergence implies that anatomical features arise because of the need for specific functionality, which is a serious blow to the concept of homology and ancestry.

Additionally, the evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is often argued on the grounds of comparative anatomy within the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record indicates more stability in the forms of species than slow or even drastic changes, which would indicate intermediate stages between modern species. The "missing links" are missing. And unfortunately, the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes and passed off as legitimate. Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection leading to speciation is disputed. Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man.

Evolution Of Man - The Scrutiny
The theory concerning the evolution of man is under increased scrutiny due to the persistence of gaps in the fossil record, the inability to demonstrate "life-or-death" determining advantageous genetic mutations, and the lack of experiments or observations to truly confirm the evidence for speciation. Overall, the evolution of man pervades as the accepted paradigm on the origin of man within the scientific community. This is not because it has been proven scientifically, but because alternative viewpoints bring with them metaphysical implications which go against the modern naturalistic paradigm. Nevertheless, a closer examination of the evidence reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof.

and here's the celebrated evolution theory!! Some more cr@p if you ask me
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Viagara on November 21, 2011, 01:21:04 PM
Okay, gents, I will give this topic until tomorrow morning before I lock it.

The discussions has now gone full circle and except for the occasional monologue, is going nowwhere.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on November 21, 2011, 01:23:34 PM
The Big Bang doesn't explain what happened before it, it is merely an explanation to the evolution of the universe. It's the only logical explanation for cosmic microwave background radiation observed ubiquitously in the universe. The fact that the universe is expanding again points towards evidence of a big bang.
It might not be correct, but it is the least wrong theory out there. Hope you read the lengthy posts I posted of Isaac Asimov.

As for evolution the debate, I've given more than enough examples and am done now, and claim victory in that debate.

Thank you.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 21, 2011, 01:38:36 PM
Before the thread is locked, I would just like to point out that Arch Bishop's posts are quotes from All About God Ministries websites:

"All About God Ministries Inc. is a non-profit organization based in Colorado Springs, Colorado that produces and maintains evangelical websites. All About God Ministries has written approximately 14,000 pages of information and maintains 77 internet sites about creationism, science, the occult, other faiths, business practices, Goodness, prayer, religion, God, the Bible, popular issues, life challenges, and similar subjects.
 
All About God states that faiths such as Christian Science, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and others are cults. All About God subscribes to biblical literalism and biblical inerrancy. All About God Ministries is a proponent of Young Earth Creationism, believing that the earth is approximately six thousand years old. All About God ministries makes additional claims about science, including casting doubt over the certainty of Einstein's theory of relativity."

From the "About" section of their websites:

"We believe truth transforms lives. Therefore, we place our content on the first few pages of the most popular search engines in the world. That way, when people seek answers on the Web, we're there with the truth at the top!"
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 21, 2011, 02:04:24 PM
Before the thread is locked, I would just like to point out that Arch Bishop's posts are quotes from All About God Ministries websites:

"All About God Ministries Inc. is a non-profit organization based in Colorado Springs, Colorado that produces and maintains evangelical websites. All About God Ministries has written approximately 14,000 pages of information and maintains 77 internet sites about creationism, science, the occult, other faiths, business practices, Goodness, prayer, religion, God, the Bible, popular issues, life challenges, and similar subjects.
 
All About God states that faiths such as Christian Science, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and others are cults. All About God subscribes to biblical literalism and biblical inerrancy. All About God Ministries is a proponent of Young Earth Creationism, believing that the earth is approximately six thousand years old. All About God ministries makes additional claims about science, including casting doubt over the certainty of Einstein's theory of relativity."

From the "About" section of their websites:

"We believe truth transforms lives. Therefore, we place our content on the first few pages of the most popular search engines in the world. That way, when people seek answers on the Web, we're there with the truth at the top!"
from all about what?!sorry my friend I got these quotes from the very websites that are dedicated to these theories and those professors are actually proponents of these theories!! they are just humble enough to accept that these are wild fantasies except the followers of these theorems want to claim that theirs is the truth!! before this thread is locked, here's what Darwin, the father of evolution said on his death bed when he realised he was going to meet his maker: to all the suckers who swallowed my shet so far, i'm sorry!!very sorry, it was just bolshyt!! I sold you shyt and you swallowed it, I wish I had enough time left, so that I could tell the whole world that this was a hoax, a big hoax and I'm really, really sorry, someone out there swallowed it. thats all I ever wanted to say, everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe, but to say its scientific fact and irrefutable is wrong. science has given us a lot of things, it has eradicated polio and they discovered penicillin and how to fly, but it has not resolved the mystery of creation
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: KenMasters on November 21, 2011, 02:57:15 PM
from all about what?!sorry my friend I got these quotes from the very websites that are dedicated to these theories and those professors are actually proponents of these theories!

Your post on Evolution is quoted from this site: http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm

Which, when you click on "About Us", you find:

AllAboutGOD.com
PO Box 49625
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80949
719-884-2246

Website: http://www.allaboutgod.com/
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: bkgengwe on November 21, 2011, 03:03:39 PM
Your post on Evolution is quoted from this site: http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm

Which, when you click on "about", you will discover is actually part of this site:  http://www.allaboutgod.com/  (AKA: All About GOD Ministries, Inc)
which nullifies my arguments?! okay, can you then explain in your own words or terms evolution theory and big bang theory and show me where they differ with what was said, can you quote some unbiased sources, give me something to work with here as I don't have anything to work with at the moment.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: u235 on November 21, 2011, 03:38:54 PM
Please lock this thread.  :P
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: GearSlave on November 21, 2011, 03:49:06 PM
Please lock this thread.  :P

+1
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 21, 2011, 04:07:20 PM
+1

Done !! way past its sell by date  ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on May 09, 2012, 12:39:54 PM
Oppo any good ?

 :sh1tstirrer: :sh1tstirrer:
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on May 09, 2012, 12:49:02 PM
Why am I not surprised you resurrected this?
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Crafty on May 09, 2012, 12:49:09 PM
Damn I missed this thread.... could have been fun...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: ViVoAudio on May 09, 2012, 12:49:34 PM
Boredom is a terrible thing
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on May 09, 2012, 12:55:02 PM
Why am I not surprised you resurrected this?

Awe you know me too well sweetheart  :tongue:
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on May 09, 2012, 01:40:12 PM
I'm still reading 'A short history of nearly everything' by Bill Bryson.

Even after his massive research I still get a sense that Bryson is an absolute awe of it all. And so would anyone, clever enough to understand that they don't understand, be.

>:D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Crafty on May 09, 2012, 01:56:03 PM
We all know science is evil! Look at what Galileo did... and now no one will ever again believe that the earth is flat. selfish idiot he is. The church & state of the time tried to hard...  :RTFM:

Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: u235 on May 09, 2012, 02:28:09 PM
Great quote from Derren Browne, that kind of puts the kibosh on the whole thing: "If it is asserted without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence."
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on May 09, 2012, 03:04:10 PM
Derren Browne is a true fount of reasoning knowledge  :puke:

"I am often dishonest in my techniques, but always honest about my dishonesty. As I say in each show, 'I mix magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship'. I happily admit cheating, as it's all part of the game. I hope some of the fun for the viewer comes from not knowing what's real and what isn't. I am an entertainer first and foremost, and I am careful not to cross any moral line that would take me into manipulating people's real-life decisions or belief systems."
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: u235 on May 09, 2012, 08:53:31 PM
And you don't think it's cool that he has the integrity to state as much? Maybe you'd be happier if he lied to you, or pretended he was more than just an entertainer? Weird.
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on May 09, 2012, 09:58:56 PM
And you don't think it's cool that he has the integrity to state as much? Maybe you'd be happier if he lied to you, or pretended he was more than just an entertainer? Weird.
He did so in the first of his shows - he was not upfront about his status as a pure entertainer and made himself to be something more than he was. He corrected this later on. He is an entertainer and it was therefore understandable and I have no problem with Browne. John Edwards is also good.

I do find though, that attempting to derive nuggets of knowledge from an entertainer on philosophy or religion is like a pink and blue striped Zebra. Very strange and a bad idea.

That being said that let me leave you with a quote from one of my favourite series
"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." -- Garak
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: u235 on May 10, 2012, 07:51:58 AM
I liked the quote - the source was just a byline.

Here's a similar one to yours, I think from "Glory thrown in":

 "A historian tells us the facts. Poets tell us the truth"
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on May 10, 2012, 08:37:39 AM
"A historian tells us the facts. Poets tell us the truth"
:thumbs:
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Ju_dy@RT on May 10, 2012, 08:38:13 AM
Oppo any good ?

 :sh1tstirrer: :sh1tstirrer:

Aggeneeeee.... Darn you for wasting a perfectly good morning! I'm only on page 17, but feel compelled to keep reading, if only to get more insight into the persona of my fellow forumites.... :coffee: Its ganna take days....
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on May 10, 2012, 09:10:31 AM
if only to get more insight into the persona of my fellow forumites.... :coffee: Its ganna take days....

 :ROFLMAO: a bit longer than that I think
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on May 10, 2012, 09:27:39 AM
Where's our friend who started all this kak?
I see Analogos' account is also locked...

...Don't they like us any more?

Edit:
The obligatory smiley! ;D ;D :D :D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Andrew on May 10, 2012, 09:57:25 AM
Aggeneeeee.... Darn you for wasting a perfectly good morning! I'm only on page 17, but feel compelled to keep reading, if only to get more insight into the persona of my fellow forumites.... :coffee: Its ganna take days....

That thread really should have won an award. I can't remember when last I laughed so much...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Atjan on May 10, 2012, 10:05:16 AM
I can see Bernard owes BWS for resurrecting the thread. ;D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on May 10, 2012, 11:11:12 AM
^^ re: your sig

Therapist? I thought it was the Prozac
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on May 10, 2012, 11:30:06 AM
I can see Bernard owes BWS for resurrecting the thread. ;D
:ROFLMAO:
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: The Godfather on May 10, 2012, 11:32:34 AM
Where's our friend who started all this kak?
I see Analogos' account is also locked...

...Don't they like us any more?

Edit:
The obligatory smiley! ;D ;D :D :D
Yip they had to stick to their moral guns and leave. We are oppresive around here, clamping down on freedom of speech and all ....

BULLSHIT SAYS BWS, we would never edit a post or delete anything
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: u235 on May 10, 2012, 01:02:42 PM
Yip they had to stick to their moral guns and leave. We are oppresive around here, clamping down on freedom of speech and all ....

BULLSHIT SAYS BWS, we would never edit a post or delete anything
Try editing my post, sunshine......
(http://s17.postimage.org/tndc83e63/Injury.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/tndc83e63/)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: u235 on May 10, 2012, 01:18:29 PM
 >:D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: fdlsys on May 10, 2012, 01:27:43 PM
:ROFLMAO: a bit longer than that I think
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: (fell of the chair)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: d0dja on May 10, 2012, 01:34:05 PM
Great quote from Derren Browne, that kind of puts the kibosh on the whole thing: "If it is asserted without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence."

Christopher Hitchens, actually...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: u235 on May 10, 2012, 02:20:05 PM
Thanks
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on May 10, 2012, 05:41:06 PM
And God created the earth and everything in it and saw that it was good... but secretly he had doubts about Oppo. :thinking:
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: u235 on May 10, 2012, 07:51:05 PM
And God created the earth and everything in it and saw that it was good... but secretly he had doubts about Oppo. :thinking:
and openly he had MAJOR doubts about BWS
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Ju_dy@RT on May 10, 2012, 08:05:33 PM
And God created the earth and everything in it and saw that it was good... but secretly he had doubts about Oppo. :thinking:
?... :ROFLMAO:  :ROFLMAO: .... Still reading.... Still reading...  And it was the evening and soon morning the first day...
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Stefan on May 10, 2012, 08:32:05 PM
God wanted to create the universe in seven day, Chuck Norris gave him six!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: u235 on May 10, 2012, 08:35:00 PM
?... :ROFLMAO:  :ROFLMAO: .... Still reading.... Still reading...  And it was the evening and soon morning the first day...
and if you REALLY stick at it on page 48 you get to Numbers; and Ramsameh begat mathilon, and mathilon begat doodad, and doodad railed against the way of the sun and was smitten.........

Some things never change ;)
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Ju_dy@RT on May 10, 2012, 09:45:16 PM
and if you REALLY stick at it on page 48 you get to Numbers; and Ramsameh begat mathilon, and mathilon begat doodad, and doodad railed against the way of the sun and was smitten.........

Some things never change ;)

Page 36... Havent given up yet, but I think I'm getting bored... I'm all for a good debate, but it just goes on and on and on.... Kinda lost interest when Gordon stopped loosing his cool and stopped rambling... That part was funny... At this stage he's actually breathing, albeit still writing essays. Wonder how long that's ganna last?  :ROFLMAO: I see him blowing his top soon..... Now don't go spoiling it for me people :nono: :nono: I just loooove a good thriller :EGrin:
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: WD on May 10, 2012, 10:09:52 PM
Page 36... Havent given up yet, but I think I'm getting bored... I'm all for a good debate, but it just goes on and on and on.... Kinda lost interest when Gordon stopped loosing his cool and stopped rambling... That part was funny... At this stage he's actually breathing, albeit still writing essays. Wonder how long that's ganna last?  :ROFLMAO: I see him blowing his top soon..... Now don't go spoiling it for me people :nono: :nono: I just loooove a good thriller :EGrin:

It was better as a daily serial/ soap...

While were speaking Judy, let's fuse together this whole shebang in one cataclysmic clusterfu... er,  cosmic bang by bringing in... CABLES - just saw you sig - what specials have you got on speaker cable's and interconnects? Looking for neutral but detailed - what do you recommend? At this stage nobody cares if this thread is hijacked!
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: legro on May 11, 2012, 07:49:06 AM
And God created the earth and everything in it and saw that it was good... but secretly he had doubts about Oppo. :thinking:
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: Brilliant, Mr Wet Dog, kinda says it all, doesn't it?


Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Ju_dy@RT on May 11, 2012, 11:27:22 AM
It was better as a daily serial/ soap...

While were speaking Judy, let's fuse together this whole shebang in one cataclysmic clusterfu... er,  cosmic bang by bringing in... CABLES - just saw you sig - what specials have you got on speaker cable's and interconnects? Looking for neutral but detailed - what do you recommend? At this stage nobody cares if this thread is hijacked!

Yeah right!! ask me to start talking CABLE (i.e. the second most controversial issue) on a THE most controversial post ever... why not throw OPPO into the mix? WAIT... somebody already did... I plead the Fifth :-X .... or at least a sidebar... will PM you....
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: BWS on November 21, 2012, 02:51:46 PM
Hard to believe this now over a year old :sh1tstirrer:
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Family_Dog on November 21, 2012, 03:54:44 PM
And yet you had to open it again...   :walled:


-F_D
Title: Re: General Ignorance of Science
Post by: Ju_dy@RT on November 21, 2012, 04:07:28 PM
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.............