|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for a Conspiracy of Scientists? | |||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
quote: Thanks for prooving my point, bigot!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
how so?
Creationism is bullshit in the way it is presented as a feeble attempt at science. ID similarly never makes a prediction but is based upon appeal to incredulity. Hence as science it is bullshit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Limbo writes: We have. What you say is not true. I really feel your Christian love here ... Oh really? You all have? lol. You are exhibiting ignorance. "We" often, maybe even usually, means "the writer and one or more others". That's the first definition at The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition and is included in the first definition in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Limbo writes: Where is your evidence? Lets see it. We don't have any ... and that's your problem. It's impossible to prove that something does not exist. However, if (as we have) we look for evidence of that something and fail to find any we tentatively conclude that it does not exist. If someone wants to argue that the something does exist and provides evidence for the existence we reconsider. Ball's in your court, as it has been for some time.
Limbo writes: And you really feel my Christian love eh? Do you feel my Christian anger too? Because its ok for good to be angry at evil, ya'know. Its called righteous anger. Its ok to be angry at closed-minded, rude, lying, hypocritical bigots. I take umbrage at being called evil, closed-minded, rude, lying, hypocritocal, and a bigot merely because I don't agree with your unsupported claims. Remember when you signed up you agreed to the Forum Rules, which include:
quote: While I'm looking at that page, these are also apropos:
quote: quote: Limbo writes: Its funny how you non-Christians always want OTHER people to live up to moral codes (like Christianity) that you yourself don't observe. Personally, I think that everyone should live up to an appropriate moral code, and Christianity is one (not the only) source of such codes. You have no idea of what my religious views are, what my moral code is, and whether or not I live up to that code. You assume that I am not Christian and don't observe a Christian moral code solely because I don't agree with you. But my views and actions aren't relevant; all I did was point out that you do not live up to the moral code you profess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
I am going to be away from my computer for quite a while. Other admins are welcome to reopen this topic as they see fit.
Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting |
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Perhaps it would be a good thing, for all to review the topic, especially the beginning of it.
Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
appletree grafts ~=
quote:KANT@64 Critique of Teleological Judgment in context of Arithmetical or geometrical analogies, as well as universal mechanical laws- however strange and admirable may seem to us the union of different rules, quite independent of one another according to all appearence, in a single principle - possess on that account no claim to be teleological grounds of explanation in physics. Even if they deserve to be brought into consideration in the universal theory of the purposiveness of things of nature, yet they belong to another@68 Command=x=Divide the union before Mark10(25) quotes my use of Matchette's polarized metaphysics. Point to some words if you want me to slow up the explanation. It would not be necessarily a rule based computation domain suffiently on my position however. I dont think Quantum Computation (if and when) is GOD. Take minimization by the principle of substance stability obeying Gladyshev's "law" as such a means to do the bookeeping if the dissection of Frolich's work is too particularized.Frolich also has a rather unique explanation of how microwaves affect enzyme equilibria but Time/Warner, Verizon and Motorolla would not like that to be true. This doesnt mean that we divide away any theoretical ground in biology however in the system by the processed pattern. I am pushing for what deserves attention¬ yet what is true as such necessarily and must be taught. I used to feel like I did not belong. That is past. But evolutionists arguing with creationists about how long biochange MIGHT occur in temporally"" prevents delimitation and defintion of when there is NO contradiction logically generally. I had gesticulated about this two way directum before @http://EvC Forum: does it matter which is or not when there is value commercially? -->EvC Forum: does it matter which is or not when there is value commercially? . op cit-Postcellualr "polar" control balances neutralizations potentially by a new chemical synthesis that double pressure/voltage effects. Acid/base and or attraction/reulsions may provide a different effect on the surrounding extracellular physico-chemical environment than occurs by external variable within a give cell such that by trajectory or orbit the kinematic necessary to do at least bipolar functionality intercellular torque such is less conservable extracellular than intracellularly but ions flow regardless of adaptive conserverd lesser magnitudes
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Morgolf Inactive Member |
quote: Hi Schrafinator,I have been enjoying your replies on various posts and boards in this forum, but wanted to inject some points into this post. Since World War II, and the use of the Atomic Bomb, the trust that the general public has in science in general has slowly eroded due to some of the side-effects of chemicals found out too late, or after massive damage has been done (i.e., DDT, Dioxin, PCB's, CFCs, etc.). Also, certain events (Bhopal, Three Mile Island, etc.)have caused the general population to inherently distrust science and institutes that encourage, participates, and funds said science. Add into the equation some bad science published in the general Media (example: Cold Fusion in the 1980's...Doh!) and science in general is seen as the dark sheep in the world. With the mistrust comes the fear of science and some people return to a more secure, warm, and fuzzy belief (intelligent design philosophy, creationism) that a god is involved, thereby allowing them to accept some science, IMO. All of the scientists (Religious or otherwise) I have worked with have shown only a love of experimentation, of finding more questions to answer, with no hint of a Conspiracy. Perhaps the difference between those who are scientists (including me), scientifically inclined, or have a fondness for science to those who fear science and promote non-scientific "theories" are that those who fear have never known the true love and joy of science/experimentation/research and instead had horrible teachers in Middle and High Schools, and Universities (I had two horrible science teachers in High School, but fortunately overcame them). Ok, I ramble. Never play catch with crystallized picric acid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Sorry about the late reply, I just discovered the 'reply awaiting' page
The vast majority of scientific advances throughout history have been made under the belief that there is a God. Your point is moot. My point would be moot if my point was that belief in God precludes making scientific discoveries. Instead, my point was that scientists fear poor science becoming accepted. degrading the standards of science.
What they REALLY fear is that if there is ANY validity to the belief in a creator, they will have to change their sinful lifestyle, recognize an authority, and abandon their god-less worldview. This is the real reason they oppose ID. I contend that many scientists already believe in a creator and so cannot possibly fear this. In addition: Speak with scientists, many of them will say something along the lines of "It is possible that God exists, it is just impossible for science to demonstrate that, as such any science which purports to demonstrate God is almost certainly flawed." This message has been edited by Modulous, 05-10-2005 08:41 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
Limbo writes:
I appreciate the tremendous strides science has made. There is no doubt about the benefits to mankind as a result of science.Having said that, I’ve seen TONS of blogs, forum posts, articles, and court rulings that go far beyond being critical of the ideas behind ID to committing outright ad hominems and cheap, junior high pot shots. It's tiring to have to repeat yourself over and over and over again. Thus, "That is idiotic, due to X, Y, and Z," gets shortened to, "You're an idiot." If they want to know how their position is idiotic, they can look it up for their damned selves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
Limbo writes: What they REALLY fear is that if there is ANY validity to the belief in a creator, they will have to change their sinful lifestyle, recognize an authority, and abandon their god-less worldview. And I REALLY fear that if there was ANY validity to the belief in state and local governments, I would have to recognize their authority, obey their speed limits, and abandon my governmentless worldview. Doesn't seem to work. State and local governments fit nicely into my worldview; I believe that they exist; but that doesn't mean that I'm gonna change from my 'sinful' "15 over the limit" lifestyle to a legal, "2 under" one.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024