Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 111 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2017 9:11 AM
130 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,076 Year: 9,682/21,208 Month: 2,769/2,674 Week: 193/961 Day: 57/136 Hour: 3/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
121314Next
Author Topic:   Cosmos with Neil DeGrass Tyson
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 203 days)
Posts: 436
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(3)
Message 151 of 206 (725403)
04-26-2014 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
04-26-2014 7:30 PM


Re: science versus mental conjuring
Faith writes:

I watched the Grand Canyon segment of Cosmos that RAZD recommended and found it the usual bald assertion of what is nothing but a belief about what happened in the past. He pointed to a Precambrian rock and told us that it represents a period of time a billion years ago when the only living things on the planet were a form of bacteria. Evidence? He didn't happen to mention the evidence but we know that it's the presence of fossils of those bacteria found in that rock. Period.

The one thing I was hoping you would notice about that segment was how the layers looked when he expanded them. Unlike a majority of the diagrams that have been used to show the different layers here, the CGI could use the seismic information and expand the layers showing how they are not flat all the way across, but that some pushed into layers above or below and were wider in some areas than others. I thought it was one of the best diagrams I have seen for showing this fact, especially with one of your consistent arguments about the Grand Canyon being how the layers are perfectly flat and show no signs of erosion.

Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.


The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins

Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov

If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a persons body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson

What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 04-26-2014 7:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 2:51 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5645
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 152 of 206 (725409)
04-26-2014 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
04-26-2014 7:30 PM


Re: science versus mental conjuring
So I suppose everybody's now going to chase the red herrings of the definitions of "theory" and "proof" and give us the usual tiresome pedantic renditions instead of recognizing that I'm using them correctly and usefully in this context.

You are incapable of learning, so I won't go over the details again.

The context is interpretive or historical science versus testable experimental science, and the ludicrousness of the current interpretation of the strata and the fossils, as well as the complete unprovability of the ToE. It's all assertion and bullying, not fact.

Your mind is like a steel trap--rusted shut.

You are attempting to warp the universe to fit an old tribal myth, and it gets more and more ludicrous as you jump from thread to thread twisting anything you can to try and make it fit. Sorry, it does not fit.

And this "real" science vs. "historical" science is just the latest effort on the part of creationists to negate hundreds of years of scientific findings and even to turn back the Enlightenment. But it will fail, just as the other attempts have failed because the evidence does not support the creationist beliefs.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 04-26-2014 7:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 2:57 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9429
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 153 of 206 (725412)
04-26-2014 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Omnivorous
04-26-2014 8:20 PM


Re: NCSE comments
You know, I was just wondering about that. If you believe that the earth is 6000 years old, what do you make of the stars and the apparent age of the universe?

Perhaps you have forgotten, but Creation Science is a cottage industry for the express purpose of solving these kinds of riddles. The explanations range anywhere from merely saying that you are using 'evilutionist asumptions' to tired light, to complex, general relativity denying cosmologies with earth at the center of the universe and a giant gravity well. Past discussions I've had here have involved creationist citing crackpot theories where light has different speeds coming and going, alternative relativity theories and just bad science.

And if that is not enough, you can misinterpret real science papers.

Yes, you can sometimes entrap the more unimaginative of the YECs who are willing to stick to something like a consistent set of laws for the universe. Mindspawn comes to mind. But creationism is way more slippery than that.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Omnivorous, posted 04-26-2014 8:20 PM Omnivorous has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24395
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 154 of 206 (725421)
04-27-2014 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
04-26-2014 9:56 PM


Re: science versus mental conjuring
The one thing I was hoping you would notice about that segment was how the layers looked when he expanded them. Unlike a majority of the diagrams that have been used to show the different layers here, the CGI could use the seismic information and expand the layers showing how they are not flat all the way across, but that some pushed into layers above or below and were wider in some areas than others.

That was a very bizarre thing they did, just weird, made no sense and they didn't explain it. How do you even know what it meant? I've seen close-ups of many of the layers and they are quite flat and horizontal, even with those knife-edge straight contact lines. Yep right there up close. Slightly varying width doesn't make a difference to my argument. That section he was looking at was messier than many, obviously suffering from trauma of some sort after the whole stack had been laid down.

I thought it was one of the best diagrams I have seen for showing this fact, especially with one of your consistent arguments about the Grand Canyon being how the layers are perfectly flat and show no signs of erosion.

"Perfect" is a very weird word. Who cares about "perfect?" I'm interested in the general fact that they are all continuous with one another, PARALLEL, visibly parallel, ORIGINALLY horizontal, which is still apparent, and visibly parallel, even over the contour of the mounded rise into which the Grand Canyon was cut. You guys keep making straw men of that argument. Whoever drew the diagram knew how to draw erosion which is very apparent from the Kaibab on up and in the Great Unconformity. But not between the Tapeats and the Kaibab. No tectonic disturbance occurred to the entire stack until they were all in place, that's obvious, go back and look. They wouldn't have been laid down horizontally which they obviously were, or kept their parallel relation to each other, which they did, if that had been the case. The tectonic disturbance came after they were all in place all the way up to the top of the Grand Staircase.

Try following my argument about all that, I've made the case.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-26-2014 9:56 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24395
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 155 of 206 (725423)
04-27-2014 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Coyote
04-26-2014 11:23 PM


Re: science versus mental conjuring
I can always say it again. Historical science is a different animal from experimental science. All you have is your theories. If you say the fossil bacteria in a particular rock represent all that was on the earth during the time period that rock was being deposited, that's your theory, you can't prove it, that's simply how you interpret the rock and the fossils and you don't have anything but more theory to add to it, no way of testing it. That is not how experimental science works. And again, there isn't the slightest usefulness to any of that theorizing you all do. And again, the theory itself is bonkers, the idea that a time period is represented by a huge horizontal rock is crazy. And a whole bunch of other time periods represented by a whole bunch of other huge flat rocks is REALLY crazy. And that the fossils in them represent the only creatures living during that time period. REALLY REALLY crazy.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Coyote, posted 04-26-2014 11:23 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 04-27-2014 9:58 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24395
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 156 of 206 (725424)
04-27-2014 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by RAZD
04-26-2014 8:09 PM


Re: NCSE comments
Sure, a lot of sciences have been corrupted by the ToE here or there, but that doesn't change what is valid in their work. But I don't think radiometric dating is hogwash, I certainly understand the concept. I simply believe that there are interferences and contaminations that you guys fail to take into account.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2014 8:09 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2014 7:59 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24395
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 157 of 206 (725426)
04-27-2014 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by RAZD
04-26-2014 8:09 PM


Re: NCSE comments
Then there is astronomy with their fantasy about light years and development of stars with the original stars blowing up to make new stars like the sun and the planets like the earth ...

It all seems to work and I don't question it, but it's the Earth God described in detail, that's what I think about. I'm sure there will be plenty of surprises about all the rest of it eventually but I'm leaving all that for then.

Anthropology of course is fantasy with the preposterous claim of true human being descending from apes like chimpanzees ...

Totally fantasy, yes, but anthropology doesn't spend a whole lot of time on that fantasy as I recall.

Paleontology is even worse with pretend relationships of earlier life forms to a common ancestor pool by made up "similarities" in order to force them into an imaginary tree of life ...

Yes it is imaginary, totally made up. One thing you absolutely cannot know anything about is genetic relationships that you have no way of observing. Yes you are inflating similarities into genetic relationships without warrant. Paleontology should be more like entomology, just collecting and categorizing their finds.

Genetics is okay as long as they stick to the modern day, but as soon as they go off to talk about nested hierarchies with gibbons and gorilllas it's la la land ...

Something like that. As with all the rest of historical science they can't know anything about any of that, it's all ideas that they cannot prove, but fortunately they spend most of their time looking at things that are right in front of them.

Chemistry is fine as long as they stick to modern day reactions. Talking about reactions in the past is ridiculous because nobody was there to observe it.

Not sure what accusation you are intending to make here. In general where there was nobody to observe there isn't any way of having real knowledge about claims involving that period, it all remains theory, guesswork, fantasy. SOME things are knowable, however, such as that huge creatures used to walk the earth. We have bones to show for that. Don't know if the chemical reactions you have in mind are of that sort or not.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2014 8:09 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by dwise1, posted 04-27-2014 3:28 AM Faith has responded
 Message 161 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2014 8:00 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 163 by onifre, posted 04-27-2014 11:24 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2728
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 158 of 206 (725427)
04-27-2014 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Faith
04-27-2014 3:15 AM


Re: NCSE comments
Oh the Fremdscham!

Faith, RAZD was being sarcastic. He was deliberately acting like you, mimicking the same clueless rejection of science for stupid reasons.

Did you even try to follow up on the link he provided which explains the term, Fremdscham ("stranger shame")? From that link:

quote:
Fremdschmen describes embarrassment which is experienced in response to someone else's actions, but it is markedly different from simply being embarrassed for someone else. In particular it is different from being embarrassed because of how another person's actions reflect on us or because of how another person's actions make us look in the eyes of others.

Instead, Fremdscham (the noun) describes the almost-horror you feel when you notice that somebody is oblivious to how embarrassing they truly are. Fremdscham occurs when someone who should feel embarrassed for themselves simply is not, and you start feeling embarrassment in their place. It is at the heart of beloved "mockumentaries" such as The Office, Modern Family, or Ricky Gervais' Extras. It is also what makes the auditions for American Idol, Britain's got Talent and Deutschland Sucht den Superstar so discomfortingly entertaining...

Besides the emotional response, Fremdscham-inducing events and items (such as this creationist video{DWise1: link provided in article}) also usually cause one to ask this question: "how on earth can these people be unaware of how stupid they are being right now?".



This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 3:15 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 3:41 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24395
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


(1)
Message 159 of 206 (725428)
04-27-2014 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by dwise1
04-27-2014 3:28 AM


Re: NCSE comments
Of course he was mocking me, so I answered straight, best thing to do under the circumstances I figure. I've pretty much said all that straight before anyway.

What's sad is that you guys take your stuff so seriously. You SHOULD be embarrassed for yourselves. I wonder if any of you are going to wake up.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by dwise1, posted 04-27-2014 3:28 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18250
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 160 of 206 (725435)
04-27-2014 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
04-27-2014 3:01 AM


Re: NCSE comments
thank you faith for demonstrating my point


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 3:01 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18250
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 161 of 206 (725437)
04-27-2014 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Faith
04-27-2014 3:15 AM


Re: NCSE comments
thank you faith for demonstrating my point


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 3:15 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15560
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.4


(2)
Message 162 of 206 (725445)
04-27-2014 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
04-27-2014 2:57 AM


Re: science versus mental conjuring
Faith writes:

I can always say it again. Historical science is a different animal from experimental science. All you have is your theories. If you say the fossil bacteria in a particular rock represent all that was on the earth during the time period that rock was being deposited, that's your theory, you can't prove it, that's simply how you interpret the rock and the fossils and you don't have anything but more theory to add to it, no way of testing it. That is not how experimental science works.

It's funny how even though this has all been explained to you before that you repeat your claims as if nothing had ever been explained to you. There's no hint in this that you've been made aware of the many reasons and ways that you are wrong.

An experiment all by itself tells us nothing. The results have to be analyzed before we know anything. The only difference between experimental and historical science is that one gets to conduct their experiments in the present while the other has to take advantage of what are, in effect, uncontrolled experiments that took place in the past.

But they both analyze the results, and it's the analysis that's important and makes them both science, as well as the subsequent peer review and replication. Rosie's X-ray diffraction images meant nothing until Crick and Watson analyzed them to reveal the structure of DNA. The data collected by the Large Hadron Collider meant nothing until analyzed to reveal the Higgs.

And again, the theory itself is bonkers, the idea that a time period is represented by a huge horizontal rock is crazy.

Yes, we're fully aware that your only weapon against the repeated detailed explanations of how these layers accumulated in the past in the same way they're accumulating today (see, for example, my Message 18 that I posted yesterday) is to call them names and remain ignorant.

And a whole bunch of other time periods represented by a whole bunch of other huge flat rocks is REALLY crazy.

We see this on the sea floor today, so what you're really doing is calling reality crazy.

And that the fossils in them represent the only creatures living during that time period. REALLY REALLY crazy.

You're calling crazy the idea that creatures become buried and preserved in the era in which they lived? While believing it sane that a violent flood sorts fossils by evolutionary distance from modern forms? Really?

Again, you need to develop proposals that don't violate the physical laws of the universe.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 2:57 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 04-28-2014 10:16 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 04-28-2014 10:58 PM Percy has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 330 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 163 of 206 (725448)
04-27-2014 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Faith
04-27-2014 3:15 AM


Re: NCSE comments
In general where there was nobody to observe there isn't any way of having real knowledge about claims involving that period, it all remains theory, guesswork, fantasy.

It's even a wonder how murders get solved with all those theories and fantasies and guesswork about the unobserved death of a person, eh?

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 3:15 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Omnivorous, posted 04-27-2014 1:00 PM onifre has acknowledged this reply

    
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 347 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


(1)
Message 164 of 206 (725460)
04-27-2014 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by onifre
04-27-2014 11:24 AM


Re: NCSE comments
onifre writes:

It's even a wonder how murders get solved with all those theories and fantasies and guesswork about the unobserved death of a person, eh?

And an awful lot of false convictions are based on eyewitness testimony, which is infamously unreliable. So much for the sharp science of right here and now.

Still, killers have good odds if they think location:

quote:
Scripps Howard has built a searchable database that allows you to find the murder clearance rate in your state or county over time. You can also see the trends in your county for weapons used, gender, race and ethnicity.
...
Police solved only 35 percent of the murders in Chicago in 2008, 22 percent in New Orleans and just 21 percent in Detroit. Yet authorities solved 75 percent of the killings that same year in Philadelphia, 92 percent in Denver and 94 percent in San Diego.

Well, sure, Denver and San Diego--buncha amateurs. I thought better of Philly.

Story here

The story links to the Scripps Howard database, in case you want to sort your paranoia or odds of apprehension by race or ethnicity.


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by onifre, posted 04-27-2014 11:24 AM onifre has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2014 1:25 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18250
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 165 of 206 (725465)
04-27-2014 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Omnivorous
04-27-2014 1:00 PM


Another Science Based Show: Years of Living Dangerously
Episode 1

It's about climate change, what is happening and where it is happening ... and why we need to move forward.

Which of course is why we also have:

The brutally dishonest attacks on Showtimes landmark climate series

quote:
The bad news is the Times has published an error-riddled hit-job op-ed on the series that is filled with myths at odds with both the climate science and social science literature. For instance, the piece repeats the tired and baseless claim that Al Gores 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth polarized the climate debate, when the peer-reviewed data says the polarization really jumped in 2009, as you can see in this chart from The Sociological Quarterly:

Percent of Americans who believe the effects of global warming have already begun to happen, by political ideology, from Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap. Click to embiggen[enlarge].

The New York Times op-ed is from the founders of the Breakthrough Institute (BTI) the same group where political scientist Roger Pielke Jr. is a senior fellow. It pushes the same argument that Pielke made in his fivethirtyeight.com piece which was so widely criticized and debunked by climate scientists and others that Nate Silver himself admitted its myriad flaws and ran a response piece by MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel eviscerating Pielke.

Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, two widely debunked eco-critics who run BTI, begin by asserting IF you were looking for ways to increase public skepticism about global warming, you could hardly do better than the forthcoming nine-part series on climate change and natural disasters, starting this Sunday on Showtime. But they never cite anything other than the trailer in making their case, dismissing the entire enterprise on the basis of two minutes of clips!

They base their entire argument on a misrepresentation of climate science and a misrepresentation of social science.


Lots more of debunking of the NYTimes article.

What a surprise. It seems to be a constant in these debates, science vs lies and misinformation based on emotional appeal rather than rebuttals based on evidence.

What's that word again? Fremdschmen? It embarrasses me that it is such a false facade of denial and that the gullible people suck it up.

ps "embiggen" is not a real word people, the word is "enlarge" - more concise as well as meaningful.

Edited by RAZD, : /


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Omnivorous, posted 04-27-2014 1:00 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
121314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017