Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
 Current session began: Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 1:11 PM
199 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Post Volume:
 Total: 848,458 Year: 3,495/19,786 Month: 490/1,087 Week: 80/212 Day: 10/31 Hour: 0/1

Author Topic:   On The Limits of Human Talent
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1773
Joined: 08-04-2010

 Message 61 of 126 (711911) 11-24-2013 8:33 AM Reply to: Message 48 by marc900011-23-2013 9:00 PM

Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
 "Error range"? I've never heard that expression before, do different scientific disciplines have different error ranges? Who determines what that range is?

Error range or margin of error applies to every measurement ever taken. It is used to indicate the potential inaccuracy of any stated measurement.

Any legitimate poll, for example, will always have a statement that says something like 'accurate within 5% 19 times out of 20'. All of the measurements on a blueprint will have a stated tolerance for error. If the print calls for a 1.000" square block to be machined it will say 1.000" +/- .002. This means that the block can be 0.998 or it can be 1.002 inches and still be acceptable. It also means that your measuring equipment must be capable of measuring .002 of an inch.

An error range is determined by the accuracy of the equipment or method being used. It is an essential acknowledgment that measurements are seldom 100% correct and if you do not allow for potential errors then they can accumulate and lead to really big errors.

Say that we want to calculate the age of the earth and all we have is the bible for evidence. We add up all the ages of the folks mentioned there and we know from this that the earth must be at least 6000 yrs old or whatever it is. However, this tells us nothing about how much older the earth might be. Therefore, the error range for this calculation is minus 0 yrs plus an infinite amount of yrs. Immediately we can see that it is not a very useful calculation.

 This message is a reply to: Message 48 by marc9000, posted 11-23-2013 9:00 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2

 (2)
 Message 62 of 126 (711913) 11-24-2013 9:05 AM Reply to: Message 49 by marc900011-23-2013 9:30 PM

Getting back on topic...
For someone who purportedly wants to discuss the limits of what we can know you sure are calling a lot of attention to the limits of what you yourself know. Or, to state it another way, you sure seem to know a lot about things that aren't true.

What I want to know is why you think anyone isn't free to learn whatever they like about the natural world. I know you said we should stop short of putting God's word to the test, but as has already been pointed out, what you're really saying is that we should stop short of putting your understanding of God's word to the test.

So how do you know your understanding of God's word is correct? That is, of course, a rhetorical question, because short of scientific research about, for example, the age of the Earth, we can't know if it is your understanding or someone else's that is correct.

So what you're really saying (and I think this has been said before in this thread) is that we shouldn't delve too deeply into areas that might challenge your beliefs.

--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 49 by marc9000, posted 11-23-2013 9:30 PM marc9000 has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 67 by marc9000, posted 11-24-2013 9:42 PM Percy has responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 4481
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0

 Message 63 of 126 (711921) 11-24-2013 9:53 AM Reply to: Message 52 by marc900011-23-2013 10:01 PM

Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
 It is for useful, practical purposes. (And your paranoia is showing again.)

Examples? With some cost/benefit analysis?

Finding the oil and coal and gas and minerals without which our civilization would not exist. If you think that's of no benefit then nobody can help you.

 This message is a reply to: Message 52 by marc9000, posted 11-23-2013 10:01 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 16223
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2

 Message 64 of 126 (711930) 11-24-2013 1:19 PM Reply to: Message 47 by marc900011-23-2013 8:56 PM

Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
 marc9000 writes:What advise would you have for me to answer 12 opponents?

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

Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0

 (1)
 Message 65 of 126 (711936) 11-24-2013 2:51 PM Reply to: Message 13 by marc900011-20-2013 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 yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 965
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009

 Message 66 of 126 (711960) 11-24-2013 9:00 PM Reply to: Message 57 by shalamabobbi11-24-2013 1:47 AM

Re: I guess I need to chip in here.

Yes I remember, the reason for starting a new thread is to distinguish it from the old one, to leave the old one where it was, and start one with a fresh beginning. If you want to refer to that other one, post it there. I might respond, or maybe not.

 The shotgun remark is not about the number of participants in the thread it is about the number of topics being discussed. You are not just addressing various topics from science you are throwing in politics and business as well? Why not a remark or two about kitchen plumbing?

Read through this thread, and you'll find that multiple participants brought up multiple topics. Message 6 referred to ICR, message 21 to "far-right pseudo-Christianity", and the "dogmas of my sect", message 23, "kilograms, thermometers, Episcopalian scientists", etc. the next message, "4.5 billion years, it all goes on and on. I can't discuss those things without referring to politics and business.

 I won't hammer on you for where you're at educationally. I think I read in another post somewhere you have a high school education? Physics students sometimes question the validity of say the theory of relativity when it is first taught to them. After they get a chance to work through it and understand it for themselves they come to grips with it. That's how learning works.

But science isn't the only source of 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.

 You have to tackle it for yourself. So I am not surprised to see you broadly question science from where you sit. Add in your religious world view and it is tougher still.

That's right, that's why religion must be programed out of science students at the perfect age, usually the early teen years.

 There is a distinction between those who will hold to their biblical interpretations despite the evidence and those who will modify their views if they come to understand the evidence for themselves. Some of your remarks seemed to leave open the possibility that you might be agreeable to changing your viewpoint if you examined the evidence for yourself rather than trusting what others are telling you. If that is not the case then let's agree to end the discussion because there really isn't any point is there?

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.

 If however you would consider examining the evidence for yourself then this is the challenge. Instead of finding faults with what you are being taught start trying to fit the facts together into a self-consistent world view of your own. If you will honestly attempt to do this you will discover that no one is trying to pull one over on you. If you do not care to learn the material yourself what possible effect do you suppose you can have influencing others debating subject matter that you have not mastered? You will continue to throw quotes around from those you trust who you hope know what they are talking about.

What evidence are you talking about, scientific evidence only, or evidence of the scientific community's political motives? I've examined a lot of evidence concerning the latter.

 This message is a reply to: Message 57 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-24-2013 1:47 AM shalamabobbi has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2013 12:03 AM marc9000 has not yet responded Message 73 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2013 1:36 AM marc9000 has not yet responded Message 74 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-25-2013 2:16 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 965
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009

 Message 67 of 126 (711962) 11-24-2013 9:42 PM Reply to: Message 62 by Percy11-24-2013 9:05 AM

Re: Getting back on topic...
 For someone who purportedly wants to discuss the limits of what we can know you sure are calling a lot of attention to the limits of what you yourself know.

Scientifically, could be. But science isn't the only source of knowledge.

 Or, to state it another way, you sure seem to know a lot about things that aren't true.

Well that's your opinion, but let's keep exploring.

 What I want to know is why you think anyone isn't free to learn whatever they like about the natural world.

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. I don't know if the word "useful" came up at the Dover trial, but I know it comes up quite often on forums such as these when the subject of Intelligent Design comes up. This criteria should be applied evenly, not forgotten about after its job is done to suit people of one special interest worldview.

 I know you said we should stop short of putting God's word to the test, but as has already been pointed out, what you're really saying is that we should stop short of putting your understanding of God's word to the test.

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. I don't post from a deeply religious point of view, mine is just a more conservative, traditional point of view than most in the scientific community, which is obviously far left. I do represent the views of a lot of people, proof of that is in the many very conservative elected officials currently serving in the U.S. - Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, many others. On other, non-scientific message boards, I see many agnostic, 'unchurched' people who agree with me on conservative issues like this, what humans are capable of knowing, etc.

 So how do you know your understanding of God's word is correct? That is, of course, a rhetorical question, because short of scientific research about, for example, the age of the Earth, we can't know if it is your understanding or someone else's that is correct.So what you're really saying (and I think this has been said before in this thread) is that we shouldn't delve too deeply into areas that might challenge your beliefs.

There you go again, I'm not focusing on complex details about my personal beliefs. 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. Have you ever heard of the many "collegiate fallacy lists"? 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.

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.

Am I perfect? No. But gangs who build straw men tend to bring out my imperfections.

 This message is a reply to: Message 62 by Percy, posted 11-24-2013 9:05 AM Percy has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 68 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2013 10:42 PM marc9000 has responded Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2013 12:20 AM marc9000 has not yet responded Message 75 by Percy, posted 11-25-2013 11:06 AM marc9000 has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 68 of 126 (711963) 11-24-2013 10:42 PM Reply to: Message 67 by marc900011-24-2013 9:42 PM

Re: Getting back on topic...

 For someone who purportedly wants to discuss the limits of what we can know you sure are calling a lot of attention to the limits of what you yourself know.

Scientifically, could be. But science isn't the only source of knowledge.

While that may be true, what are the other sources of knowledge? And to what degree are they subject to verification and falsification? Science is something that we can rely on because it is based on data and theory, and here is why: if someone feels that a particular data set is too limited, or incorrect, they can gather new and perhaps more accurate data. Theory is a tool to explain that data, and it too is subject to verification and falsification. If you come up with data that a particular theory does not explain, then perhaps that theory needs to be revised or even discarded. That's not a problem, as it happens from time to time in science. The subsequent theory is even more accurate, and that's the goal of science.

One of the nice things about science is that it is conducted in most all countries of the world, and by practitioners of most faiths--or of no faith. Results that are obtained by someone in one country, or a believer in one particular religion, can be checked by someone in another country or of another religion. If the scientific method is applied, it works everywhere and for everyone who applies it.

You seem to disagree, for religious reasons, with the results of scientific inquiry. From this comes your distrust, or even hate, for science and the scientific method.

What you need to do is start at the beginning and examine the actual data, and if you find it wanting, gather some additional data. Don't gripe about the method itself unless you can show that you have something better to offer.

And here we are back at "science isn't the only source of knowledge." You will need to demonstrate that some other form of "knowledge" is worthy of inclusion in scientific research. But please remember, "divine" revelation, dogma, scripture and other unverifiable forms of "knowledge" have been found to be less than reliable. So, with what do you propose we supplement scientific research?

 What I want to know is why you think anyone isn't free to learn whatever they like about the natural world.

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. I don't know if the word "useful" came up at the Dover trial, but I know it comes up quite often on forums such as these when the subject of Intelligent Design comes up. This criteria should be applied evenly, not forgotten about after its job is done to suit people of one special interest worldview.

You seem to think that science is some kind of "special interest," while your particular religious belief is the norm, or obvious, position.

This is not correct. Science, as it is based on verifiable evidence and tested theory, is the norm. Religions, of which there are upwards of 40,000 different denominations, sects, and other subdivisions around the world, is the opposite. When scientists have a disagreement they go to the data. When a disagreement arises within a religion, the most likely outcome is a schism or split, as religion relies far more on dogma, belief, revelation, and other non-empirical forms of "evidence." Science is not a "special interest" -- religions (all 40,000+ flavors) are the special interest as they want science to kowtow to their unevidenced beliefs.

And your addition of the term "useful" to the requirement for science is bogus. When conducting research, there is no guarantee whether the results will be useful or not. Sometimes the findings are useful only in defining an avenue of research that appears to be unproductive. That's the way science works.

So far science has found the religious claims that have been examined to be far less reliable, and hence less useful, than the results obtained through the scientific method.

Perhaps you could examine some of your beliefs in light of scientific findings to see if they fall within this category?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

 This message is a reply to: Message 67 by marc9000, posted 11-24-2013 9:42 PM marc9000 has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 78 by marc9000, posted 11-25-2013 8:38 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0

 (2)
 Message 69 of 126 (711964) 11-25-2013 12:03 AM Reply to: Message 66 by marc900011-24-2013 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 yet responded

Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0

 Message 70 of 126 (711965) 11-25-2013 12:20 AM Reply to: Message 67 by marc900011-24-2013 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.

 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 yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member

 Message 71 of 126 (711966) 11-25-2013 12:41 AM Reply to: Message 22 by Tangle11-21-2013 3:55 AM

 marc9000 writes:vThe point of this thread is that we should be able to distinguish between useful science and wasteful science, or science that's only intent is to promote the destruction of Christianity

 Tangle writes:That's just laughable. It's the sort of thing you would have heard from a 16th century zealot or a Inquisitor.

It is not merely laughable. The idea that geology and astronomy are attempts to disprove Christianity is also demonstrably wrong. For example, just looking at the history of the development of geology over the 17th through 20th century will reveal that the conflicting evidence was achieved first as efforts to confirm Noah's flood, and later from attempts to develop commercial results from mining and drilling.

In a previous thread, marc9000 demonstrated a similar lack of familiarity with the history of astronomy.

Quite obviously marc9000 has no idea what he is talking about. If it turns out that he is correct, it would be by the sheerest of accidents.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

 This message is a reply to: Message 22 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2013 3:55 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 1998
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.4

 Message 72 of 126 (711967) 11-25-2013 12:43 AM Reply to: Message 49 by marc900011-23-2013 9:30 PM

Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
This one was something I couldn't help laughing about. It was comical.

 marc9000 writes: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? Is it for useful, practical purposes, or is it to fine-tune todays atheist science education?

Well, I don't think mark9000 has ever been involved in any geological exploration projects...yet, he likes the results of mining. Has he ever thought of how those minerals he uses are found in the first place and secondly mined? Does he realise that the ages of rocks are essential for our exploration projects to even start?

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

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14747
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1

 Message 73 of 126 (711968) 11-25-2013 1:36 AM Reply to: Message 66 by marc900011-24-2013 9:00 PM

Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
quote:

Read through this thread, and you'll find that multiple participants brought up multiple topics. Message 6 referred to ICR, message 21 to "far-right pseudo-Christianity", and the "dogmas of my sect", message 23, "kilograms, thermometers, Episcopalian scientists", etc. the next message, "4.5 billion years, it all goes on and on. I can't discuss those things without referring to politics and business.

Of course you could. What does the age of the earth have to do with politics or business ? Why do you need to drag up other issues from politics and business to explain why you place your alleged limits of human ability to conveniently protect certain of your beliefs from falsification ?

quote:

But science isn't the only source of 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.

Sure. But that doesn't mean that it's wrong. Or that you'll understand the answer. Or that you have a right to dictate to others what is and is not true (you can certainly TRY to, but nobody has to believe you).

quote:

That's right, that's why religion must be programed out of science students at the perfect age, usually the early teen years.

This is a lie. What you mean is that science education isn't censored to cover up the fact that your sect is in conflict with science.

quote:

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.

How about your literalist interpretations ? Or do you declare that Genesis MUST be interpreted literally ? On what grounds ?

quote:

What evidence are you talking about, scientific evidence only, or evidence of the scientific community's political motives? I've examined a lot of evidence concerning the latter.

Actually you haven't. But really you should start by looking at the internal consistency of your beliefs, and the reasoning behind them.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

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

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 922 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009

 (1)
 Message 74 of 126 (711969) 11-25-2013 2:16 AM Reply to: Message 66 by marc900011-24-2013 9:00 PM

Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
 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....testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable, and USEFUL. I don't know if the word "useful" came up at the Dover trial

I'll agree with you that science hasn't proven to be very useful for supporting your literal interpretation of Genesis.

 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,

Yes, Dr. More-than-Adequate gets my vote as well.

That it's ok to lose this debate, because if you 'win', in reality you lose.
No more hints.
 This message is a reply to: Message 66 by marc9000, posted 11-24-2013 9:00 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2

 (2)
 Message 75 of 126 (711990) 11-25-2013 11:06 AM Reply to: Message 67 by marc900011-24-2013 9:42 PM

Re: Getting back on topic...
marc9000 writes:

 For someone who purportedly wants to discuss the limits of what we can know you sure are calling a lot of attention to the limits of what you yourself know.

Scientifically, could be. But science isn't the only source of knowledge.

Oh, no, I wasn't commenting about your ignorance of just science. I was referring to your profound general ignorance of almost everything. What you believe true seems based upon how many other people believe the same things, with nary a hint of a strategy for how you decide between differently believing groups of many people.

 What I want to know is why you think anyone isn't free to learn whatever they like about the natural world.

I never said they weren't...

Say what? One reason you garner so much negative attention is because you so often and so obviously contradict yourself. Here you deny saying that we aren't free to learn whatever we want about the natural world, but this is belied by your statement in Message 1 where you said, "It means to stop short of using what we learn to put God (or God's word) to the test."

So are you giving up on that position from your opening post? Let us know, okay?

You go on to invent a different reason:

 marc9000 writes: 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.

8 years ago? This site has been around for nearly 13 years, and science for a lot longer. No one on the science side, either here in the last 13 years or anywhere within science over the past couple hundred years, has ever included useful (by which I think you mean of practical use, because science is always extremely useful in providing an understanding of the universe around us) as a required characteristic of science. This claimed change of yours of 8 years ago never happened. Not here, not anywhere. You're just making more things up that aren't true. Then when people call you on things like this, you whine that people are ganging up on you.

When you make very ignorant or incorrect statements, people might react in at least a few different ways. They might think, "Gee, he thinks I'm so stupid that he can say anything and I'll believe it," which might make people feel kind of disrespected. Or they might think, "Gee, he thinks so little of me that he puts no thought whatsoever into his replies," which might also make people feel kind of disrespected. Or they might think, "Gee, is this guy incredibly ignorant or what!" which will make people feel they have to correct you. Or people might react with some combination of these, or it could be some other feelings, likely none of them positive.

So the next time you feel moved to claim something incredibly ignorant, such as that something has to be useful to be considered science, why don't you do a little sleuthing around the Internet first. Maybe scan through the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia article on Science.

Bottom line: If you stop saying things that aren't true (and then compound matters later by determinedly insisting they are true), people might actually begin respecting what you say.

There are so many fallacies in your message that if I gave each one the attention it deserved this message would go on forever, and anyway I see some of them have already been addressed by others. I'll let them go.

But I would like to clear this one up:

 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.

No one's trying to "shout you off." We like creationists here. Without creationists there'd be no discussion.

You're operating under the fallacy that if a lot of people believe as you do then it must be true, but consider that if what you believed to be true were actually true, then you would be able to make true statements in defense of that truth. Your inability to say anything true in defense of your beliefs is telling you something, but you're not listening. About the only thing you've said that's true and accurate is that a lot of people believe as you do, but the nature of the universe isn't decided by human belief.

You're also failing to ask yourself how can you claim that many people believing the same thing is a valid basis for believing anything, when you know that there are many people who believe other things. Many people believe the Earth is 6000 years old, and that's your basis for claiming this is true. But many people believe the Earth is billions of years old, and given your criteria that many people believing something is a legitimate basis, that must be true, too.

So how do we determine which group is right? Scientific research.

So why did I give Dr Adequate's Message 44 a cheer? Because of a couple things he said that would be to your great advantage to take to heart.

• Scientists are not interested in disproving religious beliefs.

• In particular, scientists are not interested in disproving your religious beliefs.

Religious beliefs are not anywhere on scientist's radar when they're doing scientific research. There are too many different religious beliefs for this to even be practical, but specifically, disproving Christianity is not a goal of science, and especially not your particular branch of Christianity. Read any scientific paper and you won't find any mention of religion anywhere in them (aside from those branches of science that are in some way related to the study of religion - archeological papers about Biblical sites would be an example).

Also, many scientists are deeply religious, giving the lie to another of your ignorant claims, that science is atheistic. It would be more accurate to describe science as agnostic, in the same sense that plumbing and knitting are agnostic. Even more accurate would be to describe religion as irrelevant to science.

But all the above is just an attempt to talk you back into sensibility by encouraging you to vet your claims before making them, and to make claims that are actually true. The topic of this thread, as far as I can tell despite all your ramblings into other topics, is your belief that there should be some areas of scientific research considered off-limits, determined by whether they would test God's Word. I've made two responses to this so far:

• The major creationist organizations like ICR, CRS, AIG and the Discovery Institute do not agree with you.

• I inquired why you think we shouldn't be free to study whatever we like about the natural world.

--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 67 by marc9000, posted 11-24-2013 9:42 PM marc9000 has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2013 2:59 PM Percy has responded Message 80 by marc9000, posted 11-25-2013 9:50 PM Percy has responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next