Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 136 of 216 (140291)
09-06-2004 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by sidelined
09-05-2004 9:06 PM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
sidelined writes:
Sorry to intrude H.A. I will try to restrain myself in the future
No intrusion, you got there first. We're all in the forum together

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by sidelined, posted 09-05-2004 9:06 PM sidelined has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 137 of 216 (140292)
09-06-2004 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by riVeRraT
09-05-2004 5:03 PM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
Ok, i'll reply to this post now. I'm perfectly fine with answering it
riVeRat writes:
I don't think you are lying about anything, am I right?
No, i'm not lying about anything.
riVeRat writes:
do detect a emptyness in your heart though, nothing to major, just a gap that needs to be filled. Your name is Happy Atheist, but you are sad about something, theres a hole there somewhere. I keep seeing blackness, does that make any sense? Thats the picture the Holy Spirit gave me.
I'm afraid you were given a faulty impression then. I'm extremely happy at the minut, more so than normal. I'm under a little stress, but it is very welcome stress. I'm less than a week away from finishing my Masters Degree. A few weeks ago I had to give a presentation and demonstration of a Character Recognition program i made for my dissertation and it worked perfectly. There isn't anything i'd change about my life at the minute

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by riVeRraT, posted 09-05-2004 5:03 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 11:36 AM happy_atheist has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 138 of 216 (140304)
09-06-2004 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by nator
09-06-2004 2:03 AM


The fact that we can simply call falling "gravity" is our privilege of growing up in a time when great minds have started to figure this out for us.
Wow, it took a great mind to figure out that we fall, thats a good one. Amazing, tell me more Mrs.Wizard.
It took great minds to see that the planets actually do not revolve around the earth. That is unless there were other great minds before that had previously figured that out, but we have no record of it.
Do you want to change this statement in any way, or retract it? Because, as it's written, it is ridiculous and nonsensical
Absolutly not. I stand by 100% and it makes perfect sense, and it gets proven over and over all the time.
Its obvious that we will not agree on this. It would seem the odds are your guide in life, and you rely on them for many things, but they aren't for me.
I would only ask that you keep what I said in mind, and observe if it is true or not, over the next 30 years. Fair enough?
That is what evolution proposes. The false cartoon of Evolutionary Biology you draw is much like a bad sequel to "The Fly".
Thats funny, or is it?
What I'm saying is if evolution is true, then anything should eventually be able to become anything, given enough time, and circumstances. Isn't this true?
No, the fact that I think it's not is because I understand how evolution works and you don't.
So what mechanism would stop you from becoming a whale, if we knew how? What if we kept throwing you and your succeeding generations in the water, and kept them from learning speech, or anything else for that matter. What would stop them from becoming a whale, or some kind of sea creature? I mean the whales became whales. Maybe not from humans, but evolution can go in reverse (figure of speech).
Or what if we kept throwing you off a cliff for the next 2 million years, you think you would grow feathers and fly? Whats that magical thing that makes feathers appear?
No, individuals DO NOT EVOLVE, populations do.
The same pressure that would make a population evolve could also make an individual evolve, your saying he can't? What sense does that make?
If you love science as much as you say you do, don't you think that you should study and understand at least the basics of the science of evolutionary Biology?
Yes, I will. I have learned a lot since coming to this forum. I have followed links and studyed when I have the time. Unfortunatly I will not become Mr.Scientist over night. I am a very busy individual with 5 kids and my own business. That is why I keep telling you I am not qualified to argue about evolution, but I can discuss some of the issues surrounding it. I do have a basic understanding of what evolution is. But I have many questions about it, that I need to answer.
I have watched many debate videos about creation vs evolution, and from what I see there is enough missing evidence for me to not believe in evolution. However, there is hardly enough evidence for me to believe in creation. I only believe that God made us, I just don't know how. I am unsure if we evolved to our current state, or he flat out created us, and God filled in the gaps, or there is another mystery that we just haven't figured out yet.
I don't think this is an unrealistic view based on our current knowledge.
You haven't seen asteroids. You have taken other people's word for it that those are rocks flying around. All you see are little points of light. Do you now reject the idea that asteroids exist?
I have first hand observed asteroids, and tracked them.
No, it is NOT a theory.
It is mathematics. It is axiomatic.
Also for purposes of our discussion, we must keep mathematical odds separate from biological odds, as they are very different.
I do not have to much trouble with mathematical odds, but they still do not explain if I would win or not. I know how you like to lump all these things together for the benifit of your argument.
The use of the statistical analysis/odds is so that the people who run the lottery and casinos can accurately predict how much money they will make from their games of chance.
Right but how do they know whos going to choose which # ?
Thats why the odds are inaccurate in determining if I would actually win or not. To me the odds only explain how many combinations there are. They do not explain which combination will be drawn, or which combination I would pick. True or false?
Man, please get a basics statistics book and learn some of this stuff.
My friend used to say that the lottery was a tax on people who are bad at math.
Because my level of thinking about odds, are a step above your, does not mean I have to back and learn about odds.
The behavior of the lottery is exactly and precisely predicted. We know exactly how often, based upon numbers of tickets sold, the chances that nobody will win, exactly how often one person will win, exactly how often two people will win, etc. This will not predict, however, which specific days those wins will happen.
That is an inaccurate description of lotto odds. The odds only explain the possible combinations that can be achieved, not how often someone could win. There is no way of figuring out the odds until all the numbers are picked, and all the lotto tickets are in.
Nice horse by the way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 2:03 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by lfen, posted 09-06-2004 12:12 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 160 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 2:08 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 139 of 216 (140305)
09-06-2004 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by nator
09-06-2004 2:18 AM


They are different, but have no revelance on what I am saying.
It also doesn't falsify anything, whether it is subjective or objective, only to scientists.
Just because something is subjective, does not make it untrue.
If 2 million people all feel the same thing when searching for God, is that still subjective? If you say yes, then results from taking medication are subjective too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 2:18 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by sidelined, posted 09-06-2004 11:12 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 142 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 11:29 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 145 by lfen, posted 09-06-2004 11:44 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 140 of 216 (140311)
09-06-2004 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 11:00 AM


riVerRat
If 2 million people all feel the same thing when searching for God, is that still subjective?
Absolutely. Unless you have a means of quanitfying feelings that can be measured in a laboratory it is indeed still subjective.You cannot feel what another person feels so you cannot determine if it is the same thing that you feel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 11:00 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 11:38 AM sidelined has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 141 of 216 (140314)
09-06-2004 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by nator
09-06-2004 3:26 AM


Then you accepted it for the wrong reasons. Evolution stands on the evidence which supports it, not because people like you take it on faith.
Me and a lot of other scientifically illeterate people, thats my problem with evolution, and the way they teach it in schools. I am not apposed to teaching it though.
Don't mistake the reasons you used to accept evolution with the reasons I and others here accept it. We have not made the mistake you did, and neither do most professional life scientists.
I can't because of my ignorance.
I am now understanding, I think, where you have gotten the idea that all of us and scientists believe in evolution as a religious faith; it's because you figure because you did this, then everybody who accepts evolution must have done this, too.
I can't give a qualified answer to this one way or another. I have seen some scientist who do not accept it as fact. So that leads me to qestion.
I only wish that scientists would not use evolution to not believe in God. Whether its their religion or not is a separate issue.
Sure, I appreciate it. However, this doesn't mean that you get to make claims about the entire scientific community and what the publish in their professional journal articles if you don't really read them?
Well I used to read some of them when I worked in a hospital, and what I noticed was how many mistakes are made. I also noticed the good that comes from it.
I can only conclude that you are singling out the ToE to reject because it contradicts a literal reading of the Bible.
When the gravitational theory starts to replace religion, I will have the same problem with it.
I do not reject ToE because it contradicts a literal reading of the bible, I am niether an expert on the bible, or ToE. I have a lot of knowledge, but I do not have the complete picture as of yet. It is my goal to.
You aren't fooling anybody, riverrat. It is clear that you accept certain theories because they don't interfere with your religious views, and reject others because they do.
I do not actually reject it, I just do not fully accept it yet. This was part in due to some of the debates I have seen on creation vs evolution.
Anyway, why should a scientist consider an anomolous finding to be anything else than an anomoly if the previous million findings have suggested something else?
Thank you, you proved my point.
You had better support this serious accusation with some evidence very quickly or retract and apologize.
Happy atheist mentioned it. That doesn't mean it wasn't found out.
I also saw a special on discovery, I forgot the details, but it was a fossil of a lizard like creature, that had a tail and wings. Scientists went nuts over this, until the eventually figured out that it was a fraud. I do not have to retract my statement, because it does happen. We only know about the ones we "bust". which I hope is all of them. The scientific method should weed all of them out eventually.
Yep, all of those cancer cures are totally wrong. That vaccine stuff? Wrong. Predictions of eclipses and metoer showers? Completely wrong most of the time.
Cancer cures have a long way to go.
Vaccine stuff just might wipe out the entire population. How you ask?
By creating super germs resistant to all medicine, and beat out our evolutionary defences. We won't know this until it happens.
Astronomy is a different subject, and even though they can predict meteor showers, their predictions are most of the time inaccurate on the level of intensity.
Don't take me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't try all of the above things. Just pointing out how it is inaccurate, and most of the time wrong. We do the best we can with what we have. The intention is good.
I am completely thankful for it.
*sigh*
You had just made the amazingly arrogant statement that "Scientists have faith even though they don't think they do".
I simply turned it back upon you in order to illustrate the stupidity and arrogance of such a statement.
Due to my own personal SUBJECTIVE tests God has shown himself to me, time and time again. I only have faith that he will keep his promises to me. You can call it what you want, doesn't matter.
First of all, there were no scientists 2000 years ago.
There were no astronomers 2000 years ago? You keep including them in our science discussions.
I have got to say, riverrat, that rarely have I come across someone who claims to love science who is also so misinformed and uninformed about science as you.
Maybe, or maybe not. Time will tell you for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 3:26 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 12:53 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 142 of 216 (140315)
09-06-2004 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 11:00 AM


quote:
They are different, but have no revelance on what I am saying.
Can you please explain how they are different?
The relevance is this, riverrat:
There is a large difference, contrary to your claims, between subjective religious faith (that can be known only to an individual) and trust derived from objectively-gathered evidence (meaning gathered through observation and experience that anyone can examine).
quote:
It also doesn't falsify anything, whether it is subjective or objective, only to scientists.
Oh, so one of those phrases means something specific to scientific methodology?
Which one, and how so?
quote:
Just because something is subjective, does not make it untrue.
Well, true.
However, if something is subjective, it cannot be scientific.
quote:
If 2 million people all feel the same thing when searching for God, is that still subjective?
Yup.
The reason it is subjective is because there is no way of telling if they are feeling the same thing.
quote:
If you say yes, then results from taking medication are subjective too.
Nope.
Those effects can be, and are, tested by non-subjective methods, such as MRI's, blood tests, urine tests, blood pressure tests, etc.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-06-2004 12:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 11:00 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 1:03 PM nator has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 143 of 216 (140317)
09-06-2004 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by happy_atheist
09-06-2004 10:15 AM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
I am glad for you, really.
I still see blackness though, I don't know what it means.
I picture a highway interchange (I know I should have said this before)
Specifically I see the interchange in Newburgh NY where rt 84 intersects with rt 300 and 17k. I see your name on top, then followed by blackness. The blackness is on the left. I seen you getting off the highway and going to head north on rt 300, parallel to the blackness.
Wierd huh?
Do those numbers mean anything to you?
Thank you for being honest. I have never tried to prophetize over the internet, because I thought it was a bad idea. I am very new to prophetizing, and I do not get many visions. So I do not know exactly how to handle them. All my visions to date have come true, or had relevant meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by happy_atheist, posted 09-06-2004 10:15 AM happy_atheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by happy_atheist, posted 09-06-2004 12:01 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 144 of 216 (140318)
09-06-2004 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by sidelined
09-06-2004 11:12 AM


You can't talk about it, and see that it is the same thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by sidelined, posted 09-06-2004 11:12 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by happy_atheist, posted 09-06-2004 12:04 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 148 by sidelined, posted 09-06-2004 12:11 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 145 of 216 (140319)
09-06-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 11:00 AM


placebo
If 2 million people all feel the same thing when searching for God, is that still subjective? If you say yes, then results from taking medication are subjective too.
It's called the placebo effect. Not only can it relieve pain, swelling, etc. it can result in life threatening anaphylatic shock. All from a sugar pill.
lfen
edited corrected a misspelled word
This message has been edited by lfen, 09-06-2004 11:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 11:00 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 146 of 216 (140324)
09-06-2004 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 11:36 AM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
riVeRat writes:
Do those numbers mean anything to you?
No, those numbers mean nothing. I can't think of anything at all that has relevance to those numbers. I also don't know what you mean by blackness? Do you mean blackness as in you have no idea whats on the otherside, or blackness relating to me personally? I certainly have no metaphorical blackness in my life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 11:36 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 1:15 PM happy_atheist has replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 147 of 216 (140326)
09-06-2004 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 11:38 AM


I don't think you can talk about feelings to see if they're the same. How I feel when i'm happy may be absolutely completely different to the way you feel when you're happy. It's like two people looking at something and trying to describe the colour they see. I have no idea if i'm seeing green in the same way you're seeing green (in fact i'd say it's almost certain that what you see green as is different to what I see green as). It would be much better to talk about the wavelength of the light since that is an objective measure of the colour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 11:38 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 1:22 PM happy_atheist has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 148 of 216 (140329)
09-06-2004 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 11:38 AM


You can talk about it and agree to it being the same thing but because humans are social creatures and complex in the reasons for their actions how do you tell between those who actually feel the way you do and those who are putting on a show for any number of reasons?{fear of authority,acceptance by pretending to fit in etc..}
One also wonders where you found the time to talk to 12 million people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 11:38 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 1:28 PM sidelined has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 149 of 216 (140330)
09-06-2004 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 10:57 AM


Schrafinator wrote in her post:
quote:
Right, the fact that we fall is cleary obvious that gravity exists under certain conditions. Doesn't matter what the theory says.
NO. The fact that we fall is only an observation. The theory behind this falling, that it is a side effect of a force that not only makes us fall off of bridges but also holds planets in orbit and influences the evolution of stars, is not apparent at all, and it took great minds, starting with Newton and continuing to the present day, to start to make sense of all of this. The fact that we can simply call falling "gravity" is our privilege of growing up in a time when great minds have started to figure this out for us.
riVeRraT replied:
quote:
The fact that we can simply call falling "gravity" is our privilege of growing up in a time when great minds have started to figure this out for us.
Wow, it took a great mind to figure out that we fall, thats a good one. Amazing, tell me more Mrs.Wizard.
It took great minds to see that the planets actually do not revolve around the earth. That is unless there were other great minds before that had previously figured that out, but we have no record of it.
rat,
What is the point of you misrepresenting what Schraf said? To wit, she clearly did not say it took great minds to figure out that we fall. You excerpted her comment in a way to misrepresent her statement. In context what she meant is clearly obvious. Physists are still working on the theory of gravity.
I get very impatient with the stupid rhetorical tricks used in apologetics. But scoring meaningless points by being sarcastic about something that you falsely attribute to your opponent is one of the most common contemporary tricks of creationists and evangelists. I of course can't stop you from doing it but you lose credibility everytime you do it.
I understand it's much easier to read creationist web sites and repeat pseudo science than it is to read books on science and try to understand the ongoing work. Read the sites you want,enjoy your faith, but if you want your arguments to be taken seriously here then you need to use logic and information, not cheap silly apologetic rhetoric especially using deceptive excerpting to create a false impression to showcase childish sarcasm.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 10:57 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 1:41 PM lfen has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 150 of 216 (140338)
09-06-2004 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 11:27 AM


Then you accepted it for the wrong reasons. Evolution stands on the evidence which supports it, not because people like you take it on faith.
quote:
Me and a lot of other scientifically illeterate people, thats my problem with evolution, and the way they teach it in schools. I am not apposed to teaching it though.
I think your problems with evolution are:
1) You don't know anything about it.
2) You have a lot of misconceptions about it.
3) Your religious beliefs require that you reject evolution but not other scientific theories.
The way you were taught years ago, if you actually were taught to just believe evolution on faith, is irrelevant to if the theory is valid.
Don't mistake the reasons you used to accept evolution with the reasons I and others here accept it. We have not made the mistake you did, and neither do most professional life scientists.
quote:
I can't because of my ignorance.
Like I said, ignorance is curable.
I am now understanding, I think, where you have gotten the idea that all of us and scientists believe in evolution as a religious faith; it's because you figure because you did this, then everybody who accepts evolution must have done this, too.
quote:
I can't give a qualified answer to this one way or another. I have seen some scientist who do not accept it as fact. So that leads me to qestion.
Only a very tiny fraction of a percent of the world's scientists who's degrees are in relevant scientific fields question the validity of evolution.
That evolution happens is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution is not a fact, but an explanation of the facts (evidence), just like it is a fact that matter is made up of atoms, but the Atomic Theory of Matter is not a fact, but an explanation of the facts (evidence).
quote:
I only wish that scientists would not use evolution to not believe in God.
The thing is, that is their personal, religious/philosophical choice if they do that or not.
quote:
Whether its their religion or not is a separate issue.
Agreed.
Sure, I appreciate it. However, this doesn't mean that you get to make claims about the entire scientific community and what they publish in their professional journal articles if you don't really read them?
quote:
Well I used to read some of them when I worked in a hospital, and what I noticed was how many mistakes are made. I also noticed the good that comes from it.
...but did you notice anything regarding God or religious-type faith in the papers?
I can only conclude that you are singling out the ToE to reject because it contradicts a literal reading of the Bible.
quote:
When the gravitational theory starts to replace religion, I will have the same problem with it.
But how does some people starting to believe in gravitational theory as a religion change the theory of gravity?
The theory is the same, regardless of how some people view it, right?
Are you saying that if some people start believing in the Theory of Gravity as a religion, pencils will start falling up and planetary orbits will begin to change?
quote:
I do not reject ToE because it contradicts a literal reading of the bible, I am niether an expert on the bible, or ToE. I have a lot of knowledge, but I do not have the complete picture as of yet. It is my goal to.
If you don't understand the ToE, then why do you reject it?
If you don't understand the various Theories of Gravity, why do you accept them?
You aren't fooling anybody, riverrat. It is clear that you accept certain theories because they don't interfere with your religious views, and reject others because they do.
quote:
I do not actually reject it, I just do not fully accept it yet. This was part in due to some of the debates I have seen on creation vs evolution.
Which parts do you still have issues with?
Anyway, why should a scientist consider an anomolous finding to be anything else than an anomoly if the previous million findings have suggested something else?
[quote]Thank you, you proved my point.
How about answering the question I asked right after the bit you quoted above but you failed to include:
IOW, should scientists constantly question the validity of the entire Germ Theory of Disease every time they can't figure out right away what is the cause of a particular disease?
You had better support this serious accusation with some evidence very quickly or retract and apologize.
quote:
Happy atheist mentioned it. That doesn't mean it wasn't found out.
I also saw a special on discovery, I forgot the details, but it was a fossil of a lizard like creature, that had a tail and wings. Scientists went nuts over this, until the eventually figured out that it was a fraud. I do not have to retract my statement, because it does happen. We only know about the ones we "bust". which I hope is all of them. The scientific method should weed all of them out eventually.
Who do you think "busts" the incredibly small number of fraudulent scientists?
It's other scientists, riverrat, through the peer review and replication process which finds them out.
Oh, and you are wrong about the fossil find.
It wasn't "scientists" who went nuts over the find, it was the magazine editors at National Geographic who went nuts and made a very premature claim that it was a new species of feathered dinosaur.
The actual Paleontology community of scientists were much more cautious and were never convinced that what NG claimed was true, and were ultimately the ones to figure out that it was two pieces of two different fossils.
So, this fraud was not perpetrated by scientists, was not publicised by scientists, but was sniffed out and exposed by scientists.
This, in fact, completely contradicts your claim that it is the scientists often committing fraud, and colluding with each other to maintain falsehoods.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...120_021120_raptor.html
The Archaeoraptor fossil was unveiled in October 1999 at National Geographic Society headquarters in Washington, D.C., and received considerable attention from the media. National Geographic magazine published a cover story on the fossil in the November 1999 issue.
Within days, rumors questioning the fossil's authenticity began making the rounds in the scientific community. By late December, the fossil's claim to validity was shattered. Xu Xing, a paleontologist in China who had seen the fossilbrieflyand was cited in the National Geographic story, e-mailed his colleagues and the magazine.
"I am really sorry to tell you a bad news!" he wrote. "I am 100 percent sure ... we have to admit that Archaeoraptor is a faked specimen."
Xu, who has excavated many fossils in Liaoning province where the original specimens were first found, had seen the exact counterpart of the slab containing Archaeoraptorthis time with the tail of Yanornis attached to a dromaeosaur body.
Yep, all of those cancer cures are totally wrong. That vaccine stuff? Wrong. Predictions of eclipses and metoer showers? Completely wrong most of the time.
[qs]Cancer cures have a long way to go.[/quote]
But are they ineffective most of the time, as you claimed??
Do all people who get cancer die of it?
quote:
Vaccine stuff just might wipe out the entire population. How you ask?
By creating super germs resistant to all medicine, and beat out our evolutionary defences. We won't know this until it happens.
Um, no.
You are confusing antibiotics and vaccines.
Antibiotics are chemical substances which are known to poison, and therefore weaken or kill, bacteria. It is true that overuse and incorrect use of antibiotics encourages the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria through natural selection. (evolution in action)
Vaccines are killed or weakened viruses which, when introduced to the bloodstream, induce our bodies to form antibodies specific to that virus that then combat the virus.
You have to get a flu vaccine every year, because the flu virus keeps mutating and we have to develop a new, virus-specific vaccine.
Vaccinations have been an enormous tool in the elimination of many previously devastating infectious diseases like measles, smallpox, tuberculosis, rubella, scarlet fever, polio, influenza, and many others.
quote:
Astronomy is a different subject, and even though they can predict meteor showers, their predictions are most of the time inaccurate on the level of intensity.
...and eclipses? Are astronomers mostly wrong about when eclipses happen?
quote:
Don't take me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't try all of the above things. Just pointing out how it is inaccurate, and most of the time wrong.
But you haven't supported your claim that science is "wrong most of the time" at all.
quote:
Due to my own personal SUBJECTIVE tests God has shown himself to me, time and time again. I only have faith that he will keep his promises to me. You can call it what you want, doesn't matter.
It does matter, however, that you arrogantly claim that everybody believes just like you do, they just deny it or don't know it.
Who are you to tell someone else his or her own mind?
[quote]First of all, there were no scientists 2000 years ago.[/qs]
quote:
There were no astronomers 2000 years ago? You keep including them in our science discussions.
There were no scientists in the modern sense, no.
Most people who studied the stars 2000 years ago were doing Astrology, not satronomy, because they believed that the stars were lights set into a dome, not other stars or other planets or other galaxies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 11:27 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 1:56 PM nator has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024