Two types of science

So let me understand your reasoning:It is not okay to use telescopes to study the universe, you need other unspecified instruments, because people were, in your opinion, unfair to intelligent design.Can you explain to me why telescopes are inadequate in cosmology, without reference to how unfairly some other subject was treated.Your reasoning would be equivalent to telling a plumber that he doesn't know what he is doing because somebody was mean to the electrician.Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

Mean to the purported electrician who had no qualifications, but a firm belief that everything would work fine in your house, if he replaced the wiring with string ;-)

You have got to be kidding!!!When I first got involved in this forum, I used to hate it when people would say something to the effect of "Go read a science book." But now I totally understand why people would say this. Someone like you comes on here and wants to discredit the people who have spent their careers learning and studying an issue while knowing nothing about the subject themselves.It can be terribly frustrating to spend a bunch of time explaining the known science behind an issue like climate change, only to have the person you are explaining it to reject it out of hand. So rather than waste time explaining why scientists conclude that humans are contributing significantly to climate change, it's better to just suggest that you read a book on it.Perhaps easier for you is to do a simple Google search on the subject. I would specifically direct your attention to the US EPA site onclimate change. There is a lot of good, basic information on there.However, I don't think you really care whether the science is actually sound or not. Your motivation is to try and call into question legitimate scientific fields and bring them down to the level of creation science and ID so that those pursuits seem more legitimate.What's my justification for accusing you of having such a motivation? Simple. Christians should be one of the last groups to deny human caused climate change. We believe that God has charged us to care for the earth; that should be one of our primary purposes in life. In fact, it was the very first charge that God gave to humans. And yet, it is Christians who are the major group I see denying that climate change is real. Christians should be the ones standing up and arguing that we are not taking care of this earth. We are slowly (actually not that slowly) poisoning it and soon it will be a place we barely recognize.So why do they deny? Simply an attempt to discredit science ... what other motivation could there be? To stop these crazy liberals from enacting measures that reduce pollution, seek alternative energy sources, minimize harm to non-human species? Oh what a miserable world this would be if that happened :sarcasm:HBD

Alas, that's not a universal belief among those who call themselves Christians.

It would seem not. Perhaps the passages that support that idea were meant to be taken figuratively. HBD

What????? Please explain. Science is by its very nature naturalistic, since it deals with natural phenomenon, not supernatural.What you are confusing is methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Science is, by definition, constrained to methodological naturalism. If you "non-rant" OP is about philosophical naturalism, then fine, but you need to be able to distinguish between the two types. You don't seem to be able to, so you accuse all science of being philosophical in nature, which is incorrect.HBD

No, no. Get it right. They actually conflict with the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Didn't they teach you anything at clown school?

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

I submit that the above quotes demonstrate that you have no knowledge of what has or has not been falsified by scientists, so that your opinion that ID has been given short shrift is completely uninformed. Even a brief study of cosmology will turn up the discarded steady state universe ideas held by Einstein and Hoyle, and the developments in astronomy that Galileo and Copernicus could not have imagined, such as the existence of galaxies. Most recently scientists have concluded that the universes expansion is increasing in speed rather than slowing down.Yet you could not find any of completely obvious stuff despite claiming to have searched for it.Serious opponents of global warming don't ask if there are models indicating a human contribution to global warming; they instead discuss the flaws the believe exist in those models. You, though know nothing about the topic at hand, have to ask others to do your homework.You simply don't know enough science so that your opinion about relative treatment of ID and deep space astronomy is not worth the virtual paper it is written on.Like many people here, I find your flailing about to be highly entertaining. I hope you will contain accusing people of lying when they haven't, that you will continue demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge of science, and that you'll keep complaining about atheist Catholics etc. But I know that you will wilt under the inevitable beatdown and leave in short order complaining about bad treatment when your own manners are far short of impeccable.

I reply to you to avoid marc feeling overwhelmed. Newton believed divine intervention was required to explain the equilibrium of the solar system (particularly with regards to the known gas giants). Laplace solved the problem, and god was famously not required for his hypothesis.Newton got it completely wrong. No intelligence, no magic was required to keep the solar system stable.

quote:

---

blind Fate could never make all the Planets move one and the same way in Orbs concentrick, some inconsiderable Irregularities excepted, which may have risen from the mutual Actions of Comets and Planets upon one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this System wants a Reformation. Such a wonderful Uniformity in the Planetary System must be allowed the Effect of Choice. And so must the Uniformity in the Bodies of Animals, they having generally a right and a left side shaped alike... can be the effect of nothing else than the Wisdom and Skill of a powerful ever-living Agent, who being in all Places, is more able by his Will to move the Bodies within his boundless uniform Sensorium, and thereby to form and reform the Parts of the Universe, than we are by our Will to move the Parts of our own Bodies

---

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Opticks:, by Sir Isaac Newton, Knt. Page 403 (query 31), OpticksEdited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : added newton quote

Dr. A and others took care of this little bit of revisionist history. I'm so blind with rage right now I just cannot see the keyboard to fashion an appropriate response which might be along the lines of, "Oh Yeah? Well, so's your mother!", or some such equally witty retort. I guess I'll just have to leave this one where it is.Onward, though.You are trying to ward off the challenge put before you in the rest of my message. I realize you have gotten yourself into a number of differing issues with all the inanities you have put out there so I will give you periodic reminders so that as it gets to the point where no answer will ever be forthcoming I can sit back, cackle, and declare glorious victory because you have no answer since there actuality is none.So let me remind you of the challenge. The subject is "other sources of knowledge".

quote:

---

Science, all of it, however many different kinds you care to divide it by, is the 800 pound gorilla of all "knowing" in this world. Anything you care to put up on your "other sources" list are ants by comparison.

​

This may sound like nothing but hyperbole to you but this is the reality.

​

I take it back, you do have a chance to change this. Show us otherwise. Show us something real, something productive for society, something useful for humanity, something that all would agree is a wonderful nugget of knowledge brought to us by one of your poofoo voodoo majik super-skydaddy sources.

​

Go ahead, Marc. Show us.

---

Given your reading comprehension problems let me rephrase this for you.Can you show us any knowledge of value ever given to human society by one of your other sources of knowledge? Something other than the emotional comfort you people get from killing others as justified by your religion that is. Something substantial that we would recognize as being a good thing for the species would be nice.So, go ahead and show us, Marc.

The beneficial effect of religious intolerance on world peace would be a good start ...... oh wait.

This is good. We can all respond to marc by sending our messages to NoNukes. It's good to share inundations.My point to you, NoNukes ... er ... marc, is that the names listed are famous for a reason. They got it right for the most part (thank you, Mod). The legions of others who got it wrong and were being corrected by these famous guys are buried deep in the history books, if listed at all, and are quite forgettable.I hope you are now not feeling inundated.As for Nukes on the other hand ... If you get blind with rage let me know. Apparently I've been there recently and I have an app for that.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Connecting to AppStore

quote:

---

Description

​

The best way to get anger under control and to stop hurting loved ones is to carry your anger management program with you. The iPhone Anger App from Personal Power Path.com is with you at all times, especially when you need it the most.

---

Not blind with rage, no... But I have been known to squint my eyes when I'm letting loose loud guffaws.