BS: Alternative to Science??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 11:59 AM

Steve Shaw: "I find it utterly amazing that grown people can still claim that dinosaurs existed alongside humans."

...Or that there was that many dinosaurs to make all that oil!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 12:00 PM

Over to you, guys.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 12:49 PM

Still avoiding your responsibilities via ludicrous hair-splitting I see, GfS.

Wearily:

"Was I supposed to close the door before I locked it???"

Of course. And even if you didn't, you would still have experienced air resistance - is that an illusion, GfS?

Any further smart(?), silly/childish (?) answers will be ignored. I would be interested, though, in knowing why you think that: " ... matter [might be] an illusion...only detected by other matter". And also knowing if you are capable of thinking this notion through.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 01:00 PM

Will repeat two laws of discourse that I posted here or elsewhere, some time ago:

1. Don't believe everything you think.

2. Don't assume the other guy has the slightest understanding of logic or any interest in applying it.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 04:16 PM

Steve you are ignoring the fact that both Mozart and Bach were writing for the Church because that was all there was to disseminate their creativity and it was their bread and butter. Michelangelo was forcibly made to finish the Sistine Chapels by the Pope of his day, for example.

I've been to many churches in Europe, France, Hungary et. al. and I find them
opulent, overbearing in their artistic statements and simply not really inspiring but more pretentious. I'll take Rodin's sculpture any day over Sacré Coeur de Montmartre or the grandiose pomposity of the Cathedral of Notre Dame. European churches are overrated and have done more to stifle honest creativity than any other institutions with the exception of the churches in the U.S.

Art as beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 04:40 PM

Stringsinger, both Bach and Mozart enjoyed secular patronage, although Mozart did rather blow it -a musical genius but somewhat lacking in social graces.
Steve Shaw gets on my tits in a variety of ways but he does seem to know his musicians and I find I agree with him, however reluctantly, about much of what he says regarding the great musicians of the Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods. (I think of Beethoven as a Romantic composer).

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 04:02 AM

Brennan: "I made the point in an earlier post that some atheists seem to have a very rigid view of what constitutes religious belief.....Steve Shaw reacted with a sneering post telling me to 'get up of my knees'.

Not every believer is an anti-logic, self-deluding fundamentalist. I suspect (but I cannot know) that I derive at least as much delight from science, from the natural world and from humanity's ingenuity as he does. My enjoyment of art in all it's forms is not tempered by the artist's beliefs or lack of belief."

That being Said, Brennan, does this make more sense, now?:
When asked how Beethoven wrote such beautiful music, Beethoven answered, Ludwig van Beethoven: "The vibrations on the air are the breath of God speaking to man's soul. Music is the language of God. We musicians are as close to God as man can be. We hear his voice, we read his lips, we give birth to the children of God, who sing his praise. That's what musicians are."

It's even tangible!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 05:17 AM

GfS, you appear to have conflated some of my posts, thereby altering my original meaning. I have no problem in accepting the quote accredited to Beethoven at face value (although I suspect he was trying, in the main, to express the ineffable emotional and intellectual delight he felt in the creation of music using religious imagery rather than defending a faith position).
I don't really understand the point that you are making - but please do not attempt to explain further. I have a suspicion that you and I are not on the same page

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 07:29 AM

From a musical point of view we can probably be glad that Mozart "blew it". Once the patronage had ended he created his greatest music. Had he stayed in the Archbishop's service, instead of getting his arse kicked (literally), who knows, he might have remained a cheerful tunesmith churning out slight pieces in the galant style. I suppose he might have lived longer. As for Beethoven being a Romantic composer, I think things are not so simple. He certainly pushed sonata form to its limits, expanded the notions of symphony and concerto and employed much dramatic contrast in his music, but there is no heart-on-sleeve in Beethoven. Beauty and tenderness, yes. Once he'd composed the Eroica there would never be a turning back to the classical era. But his late music, his greatest in my view, is replete with nostalgia for old forms. He revels in variation form (though he transforms it into a root-and-branch, exhaustive exploration of a theme rather than investing it with mere decoration), he employs old church modes, his music pays frank homage to Palestrina, Bach and Handel, he is almost obsessed with fugue. His last complete work, the string quartet in F, is an apotheosis-distillation of Haydn and Mozart. I don't think he would have appreciated being pigeon-holed. I have to be careful what I say: Beethoven's bust is six inches from my right arm. He's my hero. Darwin is my only other one. Jesus doesn't get a look in. Turn the other cheek my arse!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 08:02 AM

BrendanB: "GfS, you appear to have conflated some of my posts, thereby altering my original meaning..."

I once knew an EXCELLENT singer/songwriter who wrote material that struck me as REALLY good..excellent...she didn't know why I liked it so much....Later..years later, she told me that it took her years to understand the full meaning of what she wrote. True story. She said "Man, you were the first one to know how deep that went."

...and all this time I thought she knew....

Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 09:46 AM

Steve you are ignoring the fact that both Mozart and Bach were writing for the Church because that was all there was to disseminate their creativity and it was their bread and butter. Michelangelo was forcibly made to finish the Sistine Chapels by the Pope of his day, for example.

I wasn't ignoring it. The other thing I was trying not to do was to diss religion as a source of great art. But great art is possible without religion, in the same way that good people are possible without their having been soaked in Christianity all their lives. I just question the assertion, where made, that great art arises directly as a consequence of divine inspiration. Religious subject matter might well appeal to the artist and be fertile ground for them to bring out their best. Bach's Mass in B minor, his Passions and his many church cantatas are among his finest music, no doubt about it (though I'm passionately fond of the "48", the Goldberg Variations and the other keyboard works as well), though I'd contend that the material itself is what inspired him rather than any "hand of God".   

I've been to many churches in Europe, France, Hungary et. al. and I find them
opulent, overbearing in their artistic statements and simply not really inspiring but more pretentious. I'll take Rodin's sculpture any day over Sacré Coeur de Montmartre or the grandiose pomposity of the Cathedral of Notre Dame. European churches are overrated and have done more to stifle honest creativity than any other institutions with the exception of the churches in the U.S.

Well, you know what a rabid atheist I am, but when I see old churches and cathedrals I see them, first, as part of my heritage (whether I like it or not!) and second, of their time. I don't possess your broad-brush, though I know what you mean about opulence and overbearing. Some cathedrals just turn me off. In the UK, Liverpool's Anglican cathedral, Exeter and Salisbury leave me cold (talking here about the insides), whereas I loved Hereford and the "Mersey Funnel". I haven't been to those Paris ones but if you're ever in Prague I defy you to dislike Tyn Church. Delving into what makes us respond subjectively the way we do as individuals to any art is a whole nother ball game, and, in my case, God don't come into it!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 09:53 AM

Homer believed the Iliad and the Odyssey were composed for him by a goddess.

Could I or GfS have created either one?

So if you're sure that God inspired Beethoven, why aren't you equally sure that the Muse inspired Homer (and by that I mean put the exact words into his head)?

Augustine held that the Greek gods were in fact demons in disguise, tricking people into worshiping them. Was he right?

Don't bother.... I know what to expect....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 10:25 AM

If any artist claims that their work was inspired by God above, or any variant of that, the first thing to do is to investigate what motives they might have had for saying it. You don't have to call people liars to think they may be either self-aggrandising by making such claims or simply delusional. Isaac Newton believed in alchemy until the day he died.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 11:18 AM

One's faith (or lack there of) is one's faith... The only person on the planet who really knows the depth of that faith is the one professing it...

Though I am a man of faith I do find some truth to John Lennon's line, "God is a concept by which we measure our pain"... Just thought I'd throw that quote out there for thought...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 11:44 AM

Genesis says seven days and the Garden of Eden. If you believe that version, you throw out much of science as well as the scientific method itself. So why even to believe it? God gave us reason and we used it to discover evolution.

Literally tens of millions of Christians dismiss nonsense as nonsense and accept evolution as a fact, assume that God must be behind it, and that awareness of evolution increases their understanding of God. In other words, the Creation is a symbolic story about humanity that people once took literally but now can understand more profoundly.

Why is it necessary for the Bible to be literally true? Is God's limitless power constrained by words written by humans thousands of years ago?

Don't bother.... I know what to expect....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 12:11 PM

The problem with God and evolution (and Darwin was a bit too timid and/or polite in the end to articulate it) is that natural selection completely does away for the need for God. If you assume, as you say, that God must be behind it, presumably you have evidence that points in that direction. There is no point in the procession starting with the most basic of subatomic particles soon after the Big Bang right up to the complexity of the most "advanced" life on Earth at which you have to say "Stop! We need the intercession of God in order to go any further!"

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 12:12 PM

does away with

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TIA
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 12:21 PM

Despite the name "fossil fuels", coal, oil and natural gas are *not* derived from dinosaurs. Petroleum and natural gas come from anaerobic decomposition of marine phytoplankton and zooplankton. Coal (and some natural gas) are derived from terrestrial gymnosperms.
Dinosaurs have little to nothing to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 01:55 PM

Tia, don't forgot those tree ferns, giant horsetails (Calamites), Lepidodendrales and cycads. All of which predate the dinosaurs, though I'm sure pete is already imagining a Tyrannosaurus chasing a voluptuously near-naked Ursula Andress through a coal-measure forest. Mmmm, not a bad thing to imagine, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 04:05 PM

forget. Grr. I have one arm in a sling at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 04:38 PM

Mmmmmm! Tree ferns! I've just wrapped up my Dicksonia antarctica for the winter. I hope that it doesn't turn to coal!

Oh yes. Mmmmm! Ursula Andress.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 07:45 PM

Shimrod, we're getting old. I just realised I didn't mean Ursula Andress. I meant Raquel Welch! :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 07:51 PM

Raquel is still a very hot woman!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 08:38 PM

Mmmmm! Tree ferns!




And Raquel Welch.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 12:30 AM

...unless oil is a-bionic...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 10:39 AM

One feels you must mean "abiotic". And the Earth is pear-shaped and the moon is made of St Agur.

Mmmm. St Agur....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 11:57 AM

Yeah...abiotic ..but the spell checker didn't want to let the correct spelling fly.

BTW, our eyes, only 'see' 4% of the known things that exist. Our ears hear but a small spectrum of sound. Even using a 'dog whistle' should be evidence of that. Ultrasound, radar, ultraviolet, microwaves, among a slew of other examples should be evidence of that...but you are trying to sell people the notion, that the 'life-force' or souls of humans do not have properties subject to anything else, that you don't see, or feel or hear....so therefore it doesn't exist...neither does anything, or power or collective energy that affects, or has an influence on that. Do you realize how backward that premise sounds?...Ooops, I said 'realize'...you can't see that either...so maybe in your case you can't have anything to do with that, either.
Now I got it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 12:04 PM

> Ultrasound, radar, ultraviolet, microwaves, among a slew of other examples...

are all detectable by instruments. That's how we know they exist.

The soul is not detectable, unless just thinking about it makes it real.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 12:40 PM

"Ultrasound, radar, ultraviolet, microwaves, among a slew of other examples...
are all detectable by instruments. That's how we know they exist.
The soul is not detectable, unless just thinking about it makes it real."

..and the body weighs 21 grams less when someone dies...does that count, too?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 12:59 PM

"BTW, our eyes, only 'see' 4% of the known things that exist."

Poppycock! 4% of 'everything' is a mind-bogglingly HHHHHHUUUUUUGE amount!!! Even 4% of our galaxy is such a gargantuan quantity that it is imossible to visualise (see?). Be very, very careful, GfS and think about the trap that you might be falling into here (locked doors ring any bells?).

"..and the body weighs 21 grams less when someone dies...".

Does it? And where did that particular snippet come from, GfS?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 01:27 PM

The only person to claim this was Dr. MacDougall in 1904. He effectively weighed four dying patients and got varying results, only one of which was the famous "21 grams." It may have been difficult to get accurate weights in the first place, given the ghastly circumstances.

According to MacDougall, the weight loss could even come and go, not what you'd expect of a soul leaving the body for an instantaneous journey.

Evidently no one (believer or nonbeliever) has thought it worthwhile to repeat and refine the experiment, which MacDougall recommended they do.

Basically we have only his limited measurements on four non-randomly selected subjects anyway. That alone makes the results highly dubious.

One reason no one may have tried to repeat the experiment is that believers assert that the soul is immaterial. If it exists and weighs anything at all, then it must be material (weight is matter). MacDougall's results, if trustworthy, go to refute that doctrine. If untrustworthy, they prove nothing.

And if the soul is material, it should be detectable as otherwise inexplicable findings by more sensitive instruments than the weight scale available to MacDougall in 1904. Among the tens of millions of medical tests conducted annually, no one seems to have reported such findings . (And even atheists would have reported them, because they'd want to know what they meant.)

So no, "the human body" *doesn't* "lose 21 grams" at death from any cause, and MacDougall didn't claim that it did. What he claimed was that one body seemed to, and that his scales in 1904 (they're far more sensitive today) registered a tiny weight loss in four dying people. He wondered if this might be evidence for a soul.

If so, it's extraordinarily weak evidence; nor does it support the doctrine that the soul is not matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 01:30 PM

Okay, then, Gustyboy. Become a scientist! Here's a hypothesis for you:

"The human soul has a small yet measurable mass, around 21 grams."

All you have to do now is gather evidence. A bunch of statistics will do for starters. We'll need a large sample of human bodies, each weighed twice, the instant just before and the instant just after death. Don't forget to tell us precisely how you define the instant of death. Any corpse that farts at the point of death, or which has its brow mopped by a tearful relative, will, of course, have to be discounted. In your write-up you will, of course, be telling us exactly how you hoisted a near-corpse, in its final agony, into a super-accurate weighing device, having removed, naturally, any tubing or electronic attachments from it first. Hope you managed to keep the quivering near-cadaver perfectly still whilst in there, let alone prevented the grieving relatives from trying to kill you! OK, once you've established a consistent loss of mass for your large sample of dead 'uns, all you have to do then is demonstrate that what has been lost is a soul and not something else of a slightly more worldly nature. Hmm. Over to you for that bit, but be warned that most scientists interested in your study will come to you with a positive plethora of alternative (and far more plausible) explanations. Finally, your scientific peers will want the account of your study to be detailed enough for them to repeat it with the prospect of the same outcome. Nothing to this science lark, old bean. Much easier than guessing and speculation innit! :-)

And note that nowhere have I said that you are wrong about the soul. But, in order for your assertion to be of interest in any way other than comedic, I shall be needing...guess what...evidence!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 01:37 PM

I just thought of a control experiment. Cats and/or dogs are not supposed to have souls, so you could do a parallel experiment on a large sample of either to show that they don't lose weight at death! Even better, if your super-accurate scales are man enough you could even nip down with them to the local abattoir and...oh, wait a minute...they slit their throats there, don't they...it'll have to be cats or dogs then, mate!

Unless you're into turkey-strangling big time...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 07:44 PM

ah bill we shall not only disagree about origins but about the supposed impartiality of origins researchers.take dawkins for example [among others i might quote] who said that darwin made it possible for him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.are you seriously suggesting that these fundy atheists dont let their presuppositions inform their "science".of course not every evolutionist is ardent atheist but many scientists that embrace darwinism recognise that it is nothing like the unassailable fortress asserted by the true believers!.
i must say that your parting shot about flat earth was not your best.
in fact - can it not go both ways.i know you say a lot of scientists claim evolution is a fact,but some people still believe the earth is flat.
theres a vid on you tube of dawkins *interviewing* an aussie creationist and using the same tactic.he countered by saying he knows the world is round because he has just flown around it [he was in plumstead england i think - near me].
round earth=observable,testable fact.
the GTE= INTERPRETATION of data and often fanciful stories without even any data to interpret IMO.
I think you misread my last post also or maybe you were extrapolating sideways but i dont think i said anything about fosils and footprints in my last post[is,nt that what you call a straw man argument!].
i was referring to data left out of dna research into men/apes.you may recall that when all the data was finally included that the similarity was no where near as high as previously asserted.
the previous researchers evidently did not think it relevant to the research?   pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 07:58 PM

are you seriously suggesting that these fundy atheists dont let their presuppositions inform their "science"

Bit of a two-faced git, aren't you, pete. In another breath you tell us that there are such things as creationist scientists. You're not really such a nice bloke after all, are you. Sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 08:03 PM

MacDougall appears to have killed a dozen or so dogs as experimental controls. He noted no weight loss.

Now if it means anything at all, it might mean that dogs have souls that are truly insubstantial and not subject to measurement...in contrast to MacDougall's very tentative findings on humans.

But none of this is good evidence for anything except for MacDougall's determination to weigh a soul.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 08:10 PM

Ah, souls!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 11:38 PM

Steve Shaw: "Don't forget to tell us precisely how you define the instant of death."

Actually Steve, to tell you the truth, in 1970, I was sitting cross-legged on the ground and I held a man, who died in my arms. The experience I've never forgotten EVER!...and I HAVE shared that bit of my experience with others, who had the presence of mind to understand. However, you are NOT into understanding, nor would I share the 'insides' of that experience just for the sake of validating 'my position' in a semi-literate 'argument' with you....or anyone.
It was, as best describe, as a sacred moment.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 12 - 06:25 AM

Try explaining in your scientific treatise that you define the instant of death as a "sacred moment". Much as I'm sure it was, I think we'll need a slightly more dispassionate and objective characterisation than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Nov 12 - 07:14 AM

Ah, GfS, making your opponent feel ashamed or guilty is a useful weapon if you can't win an argument any other way, isn't it? And especially when you suddenly produce the shame/guilt inducing anecdote from out of 'left field'!

This is not to belittle your experience from 42 years ago, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 04 Nov 12 - 07:31 AM

"the GTE= INTERPRETATION of data and often fanciful stories without even any data to interpret IMO."

Streuth.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 12 - 08:22 AM

He didn't manage to induce shame or guilt in me, Shimrod. I was too busy wondering why he had to tell us he was cross-legged.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 04 Nov 12 - 10:23 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Nov 12 - 11:23 PM

No, Shimrod not at all. Guilt has NOTHING to do with it....unless, of course you were raised Catholic!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 05 Nov 12 - 08:30 AM

Can somebody, (not starry pete because he ignores me on the basis that he reckons I am ignorant and I reckon he is unhinged) please tell me why stating that science is not on an equal footing with superstition makes you an extremist?

On his post above, he again calls Dawkins an extremist. Fundy atheists? What the flying is one of those?

Sorry but there is a huge difference between expressing faith and claiming that scientific research ended when people a couple of thousand years ago stopped writing about what they thought was science...

I get a bit frustrated when pointing out that science has moved on is an attack on religion. it isn't, it is merely pointing out that the two things are different. One is a traditional faith, the other is exploring the whats and whys of the world.


Oh, you can lose 21g of mass by bodily excretion of fluid that evaporates within seconds if a body is still warm.. Next!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 05 Nov 12 - 08:40 AM

GfS's method of reasoning is no method at all.

He believes whatever he wants, whether or not it's in line with established facts and even if some of his beliefs logically contradict each other.

Recall Rule of Discourse No. 2, Nov. 1, 1:00 PM:

"Don't assume the other guy has the slightest understanding of logic or any interest in applying it."

Unless GfS is just a leg-pullin' troll (which I doubt), he's simply reasoning the way most of the human race has always reasoned: "Since I believe it, it must be true! Besides, I know people who agree with me. So you're just plain wrong."

That's not how logic works or facts are discovered.

On the Monty Hall Problem thread, when I was shown my error (several times by different 'Catters), I was compelled to change my mind about a mathematical calculation that seems "obvious" to many people.

Not only did I realize that the mathematicians knew more than I did about conditional probability, I closely followed their reasoning and saw that, yes, it was more consistent with the facts than mine. I didn't like being wrong, but, more than that, I appreciated learning something new.

Factual consistency is a virtue.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 05 Nov 12 - 09:30 AM

If MacDougall's weights were accurate, that would also explain the lack of weight loss in the dogs.

Dogs don't sweat, they pant.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 12 - 09:46 AM

Oh, you can lose 21g of mass by bodily excretion of fluid that evaporates within seconds if a body is still warm.. Next!

Not a problem! You just have to place your nearly-dead person into a large plastic bag which you then hermetically seal. Weigh. Once the "sacred moment" has passed, weigh again. Simply subtract weight of bag, which is constant, from both readings. Don't forget to weigh the bag first, clot!! You shouldn't have trouble with the police here, as your defence is that they were dying fast anyway, and plastic shrouds are all the rage these days anyway, officer. Viola!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Nov 12 - 12:27 PM

Pete: ".are you seriously suggesting that these fundy atheists dont let their presuppositions inform their "science".

1) The term "fundy atheist" is not very useful. There are very few who espouse atheism who did not come to it by thoughtful study.... and certainly VERY few serious scientists of that category. Most scientists become good scientists by being careful about what & how they think: atheism is just one common result of careful thinking. There are certainly scientists who continue to accept/believe in some sort of deity, but it is not usually the classic one of the Christian bible.

2)i was referring to data left out of dna research into men/apes.you may recall that when all the data was finally included that the similarity was no where near as high as previously asserted.

There are many, many studies & analysis where NO data is left out or ignored.
"Bonobos and humans share 98.7 percent of the same genetic blueprint, the same percentage shared with chimps, according to a study released Wednesday by the journal Nature. The two apes are much more closely related to each other – sharing 99.6 percent of their genomes – said study lead author Kay Prufer, a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. "Humans are a little like a mosaic of bonobo and chimpanzee genomes."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/bonobo-genetic-code-map-dna-ape_n_1594518.html

Here is a site where the relationship between man & apes is doubted and the suggestion made that data is being ignored and too much assumed: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/09/05/chimp-genome-sequence
As you see *IT* is another site dedicated to making all arguments subject to Genesis! They say: "So what is this great and overwhelming "proof" of chimp-human common ancestry? Researchers claim that there is little genetic difference between us (only 4%). This is a very strange kind of proof because it is actually double the percentage difference that has been claimed for years!4 The reality is, no matter what the percentage difference, whether 2%, 4%, or 10%, they still would have claimed that Darwin was right."

Suggesting that if 'some' have made different claims about the % means that the studies are irrelevant is a very weak argument.
Later in the article, the author claims that there are not enough generations in standard evolutionary theory to produce the necessary changes...but this is simply an inaccurate statement of what is claimed. Dr. David A. DeWitt himself is ignoring the bulk of data, and is substituting HIS calculations for those of most scientists, then interpreting his own figures to assert that most scientific claims about DNA and primates is false.

THAT is what I call 'straw man'....but what would one expect from writing on a website that CALLS itself "answers in Genesis"?

Pete... there is a principle that "He who makes the claim must provide the evidence and defense"
Science, ever changing in details, continues to find MORE evidence of basic evolutionary theory, while creationists continue to reinterpret and force any data into a pattern that fit their reading of the Bible: which itself cannot be documented as being infallible. That is why the word "belief" is used for religious claims... they believe it is inspired.

It is always interesting to compare notes, but as you see, we start from different places and proceed in different ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Nov 12 - 03:05 PM

Surely, Steve, the weight of the bag cancels out?

If weight of nearly dead person = N

Weight of dead person = D

Weight of bag = B

And weight of (hypothetical) soul = S

Then S = (N + B) - (D + B)

so N + B - D - B = N - D

Of course if N = D, S = 0 and no soul!