BS: Alternative to Science??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Nov 12 - 03:34 PM

Maths good, conclusion flawed.

No quantifiable material soul, which doesn't preclude a purely immaterial spirit or essence.

However it would certainly sshoot McDougall down in flames.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 12 - 04:38 PM

But even if S = >0 you'd still have to demonstrate that it was a "soul". You'd certainly have a bloody big mystery all right, but let's not entertain the near-relation of the God-of-the-gaps fallacy!

I'll settle for the comfort of the null hypothesis, I think. Nothing's precluded, Don. We rabid atheists never preclude anything. Nor ask anyone else to prove anything!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Nov 12 - 05:57 PM

"No quantifiable material soul, which doesn't preclude a purely immaterial spirit or essence."

Agreed

"But even if S = >0 you'd still have to demonstrate that it was a "soul". You'd certainly have a bloody big mystery all right ..."

Agreed

Still,I enjoyed the tiny algebraic excursion.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 12 - 06:56 PM

Amazing things happen when we of scientific bent get our heads together, you know. Be warned, Gusty 'n' pete! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 02:13 AM

Well, if you believe it...it must be true..Huh?...even if you just convince each other by jerking each other off!
Had you had watched the entire video, where the scientist, after making a few profound observations, said, "this is where science and the spiritual come together.."...and in places went on to say it was consistent with quantum physics...and if you had the capability to understand it, you might not have made such a 'Monty Python' spectacle of your stupefying 'equations'!!
The fact you all worked each other up makes it more hilarious!

Maybe if you kept your heads up your asses, you might not lose any 'bodily fluids' through evaporation or otherwise, as well!

It's really entertaining in a comedy/tragedy way to watch you make up these 'rebuttals' based on absolutely nothing but your resentment about something you know nothing about.....only what some screwed up religion 'taught' you!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 03:34 AM

Ok. If you have your computer switched off and weigh it, and then turn it on and weigh it, what is the difference?

At the risk of being philosophical, your soul can be no more than electrical pulses through synapses?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 05:45 AM

Goofus, you are the amusing one.

The perfect court jester, waiting in the wings to make comical nonsense noises.

No religion ever influenced me, since I kicked the whole self serving bunch of snake oil salesmen into touch when I was a kid and didn't get any answers other than "Have faith".

I require evidence mate. I didn't get any from them, and I've yet to see any from you.

So be a good boy and go entertain the ladies, I'm sure they like watching a moderately talented fool trying to juggle ideas.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 05:47 AM

BTW, before you get upset, "fool" is another word for a jester.

But, did I mean it that way?........

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 08:04 AM

Think about it.

Creationists look at the conclusive findings of Darwin and the following 50 years of evolutionary research and *reject* all of it because it conflicts with literalist Bible teachings.

Then they look at the questionable findings of Dr. MacDougall in 1904, which have never been repeated, and they *hail* them as *confirmation* of Biblical literalism *even though a material soul contradicts a fundamental Christian dogma.*

Not quite the working of fully rational minds. But remember, they admittedly reject reason as deceptive unless they can enlist its support for what they already believe.

The medieval logician Thomas Aquinas, who subjected Catholic doctrine to methodical analysis, was a rigorous thinker - by medieval standards. If he were alive today, would he have become a theologian? Or a scientist?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 02:11 PM

Don T: " I require evidence mate. I didn't get any from them, and I've yet to see any fr"

The WHOLE thing!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 02:39 PM

That should be "150 years," of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 03:01 PM

Gusto, tell me this: do you or do you not believe that the Turin shroud bears the true image of the biblical Jaysus??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 05:15 PM

lighter-i think that creationists would grant that darwin knew a lot about natural selection albeit much of it probably borrowed from a creationist writer.the info is in the dna.take the dog for eg - umpteen breeds are bred commercially and others were selected through natural factors but they are all dogs.same with the pigeons darwin wrote of in origins.perhaps you can direct me to the section in "origin..favoured races"where he demonstrates the mechanism of their supposed ancester?.

BTW as far as i know gfs is not a creationist.i had previously seen some of the programme he posted and i dont know if it is the imprint of Jesus or not.of course i would not have reasons for rejecting it should the evidence support it,s authenticity!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 05:46 PM

If Darwin borrowed anything from a Creationist writer, that's a new one on me. The idea of evolution, however, had been around for a while; it had just not been fully developed on the basis of extensive examples from nature.

Not being a biologist, I don't know _Origin of Species_ inside out. Someone else may be able to find the passage for you.

If you're seriously interested in the Shroud, I do recommend Joe Nickell's "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin."

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 06:21 PM

pete's first paragraph is utter gibberish. To claim that creationists passed on info about natural selection to Darwin is simply risible. As for "directing him to sections of Origin", well I've been telling him for yonks to get a copy of Origin and read it for himself. It is quite an easy book to read as long as you concentrate. But pete simply doesn't want to know. The porch light is on but there's nobody in.

Anyone like pete who "doesn't know whether it's the imprint of Jesus or not" can do a very simple thing. They can study the evidence. Begod you can google anything these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 08:39 PM

"...but they are all dogs."

But many millions of years ago they were .
NOT dogs

"The prehistoric ancestor of the dog tribe was a small mink-like animal, with a long body and short legs, which lived about 40 million years ago where there were three-toed horses no bigger than a sheep. From it, through the ages, developed a type of animal -- the bear-dog -- which gradually became gigantic and the ancestor of our modern bears: and another type from which developed two kinds of "grandchildren". One was the beginning of a line of beasts that eventually produced the wild hunting dogs now found in Africa and India, and the peculiar South American bush-dog. From the other, which was very dog-like in appearance, are descended all of our present day dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals and foxes. From it, too, developed a carrion-eating hyena-dog which occurred only in North America and became extinct."

More of dogs ancestors

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Nov 12 - 07:39 AM

"Had you had watched the entire video, where the scientist, after making a few profound observations, said, "this is where science and the spiritual come together..""

Ignoring the insults in your previous communication, GfS, I would have been more convinced by your fatuous video if the 'scientists' involved had started off by investigating where the Turin Shroud actually came from, and how it might have been created, rather than assuming (with the aid of a few 'ifs' and 'buts' and a bit of hand-waving) that it's an image of the historical Jesus - and then creating some sort of computer graphic. That's not science as any real scientist knows it. Basically, your video was a load of over-hyped, over-dramatised waffle accompanied by portentous music.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Nov 12 - 08:43 AM

""The WHOLE thing!""

What Shimrod said!

Add to that the fact that googling the responses over ten years to the radiocarbon dating of the shroud as a middle ages hoax, turns up a mishmash of half baked theories based solely in "We want to debunk the scientific facts, lets concoct a reason why they must be wrong".

All of the answers they come up with are flimflammery without a shred of genuine evidential or common sense credibility.

Once again the pseudo scientific religious "experts" try to do science arse about face.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Nov 12 - 09:05 AM

"Once again the pseudo scientific religious "experts" try to do science arse about face."

And once again the credulous, like GfS (and presumably pete), have been fooled!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 07 Nov 12 - 11:12 AM

"the info is in the dna"

Er, so Pete you're accepting some science and not the rest? How do you discriminate between the stuff you support and the stuff you don't? Do you simply pick the bits that support you worldview?

How, given the fact none of these disciplines exist in isolation and use the science the others research, can you suggest one part of current scientific understanding is correct whilst also stating others are fundamentally wrong in their most basic assumptions?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 07 Nov 12 - 12:11 PM

for decades the Soviet Union lagged behind western science in the biological sciences because their ideology required them to espouse Lemarckian theory... you know, the one that says that giraffes have long necks because they stretched over time trying to eat leaves from high trees... ( the experiment using scientific method had generations of mice having their tails cut short - and newborn mice still had full length tails). oh gee... how about that!?!

as a kid, my earth science textbook in high school gave no credence to continental drift... my first college geology course had no texts that had any info on tectonic plate theory - it was still so new and whole careers were open to explore it. Now it's old hat.

on my drive to work I pass a small church that usually has some "inspirational" message out front... the latest is "Worry ends where faith begins." my instant response to that is "Thinking ends where dogma begins."

Dogma and scientific method are mutually exclusive tools used by humans to answer questions about the universe. Eigjt years of Catholic schooling did nothing to knock scientific method out of me, but it sure managed to sour me on faith & organized religion.

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

I have a perfectly erudite volume dating from the early 70s on my bookshelf describing how human activity has affected the flora of Britain. Not only does it not give the slightest mention of global warming or climate change (though there's plenty in it about acid rain), it even tentatively suggests that we might be in for an ice age imminently. The notions referred to in the book were based on the best evidence available at the time. Not one of those scientists need hang their heads in shame. In fact, if any of 'em were still around, they'd be chuffed that much better evidence is now available, there are much better ways of collating and analysing it and that the science has moved on. That's what science does, Guff 'n' pete. It cheerfully takes on board the uncomfortable and, if necessary, changes its mind. Please note that "the uncomfortable" means new evidence. Evidence is that thing which we can never close our minds to.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 07 Nov 12 - 02:40 PM

our planet has been in what is referred to as an interglacial period since the last retreat of the continental glaciers approximately 10 thousand years ago... that basically means that it ain't over 'til it's over.

and what seems counter intuitive, is the fact that the accelerated warming over the last two centuries could precipitate a faster return of glaciation. The 1600's had the mini ice age but the global warming of the world's oceans is the greatest danger as it interfers with the global circulation that tempers the extremes of temperature from pole to pole-

BUT all bets are off if Yellowstone decides to blow its top... we'll be totally screwed then.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Nov 12 - 05:39 PM

""and what seems counter intuitive, is the fact that the accelerated warming over the last two centuries could precipitate a faster return of glaciation.""

Sciencegeek has this right.

The arctic ice cooling the European extremity of the Atlantic conveyor (Gulf stream and its sea bottom return) is the agent which sinks the gulf stream to the sea bottom.

Global warming removing significant amounts of arctic ice may cut off the Atlantic Conveyor, causing Northern Europe and particularly the British Isles to lose the warmth supplied by it and freeze.

Eventually the freeze will restart the conveyor, but a lot of us will die before that happens.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Nov 12 - 06:16 PM

well bill the links you provided certainly provided an intricate account of how fido developed in evolutionary story.how that is arrived at is not clear except perhap the ref to plentiful fossils of one animal.do i assume the fossil layers are the rationale of the story?i like the bit that said "the tale does,nt end there.."
sure nuff-it still goes on!

sugarfoot-are you not able to grasp the concept that repeatable,observable science is not the sole domain of darwin believers.
neither is origins science.however evolutionisms very foundation is built on abiogenesis - a theory that is best i can tell unscientific according to observable,repeatable science.
BTW have you come across "the altenberg 16" by suzan mazur with lots of quotes from evolutionists admitting the inadeqacies of their own evolutionary belief.i expect she will be attacked as a traitor in the camp or closet creationist or suchlike!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 12 - 07:11 PM

You simply have no idea what "abiogenesis" means, so just shut your silly trap about it. Neither has anyone with a brain on the bloody planet ever claimed that "repeatable, observable science" is the sole domain of "Darwin believers" (whoever they are), you liar. Why don't you just bugger off before spouting your nonsense and get yourself informed, you lazy, useless git. You are a very nasty piece of work, pete. Why don't you just disappear and go and wallow in your creationist ordure somewhere else. Anywhere else will do.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 07 Nov 12 - 07:27 PM

Pete might start at the beginning with an introductory course in practical reasoning.

It's the sort of logic used by both Darwin and Aquinas to help them get down to specifics. Completely nonpartisan, nondenominational, and unbiased.

If the ability to reason carefully doesn't appeal to you (or to GfS, if he's out there), there really is nothing to discuss. You'll believe what you like because it makes you feel good, regardless.

Unfortunately, scientists have to believe or suspect - on the basis of evidence - plenty of things that don't make them feel good at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Nov 12 - 07:44 PM

Pete... fossil layers ...plus radiocarbon dating ...plus many samples... plus simple connecting of the dots.


Ummm..Steve. I hate to say this to someone I agree with on the science, but your attitude is getting to be more obnoxious and silly than Pete's beliefs ever were. I at least KNOW why he thinks as he does, and I continue to put up counter arguments to his claims.....but I will never understand why anyone with YOUR knowledge needs to resort to personal invective. You will never win an argument by ridiculing someone.

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

He is ridiculing everyone on this thread who puts forth a considered opinion based on evidence, including you. More fool you if he takes you in. His sneering attitude to people who exercise reason and require evidence absolutely stinks. He's a nasty little fundamentalist Christian troll, no more, no less. He thrives on your indulgence, Bill. See the light.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 12 - 08:00 PM

And he's a bloody liar into the bargain.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Nov 12 - 08:12 PM

No, he is NOT a liar.... nor is he sneering... nor is he a troll. NOR am I "taken in" by anything. (others who know Pete personally have vouched for his honesty and character)

I read more than the simplistic logic & science points in ALL these hundreds of posts.

And frankly, I would rather sit in a pub and have a beer with Pete and quietly disagree all evening than to nod wisely while you rant about the idiocy of those with whom you disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 12 - 08:53 PM

"Disagree" my arse, Bill. This is not about disagreeing and you know it. A large number of us have been very patient with this impenetrable man for a very long time. In all that time he has not budged one bloody inch. He comes here and posts the same prejudiced shite every time, totally unaffected by what anyone says to him (so much for constructive discussion, eh, Bill?), and he serially disses hard-working and honest scientists at every opportunity. He lied about repeatable and observable science being the domain of "Darwin believers" (a slur and insult in itself). He's a classic fundamentalist troll, and he's about as "Christian" as my fat bottom. He brings genuine Christians into disrepute. See the light!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Nov 12 - 09:43 PM

"In all that time he has not budged one bloody inch."

And neither have you... and neither have I for that matter, except to look beyond my basic disagreement with Pete's viewpoint...


I repost this from earlier:


**Minds can be changed...IF they think they are making the change freely and voluntarily, and they see benefits, even amorphous ones, to the alterations in their lives.
People usually do not react well to being shamed, pushed or ordered to change, or made fun of for current beliefs.

Many changes in history and in individuals can be likened to pulling a brick with a large rubber band......it stretches and nothing seems to be happening, then suddenly there will be a lurch as the brick jerks forward a bit....not all the way, but visible progress. Pull too hard and too fast, and you may break the rubber band.

(reposted for about the 6th time)
Old Peanuts cartoon:

Lucy, talking to Linus: "Change your mind!"
Linus just looks at her.
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND!!
Linus looks more intimidated...
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND, I SAY!!"

Lucy, walking away, disgruntled and mumbling."Boy, it's hard to get people to change their minds these day!"**

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 07:14 AM

"sugarfoot-are you not able to grasp the concept that repeatable,observable science is not the sole domain of darwin believers."

Huh? Of course I do. It one of the ways science works. You left off 'testable' too.

Thing is Pete, your arguments don't have any repeatable, observable, testable evidence to back up your assertion that God made the earth 6000 years ago. Not a jot. Why? Because you are not talking about science, you are talking about religion. There's zero evidence for an intelligent designer. In fact, the designer is pretty crap as he's invented many characters that are woefully inefficient, he's had a go at several times and also invented some pretty nasty things that cause suffering in innocent people. The watchmaker is not such a benevolent soul after all.

"Minds can be changed"

Any good scientist will admit their own ignorance is virtually boundless. Our lack of knowledge is what drives us to discover more. Many of these fields are in a state of flux; for instance dinosaur phylogeny is in a state of constant revision and will be for centuries to come at least, and that's one tiny discipline in the world of science. For science only works if minds are open to change and the shifting of paradigms; it's one of the things that makes science so exciting.

That said, we do know many things for certain: dinosaurs existed, they were divided into two major clades, they share a common ancestor, they are still a massively successful group with over 10,000 species extant. We know some ate mammals, some were eaten by mammals, they lived all over the world from the poles to the equator in a wide variety of ecosystems. Even discounting birds they were incredibly successful and diverse.

So for the umpteenth time Pete, go find a horse in the Burgess Shale and prove us all wrong. Make us rethink the last two hundred years of palaeontological research by finding a gorilla in the Solnhofen. Reveal our ignorance and heresy - you'll be famous for ever.

Right, I'm off to do some actual science. Palaeontology rocks!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 07:20 AM

So, Bill, you want me to find accommodation with a man who displays little except ignorance, prejudice and a rock-like unwillingness to listen to what anyone has to say and who routinely rubbishes the hard and honest work of scientists. Oh, hang on, I forgot the false charm and the devious and dishonest self-deprecation! That's how you'd like me to "change my mind", huh? Well let me tell you that I've changed my mind about lots of things down the years, but I'm not going to to have my mind changed by a man who preaches nonsense and who is totally blind to science and rational thinking. If he's made you change your mind about anything, well all I can say is that you've been hoodwinked. And do try to focus.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 07:39 AM

Any good scientist will admit their own ignorance is virtually boundless. Our lack of knowledge is what drives us to discover more. Many of these fields are in a state of flux; for instance dinosaur phylogeny is in a state of constant revision and will be for centuries to come at least, and that's one tiny discipline in the world of science. For science only works if minds are open to change and the shifting of paradigms; it's one of the things that makes science so exciting.

That's what I meant in my post of 07 Nov 12 - 02:12 PM. "Palaeontology rocks": I like it! Must invent one of those for botany. I did a two-week palaeobotany course at university and I wished I'd done my whole degree in it. In those days no-one demurred if you went around hacking lumps of rock from sensitive sites. I had a lovely collection of plant fossils from the Jurassic of the Yorkshire coast, then someone nicked the lot from my lab locker, along with my geological hammer. Swines!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 08:41 AM

Bill, love that Peanuts strip.

Peanuts was my earliest introduction, as a tad, to philosophy, psychology, and other fields.

LUCY'S SIGN: Psychiatric Help 5c.

CHARLIE BROWN: Please help me. Sometimes I'm so depressed I can't stand it.

LUCY: Snap out of it. Five cents, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 10:27 AM

You continue to either miss MY point, Steve... or to ignore it. I don't expect you to change YOUR mind about the important issues of science... and I certainly haven't changed mine as a result of chatting with Pete. I have debated with him for... what?.. 2 years or so? Sometimes I have leaned hard on his misinformation and resistance to reason about science.
   I have even suggested ways to reconcile obvious facts with his faith.
What I have NOT done is to make the UNreasonable leap to the conclusion (as you have) that anyone who can read your/our educated explanations and remain unmoved must be a troll, a fool, or not really 'Christian'. Christians are quite diverse... from Bible pounding fundamentalists who would convert us ALL, to vaguely religious folks who sort of like church going. Pete is nowhere near the extreme area that I feel I need to combat. As far as I can see, he simply HAS ideas that I feel are stubbornly not defensible... from MY viewpoint.
   You know... I am 2000 miles from Pete and can't go have a long chat with him... but YOU 'could' some night head to Seven Stars pub...(no I don't know exactly how far, but it is just a road trip).. and meet him and see if he is a a real troll, or just a stubborn Christian who is perfectly average on other issues....but I don't expect you to waste your time... ;>)
------------------------------------------------------------------

Lighter:I'm glad you see the philosophical side of Peanuts- *grin*

Here's one for Pete...or maybe for Steve Shaw, depending on the context.



Charlie Brown is walking along when he comes to Lucy, kneeling and looking at something on the sidewalk..."What are you doing , Lucy?"

"Charlie Brown--see this big black bug? Do you know why it's so much bigger than the others? Because it's the QUEEN!"..........so Charlie gets down and peers closely...

"Lucy, that's not a bug...that's a black jelly bean!"

Lucy gives him this LOOK and bends VERY close to scrutinize the bug again..."Why, so it is!...I wonder how a Jelly bean ever got to be queen!"

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 11:07 AM

Bill D: "You continue to either miss MY point, Steve... or to ignore it. I don't expect you to change YOUR mind about the important issues of science..."

..and why should he even consider the findings of a Sandia Lab's physicist??

These guys start off with a preconception, that ignores facts, and custom fit them into their political ideologies, and then 'bad-mouth', on lame grounds, anyone who refutes their nonsense. Then the other ideologues jump in, (as if they know any better), and all chime together the same nonsensical blather, as if to give themselves credibility!!

Scientific Facts are not a matter of a wing deciding upon them by a consensus of ideologues nodding or wagging their heads in unison, agreeing to reconfirm their programed preconceptions. Neither does it work for superstitious religious fanatics either.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 11:44 AM

I actually remember that!

Late '50s?

In a similar one, they're walking down the street. Lucy is terrified by a bug on the sidewalk. Charlie Brown reassures her, looks closely and then becomes terrified too, because it isn't a bug, it's a disgusting ball of LINT!

The final panel shows them retreating, with CB saying something like, "We must never walk down this street again!"

Watch for the "Peanuts" thread! Coming immediately!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 12:11 PM

there is no lawmaker in the world that has the ability to repeal the "Law of Gravity".... I invite them to try and then walk out a high window.

But political "reality" is a queer thing and never daunted when faced with facts. Spinning the facts & telling the Big Lie were favorites tools of all repressive regimes... Nazis, Communists, Monarchists and Imperialists. It has been used to support genocide, slavery and every other form of oppression know to humanity.

Scientific Method is a rational tool for discovering new facts and information... which then needs to put into a framework for understanding. Newton was a devout man who saw the glory of God in natural laws. That was his framework for understanding.

Even the Catholic Church managed to put the Inquisition behind them and find accomodation with scientific inquiry.

What I find objectionable is the Conservative Right trying to cripple our educational system to the point where our new generations are as ignorant of science as any superstitious inhabitant of a remote location in the middle ages. Dogma is NOT science! And it my right as an American to object to this BS being foisted on us.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 12:24 PM

Hate to say this, but I am sympathising with Steve Shaw.

It is of course frustrating when someone talks bollocks and sits back all sanctimonious because their imaginary friend agrees with them. It is more than frustrating when society is programmed to indulge them and not show your frustration.

Much higher up in the protracted thread, I pointed out that Dawkins comes over rather forthright because when you spend your lit finding answers, when your research into genetics brings up fascinating insight into answers to questions that hitherto were unknown, it is galling when people reach for a copy of translations of ancient stories and say, "Not according to this pal."

I agree with Bill D that starry pete would give more entertainment value in the pub than Steve Shaw, but I would be uneasy to that on two counts;

1. To debate is to encourage and let us not forget that starry pete and his ilk would have us teach children that fantasy is a viable truth if they got their way.

2. I see the point in having a faith to fall back on, I really can. The fact that I have none, (other than Sheffield Wednesday) is irrelevant. I see the point in faith. However, to make mental leaps and to apply it to reality is not just an opinion, it is irrational. I couldn't debate it, even in the pub, as I am not qualified to play with the minds of people with irrational tendencies, although my experience of regulating mental health does give me enough knowledge to know you can disturb people more by indulging them. Is that fair? Possibly not.

Regarding the thread; There is no alternative to black. There is no alternative to steel. There is no alternative to water. There is no alternative to science. There is no alternative to Sheffield Wednesday.

There are things that can be perceived as an alternative, but break down under analysis. Nothing is quite as black as black. Nothing has that iron and carbon content of steel. Nothing has that......

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 01:24 PM

You've really done it now, mate. Sheffield Wednesday my arse. Liverpool all the way!

Our "friend" pete is a complete and utter wind-up merchant. It is all he's good for. Somebody please contradict me by reminding me of any honest and truthful statement he's made about science in the last, let's say, two years. He insults hard-working scientists left right and centre. He gets away with it by pretending that he's a diffident, self-effacing, harmless little charmer. Well, no such luck. He and his ilk would cause extreme damage if their delusions ever became mainstream. Truth of any kind is a complete stranger to him. There is a very dark side to his utterances. I mean, Bill, how many more years of his crap will it take before you see it?

And all this guff about me in the pub, well I go to pubs to play tunes, tell lies with my mates and drink beer. If you think I talk about this stuff in pubs you've got another think coming!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 01:30 PM

""And he's a bloody liar into the bargain.""

I've known Pete for a number of years and, although our views re. science and religion are diametrically opposed, I am certain that his belief, however inarticulately expressed, is sincere.

He is unfailingly polite, never sneering or ridiculing (well, except perhaps for the occasional song) anbody's ideas.

In a discussion, I have never heard him raise his voice nor resort to ad hominem attack.

In respect of your recent comments, you owe him an apology, unless you, a self professed scientist, furnish proof that he has ever deliberately posted an untruth.

He is prone to believe so called "creationist scientists" and repeat their garbage in good faith.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 02:40 PM

". I mean, Bill, how many more years of his crap will it take before you see it?"

I never 'take' any of it... I argue with him quietly--partly just to see how well I can express my own view, and partly to try to understand the religious viewpoint.


and DonT is right... and one other member knows Pete personally and agrees.

(Howdy, Pete... *smile*... quite a debate, isn't it? We don't have to actually change minds in order to learn stuff...right?)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 03:35 PM

In respect of your recent comments, you owe him an apology, unless you, a self professed scientist, furnish proof that he has ever deliberately posted an untruth.

Yeah, I see you're back to talking your usual bollocks after a welcome respite, Don. No self-respecting scientist ever "furnishes proof" for anything. Ever. And I've already given you an example of his untruthfulness, if you care to listen. So here it is again: sugarfoot-are you not able to grasp the concept that repeatable,observable science is not the sole domain of darwin believers.
neither is origins science.however evolutionisms very foundation is built on abiogenesis...

There you go, Don. Two scurrilous lies in one post. What more do you want? And fer chrissake will you who claim to "know" this stupid man just sit back and wallow in your embarrassment at the fact. If you demur, just read the above quote again (you should have to do it fifty times for your penance, if you can stand it) and reflect on the fact that he still posts this foul rubbish after all your years of trying to explain the simplest of things to him, and failing abysmally. You have not made the slightest impression on this closed-minded Christian fundamentalist bigot. Neither have I, for that matter, but, unlike some of you, at least I recognise my failure.

By the way, I'm not a self-professed anything, Don. I am what I am and, unlike pete and his ilk, and a good few others around here, I don't misrepresent myself in any way whatsoever. But don't worry, old chap. I won't be asking you for an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 04:04 PM

That quote Steve, is a mistake, not a lie.... he is wrong, but thinks he is right.

You really need to study language & context as much as Pete needs to study science.

"Lie" is a serious accusation. I have never seen Pete knowingly lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 04:25 PM

Yes, I have to say that I lean towards Steve Shaw's point of view. At the end of the day religious fundamentalists are dangerous and have to be confronted. I know that we get into dangerous freedom of speech issues here but to make my views plain, anyone can believe anything they like but fundamentalists tend to be evangelical and strive to convert others to their peculiar world views. In the light of a couple of centuries of scientific endeavour, a literalist interpretation of the Bible is just wrong, wrong, wrong! Anyone who seeks to convert others to such a world view must not be humoured or given an easy ride!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 05:21 PM

As I suggested last night at 7:27: No concern for logic, no point in talking.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 05:29 PM

That's just it, Shimrod. Bill and his like have given pete an incredibly easy ride. They feed his delusion, and perpetuate his nonsense, by purporting to take him seriously (yeah, people like pete do need to be taken seriously, but not in that way). And here we have Bill, knowing full well that pete has taken him for a ride all these years, having to either valiantly defend his position or lose face. Be honest, Bill and co. Yer man has been taking the piss out of you for yonks. But for you he would have no credence here whatsoever. You've been comprehensively had. Well, he's getting a bloody hard ride from me from now on, every time he spouts his creationist rubbish or insults scientists. Not if he talks sense, of course, but, let's face it, that's about as likely as a duff bottle of Hirondelle, innit.

however evolutionisms very foundation is built on abiogenesis..

That isn't a lie, eh, Bill? Christ on a bloody bike. It's as bare-faced a lie as you'll ever see. Go on, Bill. Give us his excuse.