BS: Alternative to Science??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 05:30 PM

thanks for the kind words bill and don.always amazes me that people who are otherwise highly intelligent and supposedly sure of their own beliefs get overcome by verbal gutrot.
BTW the creationist writer i mentioned earlier who darwin borrowed from is edward blythe.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 05:34 PM

You liar. And you wouldn't recognise a highly intelligent person if they reared up and bit you on your sanctimonious, bigoted arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 05:49 PM

Well, Pete.. I wish you had a computer at home so you could be a member and I could try to convince you privately... *grin* I have seldom seen such a series of rabid attacks from someone I agree with on the **science** of the thing.

And Steve... if Pete wishes to post further, I'll discuss things with HIM...(maybe on a new thread?) I have had enough of your personal invective.
Further, deponent sayeth not

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 06:05 PM

Yes, Edward Blyth.

But Blyth and Darwin came up with the theory of change through natural selection more or less independently and their interpretation of it was different. Blyth wanted to believe that natural selection, guided by the divine, was somehow returning species to their original form rather than creating new species.

Before the work of Darwin, Blyth's hypothesis was tenable.

Afterwards, and after the next 150 years of new findings, it was not.

One difference between Blyth and today's self-described "creation scientists" is that Blyth really did apply the scientific method: like Darwin he observed and described and didn't try to distort or cherrypick his facts. He tried to force his accurate *observations* into support of the wrong theory, and he simply came to the wrong conclusion.

As far as I know (and I could be wrong) he never tried to misrepresent or deride the scientific knowledge of his day, something today's special pleaders do constantly.

There was undoubtedly a higher proportion of Bible-believing scientists in the 1860s than there is today, and by 1870 *the vast majority of them had accepted Darwin's evidence and reasoning.* Had Blyth's interpretation of natural selection been right, the next 150 years of research would have proved it.

Instead they proved otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 07:54 PM

And Steve... if Pete wishes to post further, I'll discuss things with HIM...(maybe on a new thread?) I have had enough of your personal invective.

You ain't seen nothing. And if pete wishes to post further, and say something measured and sensible, I'll discuss things with him. But I will not be hoodwinked by his false charms, unlike yourself, and by his disingenuous, thoroughly dishonest misrepresentation of himself as a thinking, harmless creationist. He's enjoyed your fawning, obsequious patronage for far too long, and he's fed on it mightily to the perpetual annoyance of the thinking, measured people and hard-working scientists who like to contribute here.
   
Further, deponent sayeth not

Pigshite. Talk real talk to real people for a bloody change. There are one or two of us about, you know. See the light.

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

Before the work of Darwin, Blyth's hypothesis was tenable.

Whether or not a hypothesis is tenable has nothing to do with what came after or the mores of the day. It has everything to do with what evidence could be produced to support or demolish it. That tenet does not change, whether in the modern day or the day of the caveman.


There was undoubtedly a higher proportion of Bible-believing scientists in the 1860s than there is today

Weasel words (do look that up). What if I told you that I think that there is (at least in the west) a far higher proportion of bible-believing scientists than ever before? Have you got more evidence for your assertion than I have for mine?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 08:09 PM

I SEE it!

"Pigshite. Talk real talk to real people for a bloody change."

It's BULLshit over here. Talk real? Ok... stuff it, Steve...

g'night

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 08:19 PM

It's bullshit the way you indulge pete all right. Glad you recognise it. Yeah, right, it's a friggin' discussion forum and it doesn't matter what you say or what I say or what pete the creationist troll says. So why do you bother, billyboy? To give pete amusement and succour? I think we should be told.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 08:48 PM

Tenability has everything to do with the knowledge of the day, because knowledge is the only basis for understanding. Both, fortunately, are capable of increase.

Of course a higher proportion of scientists in 1850 were Bible-believers. Religion was a pervasive element in education and even in journalism. Popular preachers were local celebrities. And scientists were products of that society. The proportion of believers matters, not the absolute number, because the weight of received opinion about evolution before "Origin" was on Blyth's side.

Otherwise Darwin would have caused little enough stir because someone would have beaten him to it. His evidence and arguments, not Blyth's, were powerful enough to overcome the scientific opinion of the times.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 09:01 PM

Of course a higher proportion of scientists in 1850 were Bible-believers. Religion was a pervasive element in education and even in journalism. Popular preachers were local celebrities.

Why "of course"? Where is your evidence for this? Saying "of course" doesn't make it any more true. If you want an assertion, I would assert that religious belief has never been stronger (and do shed all remnants of Christian imperialism as you read that). I would also assert that there is nothing at all stopping the jobbing scientist from being a believer. Let's not get carried away with the notion that there are thousands of scientists out there who find that their science and religion clash. They just don't. As for religion being a pervasive element, tell me how much more pervasive it could possibly be than it is today in the US. Or Israel. Or in a dozen or more Islamic countries. And consider that popular preachers in Iran, for example, are a damn sight more than just local celebrities. Things may have changed slightly less than you think.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 10:45 PM

Take heart, Bill D. this is just a standard tactic as in:

(From my earlier post)...
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..."

(My response to you):
"..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."


Bitter resentment toward religion IS their religion..being as the definition of 'religion' is 'a way of life'..and it sounds like some lightweight church they belonged to, probably in their youth, turned them off because the church didn't know the difference between 'God' and the fullness of it all...and replaced it with bogus doctrines to adhere to, that were pointless and stupid.....in turn they didn't look any further and to find out that science and the 'spiritual' are completely compatible.....it's just NOT 'religious'!!!!

...and if you've noticed, this is the SAME tactic cliques used to do in junior high!!....not much progress there in learning much since then....just repeating the same mantra..and NOT addressing the issues....at least not the ones in the video, which should give them pause to think...they got the 'pause' but haven't got to the thinking part, yet!....Maybe you should 'pray for them' or 'beam them some positive love'..in hopes that something higher breaks through their brain-lock!

The video has points in it, and scientific analyses, that they can't try to touch with any objectivity......it's gone!...poof!!..whoosh!!! ...vaporized!!!!
...and Bill, if you haven't clicked on the link yourself...take a look!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 04:22 AM

"The video has points in it, and scientific analyses, that they can't try to touch with any objectivity..."

GfS, your precious video is shite! You wouldn't recognise "scientific analyses" if they bit you on the bum!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 06:02 AM

""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.""

No, I can't argue with that assessment mister. You never manage, or even try, to mask the ignorant supercilious pig that lies behind the moniker.

Apology?......Dream on!

You simply don't get it. Pete doesn't LIE! He sincerely believes that he is presenting truth. You are entitled to call him wrong, but not LIAR!

You should probably repeat that fifty times in the hope that you will eventually recognise that not everybody understands or believes as you do.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 06:31 AM

What you don't know (how could you, you're too busy bullying him to notice) is that Pete is a genuinely nice guy.

I've spent many pleasant evenings making music and enjoying a few beers alongside of him. I don't think I would ever choose to spend time with you, if your lack of generosity and your arrogant self belief as displayed here are part of your real life character.

I know Pete is wrong, but I make allowance for his sincerity and amstill able to sonsider him a friend.

That is not fawning sycophancy, or giving him an easy time, I simply avoid the pitfall you fell into.

I never try to convert Pete, but you do, and you have a hissy fit when he doesn't get it.

You are the one who whinges about evangelism, aren't you?.

Looks mighty like hypocrisy, wouldn't you say?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: sciencegeek
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 06:38 AM

believers vs non-believers....

believe it or not, there are folks who have no need to believe in anything other than the natural world around them. I spent my first 8 school years in a Catholic school and for the first 6 years I tried my hardest to believe what I was being taught by very sincere nuns and lay teachers... but being the person that I am, I could never just accept dogma without mentally testing it for flaws. I spent the last 2 years in that school knowing that I was at the very least an agnostic and more likely was an atheist.

I accept the fact that there those who have a very strong need for a spiritual component in their lives because I have any number of friends and others who fall in that category. I don't insult their beliefs or try to show them the errors of their ways, in fact I usually laugh and tell them that I'm a heathen if the subject comes up. But if a holy roller comes to my door with their pamphlets and BS, I show them the way out in no uncertain terms.

My alarm with the Christian right & creationism is their unrelenting campaign to destroy the teaching of science in our school systems, because I will say again that dogma is not and never can be called science. The emperor is buck naked! As a society we need to keep repeating that message and not cave into placating these ignorant fools... any more than we should have allowed the belief that blacks are somehow an inferior race to remain unchallenged all those years.

Or that the human race can keep breeding until we destroy everything else in the world with our greed.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 06:51 AM

Don. Now listen up, old chap. Our pete, after all the years and all the hundreds of posts in which measured people have tried to guide him towards a proper way of looking at science, comes up with this:

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

Now Don. Find me a quote in which anyone on all these threads has ever said that repeatable, observable science is the sole domain of Darwin believers [sic]. It has never been said. pete fabricated it as a platform from which to attack Jack. In other words, he invented a big, fat lie. A lie, not a bloody mistake.

Then he comes up with this gem:

evolutionisms very foundation is built on abiogenesis...

Now, Don, where do you suppose that came from? OK, I'll tell you then. He made it up. He needed a slur against evolution, so he made it up. Worse, he made it up without understanding what abiogenesis means. Or, worse still, he used abiogenesis entirely incorrectly, knowing that it carries pejorative undertones after being discredited in Victorian times. Another disingenuous attempt to paint decent science black. In other words, Don, a piece of dishonesty. A lie. The problem here is that you find yourself defending a nasty, lying little fundamentalist instead of defending science. Good for you!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 06:56 AM

Wow, things have got harsh on here. I find some of Pete's comments rather insulting as they imply dishonesty amongst scientists, which is total bollocks and which he doesn't apologise for. Has he ever even been to a scientific conference to meet the people he opposes so vehemently? I've spent a lot of time in churches (being brought up Cof E, then off to the methodists and finally a free church that I quite liked as it had much better hymns), I was educated in state schools that sang hymns, prayed and read lessons, and I attend church services when people get married, christened or die. I have read the new testament from cover to cover. I have considered the subject deeply. I then became interested in Buddhism, but that's a different story. Let's just say I like to take nothing on blind faith.

However, personally insulting the chap is taking it too far. I find religious extremists of any ilk disturbing but we have to try to engage with them. Pete's constant evasiveness is frustrating and implies a lack of ability to research his subject properly; chucking in the odd scientific term is not enough. Still, I'm not interested in calling his personal integrity into question, despite the fact he obviously feels people like myself have none at all.

Science needs to establish a meaningful dialogue with people of all religions, and in some cases this is happening but parties on both sides are guilty of being too entrenched to open up meaningful discourse.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 08:24 AM

Every time pete burbles on about his alleged views on Darwinism and on science in general he is personally insulting perfectly decent, thoughtful, hard-working people. The only reason that he has not been branded an outright troll (which he is) is because he's met a few people here who he's apparently found cosiness with and who protect him here. As for finding meaningful dialogue, well tell me what the hell we've been trying to do with him all this time. Exactly that. He is not interested in meaningful dialogue, as with all the rest of his closed-minded ilk, and never will be. He's had more than his chance to join meaningful debate and he blows it every time, relying on the few people round here who are still prepared to indulge his stupidity. Yet he still comes here sneering ignorantly at science, scientists and even at individuals. As I said, I'd respond happily to sensible, measured, informed comments from him. But as far as I'm concerned we are as far away as ever from getting those from him. So I'm calling it like it is. It's a tough world that pete has been protected from.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 08:33 AM

Don. I don't do evangelism (I ask for evidence). I don't want to "convert" pete or anyone else. I have nothing to convert anyone to, remember? What I do not get (nor you nor anyone else) from pete is respect for my honest-to-goodness scientific background. Instead, I get a load of ignorant, uninformed prejudice that only makes me feel relieved that he and his ilk don't actually get to run things.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 08:48 AM

being a "nice person" does not mean that they don't do "mean" things. And they should rightfully be called on that when it happens. And ignorance should be corrected, not protected.

Plenty of so called nice people have referred to AIDS as God's punishment... WTF?!? What dreaded sin could possibly have been committed by children born infected with diease??? Sins of the fathers seems to be justification enough.

If it's not acceptable to suffer racial slurs, why should OK for ignorant slurs against people who have spent a major part of their lives in the pursuit of scientific investigation to be put out there unchallanged?

This is an honest question. Why defend pete as being nice but uninformed... instead of saying hey, Pete, I know you don't mean to be offensive, but look here...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 09:14 AM

I'm not defending Pete (that's Don's job), but I am suggesting tolerance. Scientists need to be able to deal rationally and coherently with people who (rightly) question why they think things are how they are. This isn't pandering to the irrationality of the creationist position, it's scientists distancing themselves from the creationist position by addressing it head on with fact, something creationists struggle with because they are shoehorning the facts to fit their preferred fiction.

So I don't think calling Pete a liar is useful (or very nice), because it's entirely possible that he believes what he's saying. I'm not saying that he's right, but I am saying that shouting at people and pointing fingers does not move the discussion onward.

I realise that Pete thinks I am a dishonest researcher, that my friends and colleagues in palaeontology are tarred with the same brush despite being the most honest and open-minded people I know. I do find that offensive as I said in a post way back up there. I also realise that sod all of what I've spent my time writing is ever addressed by him in any meaningful way, that he doesn't present any counterarguments that require anything but faith and ignorance.

But you have to try.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 09:21 AM

Or indeed carry on indulging him.

He must think his views to be radical and invoke debate through their perceptiveness rather than their reliance on superstitious ignorance. He always will till people dismiss his waffle. I appreciate he may be a nice chap. Nice chaps knock on my door selling me Jesus. I don't tell them to fuck off because they are polite and nice, I tell them to fuck off because they represent institutions that wish to control and restrict me.

Creationism is not an alternative to science. it is an alternative to any other theology that contradicts it.

Science has no alternative, just differing scientific views in the absence of compelling evidence to settle a matter. Hence young earth creationism has no scientific base, just a nice folklore one, as demonstrable evidence could not exist if the world was young, perfectly formed and lacking evolutionary traits.

In the meantime, let's visit Bedlam for our amusement, as that seems to be the case here from what I read.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 09:40 AM

I hope that no one felt that I impled that rudeness is justified from either side... but I do feel that emotions can run high, especially if you feel that unwarrented attacks are not being taken seriously by others.

As a women in the sciences, I personlly know what it feels like to treated as a second class person. And when a old time engineer would call me honey or sweetie, as if I was someone other than the highly trained person that I am... well, let's just say that the urge to sock him in the face definitely needed to be suppressed.

My point being... that bad things happen when good people look the other way. Insulting the integrity of others is never acceptable... it is not respectful or productive. But the urge to "sock the offender in the face" is a natural reaction, in my opinion... :) so maybe a little down time to cool off before posting may be order.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 10:11 AM

Well, I have tried to make my point about this charlatan as best I can and as directly as I can. Yer man has been indulged with excessive diplomacy and forbearance as far as I'm concerned (He's the past master of suckering people in, that's for sure) and it's time someone actually told it like it is. Actually, I've approached this in icy-cold, calculated mood, not from an emotional standpoint. There's no cooling down needed for me. Nuff said about the man from me for now, but he may rest assured that future bullshit will be forcefully met with exactly the response I think it deserves. And you can all drink yer bloody pints with whoever you like!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 10:18 AM

he's. Of all the bloody people I end up accidentally using capitals for...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 10:21 AM

Well, Pete has a vested interest in this - his immortal soul. He's been told that should he question a literal interpretation of The Bible he's going to burn in hell or whatever. Until Pete questions that teaching and the validity of it then you're right in saying we'll never get through to him. I don't see it as indulging, but perhaps you're right.

I do believe that some of what is written in the Bible is evil - that business about man's dominion over everything else is one of the most vile pieces of 'teaching' I've ever read, and has caused so many problems since it was first scribbled down by some unknown but imaginative desert tribesman.

What is most distressing is seeing intelligent people let themselves be turned into unquestioning drones who deny their own humanity by dulling their natural (they would say god-given) curiosity and reject the evidence that simple enquiry reveals. It's just sad to see them become militant and detached because of a story. It becomes dangerous when they start teaching our children and the insecure or vulnerable this fundamentalist rubbish and should be thundered against.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 10:38 AM

Sugarfoot Jack, we need to remember history... and that means more than just spitting out names & dates.

the Nazis didn't just appear out of thin air... anymore than the Communists, Fascist or Imperialists.   or the extremists of Islam.

but one thing that I think they did have in common is that good people of moderate beliefs did not stem the tide when they had a chance. Instead they were later swept away by those who bought into the propaganda and carried it onward.

another commonality is that there was great disparity in wealth and justice... that was manipulated by sociopathic people to their own ends.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 10:41 AM

Nice chaps knock on my door selling me Jesus. I don't tell them to fuck off because they are polite and nice, I tell them to fuck off because they represent institutions that wish to control and restrict me.

I don't even do that. They don't hang round for long (or come back) when the conversation goes like this:

"Good morning! Isn't it a lovely day! And don't you live in a lovely place! Don't you wonder where all this beauty comes from...?"

"I certainly do! My best guess is that it all comes about via natural selection! All of it! It's the simplest and greatest explanation ever put forward for all the beauty and complexity of the living world! I know you're going to give me Watchtower, and I promise to read it, but promise me you'll have a look at Darwin's great work...!"

If that doesn't see 'em off with a cheery wave goodbye, I know I can always resort to a quick mention of Dawkins. They don't like it up 'em, Cap'n Mainwaring!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 10:53 AM

What is most distressing is seeing intelligent people let themselves be turned into unquestioning drones who deny their own humanity by dulling their natural (they would say god-given) curiosity and reject the evidence that simple enquiry reveals.

That is the saddest thing of all. Evidence-free religious faith is a blind alley. No matter how fulfilled subscribers to it tell us they are, they are still missing out on the potential for endless wonder and enquiry which is, if we're here for anything at all, what we're here for. To me, enquiry means finding evidence and applying our intellect to what we find. That is a beautiful thing, denied in large part (whatever they tell you) to those who accept myth as truth. If God existed he would surely resent the intellectual stunting that is routinely propagated in his name under respectable-sounding headings like "theology". That's just amazing thinkers stuck inside a ringfence, no more. Why would God give us such a mighty thinking machine, then allow his followers to forbid its full use?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 11:14 AM

GfS, your precious video is shite! You wouldn't recognise "scientific analyses" if they bit you on the bum!

Shall we try again, knowing that we risk rivalling Paxo in his Michael Howard moment? Ahem. Guffo: do tell us - do you believe that the Turin shroud bears the true image of the dead body of Christ?

(Note that I like to change the wording slightly every time I ask, just to maintain interest...)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: saulgoldie
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 11:41 AM

Well, I guess it shouldn't surprise me to see that the thread has evolved (evolved!), or maybe more accurately DEvolved into a "religion v science" argument and the usual personal attacks. Not exactly what I was thinking when I launched it. For a refresher, here is the first post:

"OK, so many people "don't believe in" science. But science is a process and not a belief system. So, if you don't accept the scientific method as a process for gaining new knowledge, please describe your own alternative process for discovery that stands up to scrutiny by impartial parties (of any religion) and yields reproducible results. Please explain how this process works. Step by step.

Please also explain why the scientific method *doesn't work* since your process is obviously the "right" one. And show examples of how it has worked in real life and how we can use this process ourselves to make new discoveries."

I still haven't heard why the scientific method of inquiry is a flawed process or what alternative there might be that is equally (or more??) useful and valid. Yes, it was a challenge. I haven't seen anyone rise to it.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 11:57 AM

Of course we must always bear in mind that if 'nice' Mr pete and his ilk ever got any power they would be burning books, oppressing women, murdering'heretics' and all of the other foul things that fundamentalist fanatics feel driven to do(shooting school girls in the head anyone?)- and all in the name of 'LOVE'.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 12:00 PM

scientific method is a tool - a very useful tool- for learning about the natural world in which we live. it is not a tool for investigation of the supernatural/spiritual world - you accept the definition that supernatural is outside of the natural world.


like any tool, it can be misused by people. and this includes cultural bias that is inevitable because people are going to ask questions that make sense to them in the context of their cultureal upbringing. but it also includes people who do not use proper methods... you do not ignore results that contradict your original premise. you do not pick & choose the results you like - you live with the results. if the results don't match your original premise, then you ask more questions to figure out why that is.

the goal of science is to get better answers that then allow you to ask better questions.

the antithesis of science is dogma... where someone puts out arbitrary "answers" and then denies the validity of anything else.

so I do not see that there is such a thing as an alternative to science... not if you want to get the same results as you would from scientific method. you have science on one end of the spectrum and superstition & dogma on the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 12:07 PM

That's right, and that's why saulgoldie didn't get his satisfactory answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 12:38 PM

one thing that we learn early on when designing experiments is that you need to ask "good questions".

A good question is one that can be tested. The results of that testing will hopefully provide answers that support your hypothesis.

Or not... there is a joke among scientists - that they spend 4 years testing & developing their theory and then the next 40 defending it. That is a human failing, not related to scienctific investigation but rather to ossification of the thinking. The honest answer to most questions is "this is what we know now, and this is what we think it means".

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 02:06 PM

Shimrod: "The video has points in it, and scientific analyses, that they can't try to touch with any objectivity..."

Being as you seemed to have watched the video..what 'good points' did you see in it?....and let's talk those, because i found some VERY interesting points, that 'other' naysayers haven't even addressed. they just call names based on the preconceptions.

As so far as Steve's question, whether or not I believed if the shroud was that of Jesus, I think anyone would have to weigh the evidence, as put forth in the video....after all, these were/are scientists who asked the same question objectively and out of curiosity, and in the video, they repeatedly asked that same question..did they not?

As so far as the guy from Macbeth Studios, he was after trying to lift an image..and his findings were, to say the least, pretty amazing.

We already know you don't believe any of it, in fact, are predisposed to squashing any of it, no matter what they came up with!..It reminds me of one of the scientists, toward the beginning of the project who asks, "Were there those who were opposed to us running the experiments?..OH YES!!"..and by the way, there were those within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, who were the caretakers of the shroud who also DID NOT want them to do the tests...ever wonder why?

As the tests unfolded and the project got underway, if you remember(if you even watched it), there were scientists from all over the world coming into the project....just to find out....something you aren't really interested in!!!

So as far as my personal views on their findings, what's it to you what I think?

You need to re-assess your motives, hostility, and resentments, and leave them at the door, when you embark on being scientifically objective, which you have failed to do!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 02:29 PM

As so far as Steve's question, whether or not I believed if the shroud was that of Jesus, I think anyone would have to weigh the evidence

The evidence is that the cloth is thirteenth or fourteenth century. That's proper evidence, obtained using carbon dating. So guess what happened when the open-minded Christians heard this devastating news. They claimed that the sample used for the dating had been a medieval invisible repair! There's your almost perfect science vs faith microcosm for you!

But, Guffy, you know all this, of course. So, in the light of it all, do you believe that the Turin shroud bears the true contact image of the body of Christ?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 02:31 PM

I spent my whole school years in a two Catholic schools and whole time I respectfully questioned those things which, even to a child, didn't make any sense. I tried my hardest to believe what I was being taught by very sincere Jesuit brothers and and when I failed, I was thrown out of class, or caned... but being the person that I am, I could never just accept dogma without mentally testing it for flaws. I spent the last 2 years in school knowing that I would never accept the authority of men in frocks who answered every question with either "Have faith" or "Get out".

""My alarm with the Christian right & creationism is their unrelenting campaign to destroy the teaching of science in our school systems, because I will say again that dogma is not and never can be called science.""

Me too, as far as the evangelists and proselytisers of that ilk are concerned.

I do think, however, that Pete has expressed his own views without doing either, and shows no inclination to interfere with education in any way.

I think that some here are mistaking him for the school board fruitcakes of the American Christian Right. UK education authorities tend to be rather more sensible than that.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 02:33 PM

..and then were able to refute the original findings of the carbon testing, because of the handling of the shroud, through the years, of the pieces they tested..or didn't you get that far into the video??
Also they had evidence that the shroud was in existence in Turkey, predating the 13th century....like the seventh century...again, did you watch that far?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 02:49 PM

DonT: With all due respects, the Catholic Church is not the pinnacle of much, either spiritually or scientifically....but rather a co-adaptation of the old Roman Empire, where were in decline, and co-opted the Christian population of Rome(Italy), which was gaining popularity at the time...that being said, they and the Protestant Movement had already disavowed and distorted what the original Christian believers, especially the eye-witnesses contemporary to Jesus, and what they actually saw, to fit into their 'need' to retain some power in Europe.
I DO sympathize, with those who have been misled as a result of the consistency WITH science and the 'spiritual' aspects...which up till now seem to coincide tremendously with each other...and that is true, even aside from the findings of the shroud!
The Catholic Protestant Churches have done MUCH to pollute and corrupt everything about Jesus, and what he was about!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 02:53 PM

...and by the way Don, take a look at this...if you didn't know already.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 03:03 PM

..and then were able to refute the original findings of the carbon testing, because of the handling of the shroud, through the years, of the pieces they tested..or didn't you get that far into the video??
Also they had evidence that the shroud was in existence in Turkey, predating the 13th century....like the seventh century...again, did you watch that far?


Well, so maybe Jesus only needed to live to only seven hundred and odd years old and not thirteen hundred and odd. And you don't get false results from cloth due to the way it was handled. You get false results if what you're testing is not what you think it is. I have a sneaky feeling that the Vatican was not going to be too keen on an accidental medieval bit getting tested that wasn't part of the original. Of all people, you'd have thought they'd have kept an eye on that! The shroud is indeed a fascinating piece of cloth, there's no denying. But do you think it bears the true image of the dead body of Jesus?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 03:05 PM

only should be lonely

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 03:34 PM

Steve,
Oh..you are wrong about the handling of material not affecting the carbon testing..dirt and oils off the hands, of several handlings will certainly the outcome...ask the scientist why they wear gloves while carefully handling ANY carbon testing! ..Jeez, I thought even you would have known that...!!..At least any lesser dummy would have known that BEFORE engaging in a moronic discussion against FACTS!

Now, if the shroud was of the 13th century, how do you explain the image, being as it was tested, and was found NOT to have been painted, only 2 microns deep, (no absorption, less than any paint or medium that was used back then), no materials found used in paint AND was concluded that the image was the result of radiation, (either heat or light, or both)...pretty far out technology being as the camera was not invented till several centuries later.....and as long as we are on cameras, how in the world did they in the 13th century, be able to photograph or paint a holographic image....the only known picture ever found with these properties?
I'm sure you have a simple answer for these.
....and while you're at it, explain the pollen that was found in the fibers that come from a plant that only grows within 50 miles of Jerusalem.
When you get done 'explaining all that away' there's more!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 03:37 PM

Typo in other post...here it is again:

Steve,
Oh..you are wrong about the handling of material not affecting the carbon testing..dirt and oils off the hands, of several handlings will certainly affect the outcome...ask the scientist why they wear gloves while carefully handling ANY carbon testing! ..Jeez, I thought even you would have known that...!!..At least any lesser dummy would have known that BEFORE engaging in a moronic discussion against FACTS!

Now, if the shroud was of the 13th century, how do you explain the image, being as it was tested, and was found NOT to have been painted, only 2 microns deep, (no absorption, less than any paint or medium that was used back then), no materials found used in paint AND was concluded that the image was the result of radiation, (either heat or light, or both)...pretty far out technology being as the camera was not invented till several centuries later.....and as long as we are on cameras, how in the world did they in the 13th century, be able to photograph or paint a holographic image....the only known picture ever found with these properties?
I'm sure you have a simple answer for these.
....and while you're at it, explain the pollen that was found in the fibers that come from a plant that only grows within 50 miles of Jerusalem.
When you get done 'explaining all that away' there's more!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 03:48 PM

You're flailing again. You do know how radiocarbon dating works, do you? It's eminently repeatable, old chap. Do you have evidence of hopelessly inconsistent results that we don't know about? As for your other points, each and every one has been explained. That is not to say that there aren't mysteries surrounding this piece of fabric. But it's typical of religion to pick on what is far and away the most unlikely explanation of all and become fixated on it (and yes you do: the whole concept of God the creator falls into that category). Now I can't be certain that the shroud has nothing to do with Jesus but I've decided for myself that the likelihood of that being the case is so remote as to place it beneath my threshold of what's of interest. But that isn't to say I'm not interested in what the damn thing actually is. Sadly, I feel that you're not going to be the one to tell me. Do you think it really is the image of the dead Christ's real body?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 04:04 PM

I am perfectly willing to believe that some poor schmuck was wrapped in the shroud... the who and the why is far less clear.

For a very long period of time, every ancient hominid discovery was touted as THE "missing link" or earliest ancestor. Seems to be human nature to want credit for something unique. Alistair Anderson used to quip that he was the second greatest concertina player, since there were some many already claiming to be in first place. So claims as to the identity of the poor victim are on very shaky ground.

I find myself very curious as to whether or not intact DNA could be recovered just to see what it might match up to. And not becasue I think a "virgin birth" would mean we would find XX chromosomes or some other nonsense. Just to get a sense of what ancestry that poor guy had.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 05:28 PM

GfS, there's a basic assumption here and that is that I give a sh*t about some old bit of cloth and a load of pious charlatans who have been fooling and manipulating the human race for a couple of thousand years. Now there's a far more interesting question: why have so many people fallen for it?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 05:45 PM

****************************NEWS ALERT****************************

The 600 foot tall Jesus that appeared in the late Oral Robert's dream has appeared in another dream. In this case, a Wingate, North Carolina man claims to have also seen a 600 foot tall Jesus in his dream who told this North Carolina man "Forget that Rapture stuff. I don't want any part of these people who believe in it. We have another place for them. You tell them that."

**************************Details @ 11*****************************

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 05:56 PM

> the identity of the poor victim

If there was a victim.

At a time when religious relics were ordinarily assumed to be genuine, a 13th century bishop denounced the shroud as a recent forgery created by an artist whose name was known to him.

The radiocarbon dating is consistent with both the bishop's claim and the first indisputable report of the shroud's existence.

And the figure's elongated appearance is at least as consistent with medieval styles of painting as it is with an actual human body.