Does Peer Pressure stifle the acceptance of the obvious?

Thanks, lol.I think our river friend is unaware of how much you detest these suggestions with your knowledge that science is the antithesis of religion.

Hold it right there mike. My claims are not unwarranted, just mis-understood.
2, there is no doom, what are you talking about.
3, All scientists do not believe the same thing. If I thought that I waould be predjudice.You see mike, any scientist, or anyone for that matter, that would let science, or what we now believe to be true keep them from believing in God is missing out.I believe we all seek the truth.People who use science as the truth, well, are kind of silly. Science, and the scientific method go like this, its true until its proven untrue. Take a look at history, and how many times we thought we knew the truth. The truth of science changes all the time.But the truth Jesus teaches us is never changing, and that is the difference between science and Truth, not religion. Truth and religion are 2 different things. Yes, so is religion. What "is", is truth, and science measures that. The holy spirit is truth, and religion tries to follow it, and understand it. Both deal with the seen, and the unseen. Very similar. Again I don't want to acert that all astronomers do not believe in God, as that is not the case. How can you look at the heavens and not wonder? No I didn't dismiss it. Instead I described more along those lines. Religion is not science, I never said that. I said there are many similarities, but certain people in here are denying those similarities. I said they are the same in many aspects. But not exactly the same, I'd be a fool to think or say that. I'm going to puke. The closest star that we know to have planets and can measure it on, is the Sun. We have never seen another planet in another solr system. Anything else we look at is millions of miles away. I think the closest we measure a shift in is about 8 light years. How much can happen to light across millions of miles? Plus the kind of planets they are talking about are planets bigger than jupiter, and closer than mercury, orbiting at a very high rate. It just sounds kind of silly, and maybe there might be another explnantion. Maybe its the booze. One thing I thought of is sun spots. Maybe other stars contain many more sun spots, or differences in surface texture that do not change, and the 28 day orbits we are seeing is actually the rotation of that star. Close to what our own star rotates.there could be many reasons why we see an apparent wobble. There may not even be a wobble. Just like lensing effect in distant galaxies. HEhe.
Hey go here, and see a head on collision I had with one of my planes.
http://blackdirtsquadron.org/videos.htmI also made that web-site. I kept it simple for the old guys in our club. You can email the webmaster, and that is me.
Want to call me, look up Greenwood Lake HVAC in the phone book, and give me a buzz, I own it. I have nothing to hide. Anyone want to come and visit me, I will treat them like royalty. We could go fishing, or flying, look at the stars through my 8 inch newtonian, or whatever.RCU Forums
A few of my planes.Enjoy. I have nothing but the greatest respect for scientist, really.
One of the coolest guys I ever met was an anesthesiologist. We used to talk for hours about everything. I was amazed at how much he had to know to perform his job.Also a Russian guy I worked with. Out of 250 employees, he was the only one who could keep up with a conversation with me. He once asked me, are you sure you are American? Because he though all Americans were dumb compared to him. We used to play chess all the time. I even played chess with a member from the forum online. We played for months.

No science, go look up what you need to know.
I design my own antennas, and communicate through orbiting satelites. Can you please tell me why, that I tell you I do all those things, and it does not qualify me as a scientist, that you must point it out to me like 10 times again?Do you stand on the corner and wait for blind people to come by, just to tell them, hey mac, your blind! The basics for the scientific method. Boy you are stubborn. I also design many things, and sometimes they don't work, and sometimes they do. Its based on what I know, and what I want accomplished.Give it up scraf, I know what science is, and I use it everyday. Maybe true, maybe not. Some projects I work on take months.
But none the less, that doesn't mean shit. It does not prove that I do not know what the scientific method is, or that I do not use science. ITs not how big it is, lol. I did in my post to mike. But you see, that is the difference between me and them. I would rather just call it exactly what it is, a wobble. Sure you can guess at it, but to advertise it the way they did, in all the major publications, to me is wrong, and against what science truely is. Planets around other stars.
For some times it was feathers on dinosaurs.
Or go pick up a copy of a 1968 National Geographic, and see how much we think different now. But it made head lines then, and it was what we all believed.
One time we actually thought the world was flat

Certainly not lawyers.:-pWonder what happened to those scientists who fudged figures and covered up smoking-related data as exposed in Senate(?) investigations?

I`m really impressed. Is this the same Mike the Wiz of a year or so ago? Hope you`ve retained that sense of humour.

Right on, bro.Unless, of course, there is a wobble.

quote:

---

but to advertise it the way they did, in all the major publications, to me is wrong, and against what science truely is.

---

What major publications?

quote:

---

The science world is full of unwarranted assumptions.

---

quote:

---

Planets around other stars.

---

You have not in the least made any sort of compelling case that your amateur opinion in any way should supercede that of most professional Astronomers.

quote:

---

For some times it was feathers on dinosaurs.

---

Excuse me? There ARE feathered dinosaurs.

quote:

---

Or go pick up a copy of a 1968 National Geographic, and see how much we think different now.

---

But that has nothing to do with "unwarranted assumptions". That has to do with improvement of understanding as our methodology and measurement gets better.So, is that all you've got? Your one amateur opinion, a wrong opinion, and a irrelevant comparison?I thought you said that science is full of unwarranted assumptions?

quote:

---

I've seen things like synthetic blood when it was first being tested, and watch first hand how a kidney gets matched for transplant. I grasped all the concepts, and understood everything that was going on.

---

Well, we'd really need the other people to tell us if you really understood everything, wouldn't we? Isn't it possible that you understood only the really dumbed down, layman's version of what they told you they were doing?I mean, come on, if what they were doing was so easy and simple that a sheet metal guy who hung around to shoot the shit could get a brief description and then understand "everything", then why do we require people to go to college to be doctors and do medical research?Seriously, rat, when people say they want to work in my department, and we let them come do a trial shift on a busy saturday, and in the midst of it they act like they already know everything and understand all there is to know about the products or sales or finance after a few hours, and they are not overwhelmed and feel a little anxious about how hard it's going to be to learn everything, they don't get hired.They aren't paying attention if they think it's easy, or simple.

You employ empiricism, which is not surprising since I doubt faith-based air conditioning would be very effective; but you do not employ the scientific method.For instance, if you're anything like most troubleshooters, you probably "test" several theories simultaenously, since your goal is not to prove yourself exactly right about what caused the failure, but to recitfy the problem. If you make three different adjustments at once, and the problem goes away, it really doesn't matter which one of those things actually did it.Moreover your style of writing doesn't indicate that you do much in the way of published writing, so we know that, if you're communicating your results at all, you're doing so by word-of-mouth at industry gatherings, etc. Not through a formal refereed journal process.The scientific method is the process of:Observation
Hypothesis
Experiment
Analysis
DissemninationIt's basically a refined version of empricism, plus a process of peer review of research. Certainly what you do is more like science than it is like theology, but to say that you employ the scientific method shows us that you don't actually understand what the scientific method is, nor that you understand the level of rigor that proper scientific study requires.You use empiricism, process of elimination, basic troubleshooting. And those things are distantly related to the scientific method. But doing those things no more means you're using the scientific method than the fact that I can set a thermostat means that I could do your job.

Then presumably you can tell us the specifics of what makes some kidneys match and others not?

It comes to something when a man's sense of humour is more important than his beliefs. IOW, I kept the humour. Lol.I suspect I'll be a goon untill death.

I think I could respect the Bible a bit more if the authors had slipped a few funnies in with the admonitions. :-p

What if the bible qualifies as having fear, guilt and other memes, conveniently placed in it? Wouldn't this hinder their belief, possibly?You should have read my example earlier.If you say Revelation is not the truth, here is an effective fear-meme "anyone who does this is cursed".IF you say God isn't there "you're going to hell".If people in the last days say there's no second coming, "as a thief in the night that wicked servant will be caught!"So you see, it would be entirely foolish for anyone to believe because of such things. That's so silly. Are you saying that things like oxygen and carbon dioxide aren't true? And they're going to be proven untrue?Ofcourse, veracity is what you actually refer to. Your own version of "truth" is absolute dogmas in the bible, so infact I would not define my own "truth" this way. I believe in Jesus. And science doesn't hinder this belief at all. It just informs and protects me, aswell as logic, from fakers.Since religion, MUST logically be 99% untrue, then one is truely silly if he trusts religion over science. For most religions are mutually exclusive. For example, if Allah is God, and no other, and his prophet Mustaffah, then Jesus can't be the case can he? And if Jesus is God, then Allah is false. If the Egyptian gods are true, then neither Allah or Jesus is. And so on and so forth. So 99.9% of religion must be false. I know; your's isn't religion. Oh RiverRat, can you stop blowing your trumpet, even the babas in Australia can hear it by now.

Everyone.
Astronomy, and sky and telescope to name 2.Why do you reply three times to the same message?You have made extra work for me to condense your replys, so that Phat doesn't yell at me I am not trying to make a compelling case. If I was them, I would only be claiming what I see, not what I don't see.You asked if there were any other possibilties, and with my ametuer knowledge, I came up with a few. You are funny, you ask for some possibilities, then when I give an answer, you say I am not making a compelling case. You didn't ask me to make a compelling case, why accuse me of not making one? Exactly, we know that now, duh. Ah, BS in all its glory, congradulations. WTF you talking about? Thats your opinion.Are you one of those who sees a car going down the street, and instead of just saying I see a car going down the street, you say, that car must be going some where because, well, just because.We see stars wobbling, and without actually seeing exactly what is causing the wobble, we claim to know what is causing it. And advertise it. It's ok to guess, thats part of science, but to advertise your guesses, is another story. Being of scientific mind, you must appreciate what I am saying here, if not, then you are not really following your own rules.
This is my stand point. Again, wtf are you talking about. Your comprehension is at an all time low. You should go back and read through this whole thread. Gather all the things I have been saying as facts, and then you find out what you just said is an UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTION.