Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On The Limits of Human Talent
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(5)
Message 3 of 126 (711343)
11-17-2013 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
11-17-2013 4:40 PM


Well, the obvious problem with this is that you had to use your own limited understanding to decide what is God's word, to decide that it was the Bible, to decide that it should be, as you specify, the 66-book version of the Bible rather than one of the others. You are in fact "leaning on your own understanding" to tell you that.
Having used your frail fallible human intellect to decide to do that, there are certain questions you may never have to think about ever again. But you did have to decide those questions once.
Someone (for example) adhering to a Holy Book saying that the sky is green may indeed ignore reason, which tells him it isn't. "Look!" he cries, "I am not leaning on my understanding! I am using this book rather than my brain! I am not reasoning in the slightest!" --- and indeed no-one could accuse him of presently employing reason or using his brain. But at some point in the past he must have had a reason, good or bad, for deciding to adhere to that book, and must have used his brain, well or badly, to reach that conclusion.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 11-17-2013 4:40 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 126 (711678)
11-21-2013 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by marc9000
11-20-2013 7:34 PM


We should recognize the importance of leaving alone mysteries that belong only to God.
And these mysteries are identified by ... oh, right, your personal opinion.
"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." --- so the Bible says in Proverbs 25:2. I can't find where it says that searching out certain matters concealed by God isn't glorious, and gives a list. How 'bout you?
That's what they demand from Christians, but they don't apply it to themselves.
The standard is the same: do you have evidence? For example, the Bible says the Sun exists, and it's perfectly OK to teach that as fact in science class, because it appears to be true. Well, so does the proposition, widely accepted by theist and atheist alike that (for example) the Earth is billions of years old. So that can also be taught in science class. You see how this works?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by marc9000, posted 11-20-2013 7:34 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 27 of 126 (711680)
11-21-2013 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by marc9000
11-20-2013 7:43 PM


I just disregard what is clearly not science, just metaphysical searches for support of the atheist worldview.
If it was "clear" that the bits of science you don't like are "not science", then this would be known to scientists, who know quite a lot about science, rather than this being a mystery revealed only unto a collection of scientifically illiterate religious zealots who don't know what "metaphysical" means or what scientists actually do.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by marc9000, posted 11-20-2013 7:43 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 11-21-2013 11:16 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 40 of 126 (711781)
11-22-2013 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by marc9000
11-22-2013 9:30 AM


Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
Many would consider it common sense ...
Many have considered it common sense that the world is flat and stationary. This is one reason why common sense sucks when compared to (for example) science.
And your "common sense" apparently sucks worse than common sense which is actually common.
... and would like to see more public interests contribute to the decisions of what public money will be spent on to explore it, not just leaving it all up to the scientific community.
Actually, the government doesn't just write a big check each year payable to science, they pick the direction of research and we pick the government.
The scientific method, we're told, requires actual science to be testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable. It would be logical to expect the 100 billion number, and the 400 billion number to be tested, and one of them falsified.
Well then, you should write to your Congressman and say that you want more spending on astronomy.
And in the eyes of todays atheist scientific community, Intelligent Design is spiritual.
Let me fix that for you: "In the eyes of today's scientific community, atheist and religious alike, Intelligent Design is bullshit."
Bad guess, the O/P clearly refers to the public in general, not me personally.
And yet the public in general isn't writing your posts. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that you are not speaking for them in everything you write.
Correct. I'm okay with science that has practical applications that we can use here and now, not when the same science, coupled with an extra guess and a promise, is used to try to prove the Bible wrong.
Then you'll be pleased to know that the dumb shit you've made up in your head doesn't actually happen.
So why does the scientific community constantly claim that only the scientific community has the right to determine what is science?
I think they'd acknowledge that any scientifically literate person can tell science from pseudoscience. And that scientifically illiterate idiots can't.
Why do they only want to use the courts to make decisions about things like Intelligent Design?
Your question appears to relate more to a fantasy world in your head than to the real one we actually inhabit.
Hey Joe, I keep looking in this microscope and discovering that Michael Behe's book is right, the simplest forms of life that we know just fell together by unguided processes are so complicated that mathematicians are likely to show some really long odds that they came about that way.
Thing is, scientists don't say stuff like that, 'cos they're not morons.
Jack, you said that too loud - here comes the boss down the hall - will your body look nice without it's head?
Or stuff like that, 'cos they're not shrieking twitching paranoid lunatics gibbering with terror at the imaginary boogeymen that dwell in the dark sick recesses of their heads.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by marc9000, posted 11-22-2013 9:30 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 41 of 126 (711789)
11-22-2013 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by marc9000
11-22-2013 9:03 AM


The personal opinions of Morris, Gish, and others at creationist organizations might very well be slightly different than mine, no question there is more diversity in mainstream U.S. thinking than there is in the narrow minded scientific community ...
Naturally there is more diversity in fantasy than in fact.
Interesting pair of standards you've got there, by the way. When scientists are in agreement, apparently that shows how narrow-minded they are. But when they are in disagreement, as for example on the topic of how many stars there are in the galaxy, this does not evoke a paean of praise for their open-mindedness. No, they're bad if they agree with one another, and they're bad if they disagree with one another. Creationists are apparently exempt from this rule, because you have a double standard concerning when to apply double standards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by marc9000, posted 11-22-2013 9:03 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(8)
Message 44 of 126 (711834)
11-22-2013 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by marc9000
11-22-2013 9:30 AM


Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
Correct. I'm okay with science that has practical applications that we can use here and now, not when the same science, coupled with an extra guess and a promise, is used to try to prove the Bible wrong.
Marc, listen carefully. The people who developed techniques of organ transplantation didn't do it to annoy Jehovah's Witnesses. The makers of electrical appliances aren't in it to vex the Amish. Arms manufacturers don't sell weapons of war with the intention of pissing off the Quakers. Pig farmers aren't in it to irk the Jews, nor brewers to taunt the Muslims. Cartographers don't make globes to distress flat-Earthers. And geologists don't find the age of rocks in order to make YECs throw tantrums. They do it because they want to know how old the rocks are.
Now it is true that upsetting YECs is one of the incidental consequences of their research, just as the death of a bug might be the result of a guy driving from Los Angeles to San Francisco, if his tires happen to pass over the bug. But he didn't take the road trip in order to run over the bug. He didn't notice the existence of the bug. He didn't notice that he drove over the bug. And if you told him, he wouldn't care. What he cares about is getting to San Francisco.
Like most paranoid people, you combine your paranoia with grandiosity amounting to megalomania --- you unite the delusion that They are out to get you with the delusion that you're important enough to merit so much of Their attention. But scientists don't give a shit about your stupid cult. Most of them are, if at all, only vaguely aware that it exists, and they couldn't care less that their findings contradict it. It's the bug under their tires. Maybe the bug doesn't understand this --- bugs, after all, don't understand much. Maybe the last thing the bug thinks is "He's driven hundreds of miles just to run me over? He must feel so threatened by my existence." But the real tragedy of the bug is that the driver was completely unaware of and utterly indifferent to its existence.
You guys really only have two ways to get the attention of scientists. One is sending them hate-mail. This they largely ignore. The other is trying to get your religious doctrines taught in science class with public money. At that point a few of them will spend a little time dealing with this minor nuisance, for the sake of the children, the teachers, and the First Amendment. At that point you're not so much a bug under their tires as one that's spattered on their windscreen. They turn the wipers on. They turn the wipers off. And then they forget all about it and continue on to their destination.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by marc9000, posted 11-22-2013 9:30 AM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 11-23-2013 9:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 126 (711901)
11-24-2013 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by marc9000
11-23-2013 9:30 PM


d.p.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 11-23-2013 9:30 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 58 of 126 (711903)
11-24-2013 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by marc9000
11-23-2013 9:30 PM


Organ transplantation, electrical appliances, arms manufacturing, pig farming, etc. then.....ages of rocks. A whole list of useful human activity, then...ages of rocks. If the scientific community has established as fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, why do they continue to be fascinated with...ages of rocks?
Because the age of the Earth is not the only thing geologists are interested in. If you look up the word "geology" in any dictionary you will not find it defined as "the science of knowing how old the Earth is, and nothing else". As you are probably aware of this, I have to wonder why you asked such a stupid question.
Is it for useful, practical purposes ...
Obviously.
or is it to fine-tune todays atheist science education?
Have you hit your head on something?
$27 million (if I remember right) in 1969 dollars to go to the moon, I think all we have left to show for it is a few...rocks. Every last shred of documentation of exactly how it was done was LOST, in a series of NASA blunders. I guess since they got their rocks, they were no longer worried about the tax money they wasted. So much for the giant leap for mankind. But I’m curious as to what it is about rocks that inspires atheists to waste so much time and money.
Where do you get this crap from?
By the way, modesty dictates that I should admit the Moon missions were not exclusively an atheist achievement. Theists were allowed to help too. Some of them are quite bright, you know.
If I lived a standard, politically correct, go with the flow lifestyle that most of you liberals do, I probably wouldn't be as afraid as I am of activist atheist scientists. But I'm one of millions of self employed, and along with medium sized business owners, and large corporation owners, and as a group, we merit plenty of attention from activist atheist scientists.
You see Dr, one-person operations like mine as well as the largest corporations have to be able to do one thing, and that is to PLAN. Doesn't matter if we want to grow in business, or stay the same. We won't have anything to do if we can't foresee what will happen tomorrow, or a year, or five years from now. Free market activity doesn't change overnight, it changes slowly, usually pretty predictably, or not at all in some cases. Planning is possible, and necessary in those conditions. But it's all thrown completely into chaos when the government meddles, at the whims of activist atheist scientists combined with political corruption. That's when businesses go under, lifestyles are destroyed, sometimes by nothing more than liberal atheist scientists who gained a political foothold with their education.
Unfortunately, liberal atheists are often as stupid as the bugs you refer to above, because free markets tend to react to their stupid mandates in ways that they didn’t anticipate. A few decades ago, largely through global warming hysteria, auto fuel mileage standards were put into place, to see to it that Americans all drove little rollerskate econoboxes that the liberals in government had in mind for them. What happened of course, was a huge majority of people flocked to pickups and SUV's, so now overall fuel milage in the U.S. is probably lousier than it would have been if government would have just left it alone. That's only one example of government meddling with unexpected (to government) consequences. Obamacare is, of course, another.
This drivel has no relevance to the point to which you are ostensibly replying.
As most atheist liberal scientists are unaware and indifferent to the damage they do to society as they continue to try to puff themselves up and make themselves feel important with their mandates.
This drivel has no relevance to the point to which you are ostensibly replying.
And they have plenty of people like you to support them with cutesy little rants like this, and think you are a tremendous help to them. Dr. Adequate, please listen carefully. Very few people read, or participate on atheist forums such as these. These forums mean nothing in determining the increase or decrease in radical liberal atheist scientific agendas. Some other things for you to pay close attention to; free market corporations are not intentionally warming the planet so they can sell more air conditioners. They, nor the scientific community, have the power to control the temperature of the planet. The planet has been slightly warming and cooling on its own for thousands of years, the scientific community can't change anything about it by taking over corporate decisions or stripping individuals of their liberties, or looking at more rocks.
It's true that global warming hysteria would have been the dream of every brutal dictator that's ever existed in the past, as an easy way to gain control over the masses, that still doesn't change the fact that it's nothing but a big government farce. Now it is true that upsetting liberal atheists is one of the incidental consequences of the fact that the unwashed masses haven't signed their freedoms over to the scientific community yet, and it's unsure if they will ever become that brainwashed.
This drivel has no relevance to the point to which you are ostensibly replying. Except, I suppose, insofar as it confirms that you're a paranoid lunatic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 11-23-2013 9:30 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 59 of 126 (711904)
11-24-2013 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by marc9000
11-23-2013 8:56 PM


Advise [sic]
What advise would you have for me to answer 12 opponents?
Either make fewer dumb mistakes, or find more people who share them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by marc9000, posted 11-23-2013 8:56 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 65 of 126 (711936)
11-24-2013 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by marc9000
11-20-2013 7:03 PM


The "world" goes to a lot of trouble to downplay everything about Christianity, including all of Jesus' teachings.
Yeah, I've noticed that too.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by marc9000, posted 11-20-2013 7:03 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 69 of 126 (711964)
11-25-2013 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by marc9000
11-24-2013 9:00 PM


Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
But science isn't the only source of knowledge.
It seems to be the only source of scientific knowledge.
Someone with a 6th grade education could look at the model I referenced and get an ideal of how far away a light year is, and wonder how precise scientific proclamations could possibly be concerning black holes in galaxies that are 250 million light years from earth. If he's a taxpayer in a free society, he has a right to question it.
And in a literate society like ours, he can find the answer. Hooray!
That's right, that's why religion must be programed out of science students at the perfect age, usually the early teen years.
Actually, we use the Secret Atheism Ray on students in math classes, not science, because of the strange effects it has on bunsen burners.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by marc9000, posted 11-24-2013 9:00 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 70 of 126 (711965)
11-25-2013 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by marc9000
11-24-2013 9:42 PM


Re: Getting back on topic...
I never said they weren't, it's the explorations done at the public's expense by a special interest that I'm questioning. If you'll remember, 8 years ago science WASN'T ABOUT WHAT SOMEONE LIKES. It was about something being testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable, and USEFUL.
No. You made that up.
Multiple posters always refer to my position and questions as being mine alone, or my "cult", my "sect", that keeps them from having to actually address what I'm saying.
Your religious dogmas are what you're saying.
I don't post from a deeply religious point of view ...
... says the man who in his previous post wrote ...
Depends on how far you expect me to change my viewpoint. If you expect me to reject the book of Genesis, you'd better stop at this point.
... and who in his OP wrote:
By "lean not on our own understanding", I don't think that means to stop short of attempts to learn all we can about the natural world. It means to stop short of using what we learn to put God (or God's word) to the test. To acknowledge that there are some things that humans will never be able to figure out, to the extent to be able to challenge anything the 66 book Bible says.
Your religious dogma is your point of view. And it is so narrowly sectarian that you had to state which version of the Bible we're meant to be deferring to.
There you go again, I'm not focusing on complex details about my personal beliefs.
Well, you're the guy we're talking to who says that some things shouldn't or can't be inquired into. If we can't ask you what and why, there's no-one else we can consult as to what your opinions are.
I'll be done soon in this thread, and some individual poster will get the credit for finally shouting me off. You and others obviously thought it was going to be Dr. Adequate's message 44, because of all the green dots it got (one from you also) - sorry that didn't work out.
The object of the post was not to "shout you off" but to make you slightly less mad. I didn't really expect it to work.
Have you ever heard of the many "collegiate fallacy lists"?
A phrase which gets three google hits, all of them stuff written by you. Very few people will have ever heard of concepts that you made up. It's not like you have a wide audience hanging on your words.
They arose in several different forms over the years, in universities, by and for liberals of course, but they did make some good points. "Argument by emotive language", using sarcasm etc. to "sway the audience’s sentiments instead of their minds", message 44 was saturated with it. It was funny and clever, but fallacious never the less.
You forgot to point out the actual fallacy. The tenor of your whining seems to suggest that you think a thing can be fallacious on account of its style. You are, of course, wrong. Sarcasm can no more make a statement fallacious than alliteration can.
Wouldn't you say this forum does a pretty good job of representing the scientific community? I do, considering the similar emotion and sarcasm I see at countless other scientific sites, like talkorigins, Panda's Thumb, etc. and a couple of books I've glanced through by secular, scientific authors. It's not impressive, when people other than scientists are looking for educated, adult people with manners to give them unbiased answers to their questions.
Now if only you could find a valid criticism of the substance of science, rather than just whining about how butthurt you are over the style of some scientifically literate authors --- wouldn't that be nice? But as creationists have discovered, self-pitying whining is easy, whereas finding flaws in science is beyond their capacity.
Am I perfect? No. But gangs who build straw men tend to bring out my imperfections.
I suggest that you find out what the term "straw man" means.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by marc9000, posted 11-24-2013 9:42 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 126 (712004)
11-25-2013 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Percy
11-25-2013 11:06 AM


Re: Getting back on topic...
8 years ago?
Context suggests he's lying about the Dover Panda Trial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 11-25-2013 11:06 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 11-25-2013 5:30 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 126 (712026)
11-25-2013 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by marc9000
11-25-2013 8:38 PM


Re: Getting back on topic...
The purpose of this paragraph from my O/P; is to propose some sort of distinction between useful science, and wasteful science, or science that is philosophical. (intent on weakening the hold of religion.)
Here's a distinction: the former actually exists, and the latter is the paranoid delusion of hysterical lunatics.
I've seen it on forums such as these many times in ID debates, "What USE is Intelligent Design?". When I find the time, maybe I'll look through the ID forums here and see if I can find some examples.
Here, let me help you. The phrase "What use is intelligent design" gets two google hits for the whole internet.
They've been verified in many ways. No matter how much the scientific community hates to admit it, it's a fact that the U.S. founders referred to the Bible as they were forming the constitution.
You win the Dumb Non Sequitur Of The Week Award.
So much stupid ... maybe I'll come back to it, but you're pretty much a hopeless case, are't you?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by marc9000, posted 11-25-2013 8:38 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 81 of 126 (712028)
11-25-2013 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by marc9000
11-25-2013 9:50 PM


Re: Getting back on topic...
If I put fourth my personal beliefs in my own words, we saw earlier in the thread that I'm accused of only parroting the beliefs of my "sect", if I try to counter that by pointing out that I'm not alone in my beliefs, I see that I'm accused of just parroting many other people. Guess I just can't win. One of the regular claims of "scientific fact" by several scientific posters here is often based on the opinion of the majority of scientists.
All I was doing was trying to counter the accusation that my beliefs are my own crazy beliefs, or those of my "sect". I don't think it's a big deal - why that sends you into a rage I don't know. The scientific community constantly claims something as fact just because many scientists (or much of the brainwashed public) believes something, like man-made global warming, for instance.
What is the purpose of this whining? You have been asked to state your opinions. No-one intended this to give offense. We were just trying to find out what you think. If your opinions on the topic you raised in your OP are a secret, I don't see this thread going much further. Or why you started it in the first place.
You're just angry, and that causes your reading comprehension to go down. Dr. Adequate often has that problem as well.
Try to recognize the distinction between the terms "should not" and "not free to'. The "should not" part applies to decisions made by a society, who may not have unlimited funds to satisfy the desires of a special interest who may want to do wasteful things to satisfy its own private interests. The "not free to" part concerns the desires of a special interest who wants to do wasteful things, but does it with it's own funding. Clear?
Have you read your OP? Only the reason why Percy and I both know what you wrote in it is not caused by a shortage of reading comprehension. It's caused by being able to read.
I was hoping you'd recognize 8 years ago as being the time of the Dover trial. The concept of Intelligent Design was being shouted down from every possible angle at that time, I'm not sure if the term "useful" was included during the Dover trial, but it was in some atheist forum I was posting at, at that time. The term was combined with everything else imaginable to get atheism the victory over Intelligent Design.
Ah yes, I remember that in his summation Judge Jones explained how ultimately his decision was swayed by "some guy in some atheist forum marc9000 was posting at". Wait, no I don't. Are you feeling quite well?
Atheists clearly believe that humans know, or can know, everything there is about reality ...
What curious delusions you have about atheists.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by marc9000, posted 11-25-2013 9:50 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024