|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Two types of science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
"Religion gets in the way" good terminology! Gets in the way of Cloning, abortion, transplanting animal organs to humans, embryonic stem cell research, almost countless other morally troublesome things. Ooh look, the fundies have made something else evil! That's a new one, isn't it? Pretty soon everything will be "morally troublesome" except tithing and voting Republican.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
From message 2 of this thread;
admin writes:
could you please remove your last paragraph? Percy is a conspiracy all by himself? Cool. Can we all be collective nouns? I'll be a cabal, RAZD can be an association of like-minded individuals, and you can be an angry mob.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
No, I just BUSTED a lying atheist. Watching you dance is fun too, but it's also rather sad. YOU knew that, but you were hoping some of your buddies would read what you said, and get their chuckles without bothering to check for themselves and see that those words weren't in the links I posted. The links I posted were complete enough to initiate a discussion among people who are not blind with rage, but I guess my hoping for that type of discussion at this place is only wishful thinking. We can see what actually happened, and that it has nothing to do with your dishonest ravings. In particular we can see that AZPaul's post clearly referred to "the rest of the site". And everyone reading this thread can see that. You're not going to deceive anyone, marc. Why do you lie when you know that you're going to get caught? Perhaps your peculiar religion has deprived you of all moral scruples about lying, but doesn't the absolute certainty of being caught trouble you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Why do you say he's not a YEC? It seems unlikely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Not because they conflict with my worldview, because they conflict with the establishment clause of the first amendment. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It's "okay" to use them, it's just not okay to come to thorough scientific conclusions about what appears to be discovered with them, to the extent that it's taught as indisputable fact in public science education. Why is it wrong to draw conclusions based on the evidence?
Because different standards are applied to their discoveries, compared to the discoveries of intelligent design. If we could see evidence for ID through a telescope --- or by any other means, for that matter --- would you be demanding that we not draw any conclusions from it on the grounds that we can't smell the evidence? One standard is good enough for me and the scientific community.
I don't think humans are completely capable of smugly making assertions about what's going on thousands, or hundreds of thousands of light years away. Humans are capable of smugly making assertions about a whole lot of stuff, it's one of the specialties of our species. Astronomers are especially good at it, 'cos of having evidence and being right.
The atheist reasoning that top-down species origination research isn't science, while claiming that colliding galaxies and speculations about billions of light years IS science, would be the equivalent of telling the plumber to GET OUT, kissing the electricians ass and telling him to do his thing and get paid for his work as well as the plumbers, then telling the homeowners that they don't get any plumbing work done, and they're not permitted to do it themselves because it might contribute to global warming. And if they're caught going to the bathroom outside, they're in TROUBLE. That paragraph needs a bit of work doing on it. Such as setting fire to it, burying its ashes in an unmarked grave at midnight, and writing something else entirely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The self-correcting process works only if there is little or no corruption involved. Critical thinking tells some people this when they note the immediate, knee jerk reaction from the scientific community, regarding Michael Behe's work, and the concept of intelligent design. I see. Scientists look at ID, say it's crap. Therefore, you reason, "corruption" must be involved, or they'd have thought it was superwonderful with extra fantastic on top. You know every crank thinks that about his pet hypothesis, right? But in fact it usually turns out that it is crap. In this particular case, when even Behe himself can see flaws in his arguments, there's no need to invoke corruption to explain why everyone else with a functioning brain can see 'em too. --- Here, take a look at this guy. See how dumb those scientists are, telling him how his perpetual motion machine won't work?
Is It That Modern Science Has Followed Peter Pan into Never Never Land? Have you noticed that the Scientist being turned out by all the major Universities cannot think, cannot solve problems, cannot even bring to bare the appropriate scientific principles? I have notices it and I wonder what could have caused this effect. Is it the focus of modern education to find answers rather than to solve problems? Is it the focus of today's students to look up answers in text books and the internet to compete and get top marks, rather than to do the problem on their own and learn from their mistakes? Whatever the reason, it is unfortunate that Universities have lost their focus and value in today's internet world. It would appear that today's Scientists are more concerned with making a name for them selves, even using voodoo science, than reaching an understanding of the issues and problems they are suppose to know so much about. Is this because 21 century Scientists are not properly trained and their ignorance and arrogance create such self delusion that they totally overlook their inadequacies? Tut, such ignorant, arrogant, self-deluded, inadequate scientists we have. Tsk tsk. Either that he's an idiot, an idea which apparently has yet to cross his mind. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
No one particular religion is permitted to be established in the U.S. Atheism has ALL the characteristics of religion. I know the standard talking point is that it's just a lack of belief, so it's not a religion. Then why would a"lack of belief" cause so much organization? Why are there so many atheist groups? They have political motives the same (or worse) than any religion, and the founders of the U.S. knew what a worldview, not only a religion, would do to a free society. This is exactly why atheism should be, and is, treated as though it were a religion for all purposes of interpreting the First Amendment. However, it has nothing to do with your previous bizarre claims.
"Constrained"? When it allows atheist activists like Barbara Forrest to be a board member of a group that influences public science education? Science allows all sorts of people to join all sorts of pressure groups. It allows Presbyterians to join the NRA, Zen Buddhists to join the Sierra Club, and Shi'ite Muslims to join PETA. Being an abstraction, science could hardly prevent it. What does that have to do with anything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
What????? Please explain. So there you have it. Cosmology violates the First Amendment because science does not prevent Barbara Forrest, an atheist, from sitting on the board of a non-profit organisation. Possibly at some point marc will tie this in to how we can't smell distant galaxies, but I'm already feeling way enlightened by the luminosity of his intellect, how 'bout you? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
To the Smell-O-Scope!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Marc is responding to an imaginary statement made by a fictional person in The Onion. It hardly seems worth engaging him on this point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The fact that he was in favor of freedom of conscience doesn't mean that he was especially religious. So am I, and I'm especially irreligious. In fact atheists often seem keener on freedom of conscience than religious people.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
For to investigate or wish to know the causes of natural thingswhether the sun is as great as it appears to be, or is many times greater than the whole of this earth; also whether the moon be spherical or concave; and whether the stars are fixed to the heaven, or are borne with free course through the air; of what magnitude the heaven itself is, of what material it is composed; whether it is at rest and immoveable, or is turned round with incredible swiftness; how great is the thickness of the earth, or on what foundations it is poised and suspended, to wish to comprehend these things, I say, by disputation and conjectures, is as though we should wish to discuss what we may suppose to be the character of a city in some very remote country, which we have never seen, and of which we have heard nothing more than the name. If we should claim to ourselves knowledge in a matter of this kind, which cannot be known, should we not appear to be mad, in venturing to affirm that in which we may be refuted?
[...] They saw the courses of the stars travelling towards the west; they saw that the sun and the moon always set towards the same quarter, and rise from the same. But since they did not perceive what contrivance regulated their courses, nor how they returned from the west to the east, but supposed that the heaven itself sloped downwards in every direction, which appearance it must present on account of its immense breadth, they thought that the world is round like a ball [...] But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist, smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another; but that I sometimes imagine that they either discuss philosophy for the sake of a jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake to defend falsehoods, as if to exercise or display their talents on false subjects. --- Lactantius, Divine Institutes, book 3
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024