BS: Got Science?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 02:31 PM

Even the religious ask a million questions, so very often, you know...

I think it's called Theology, ain't it?   

Isn't that the 'science' behind religion?

;0)

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 02:29 PM

>>>>The wonderful thing about science (speaking as an imaginary alien, looking down in admiration at us Earthlings, obsessed as we are with scientific endeavour) is that it relentlessly batters at the door of knowledge, and, when we break through that door, we find delight and edification in abundance, and our imagination is made to catch fire and burn bright. Science is disciplined but every scientist worth his or her salt is a maverick, untrammelled by received wisdom. Religion, on the other hand, ties people down into an abject word of stilted imagination and stunted intellect. You have already been given the answers, and any leeway you may think you have to ask questions is seriously ringfenced by doctrine, dogma, fear of the consequences of demurral, and that most bogus of all "disciplines", theology. <<<<<


I find delight in a raindrop. I have no desire to know the scientific make-up of the rain drop though. I love the colours within it when the sun catches it, the sheer beauty of it shining like a diamond on a spider's web...I see the spider putting on her jewels before she goes out to The Spider's Ball later that evening, reaching up to her web with each of her eight legs, putting a diamond upon each of them...and a string of them around her little chubby neck....Then I see her going off to that Ball, her tiny eyes glistening as bright as the jewelled raindrops that shimmer as she scuttles graciously on her way......

:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 02:25 PM

"Want some magic? Read a bit about entangled particles and action at a distance. Pure mind-boggling magic. And won't it be exciting if we can figure out how the magic happens?"


Nope. Now you see my brain immediately shuts down at the mere mention of entangled particles..Geesh!

The whole point of MAGIC is that it's......Magical! I can imagine a thousand different reasons why it's happening, all of them linked to wild and free thoughts, but the actual science would turn all the lights OFF for me, whereas my magic switches them on, beautiful, dazzlings of sparkling rainbow colours....

You'll feel the same about the Science behind it though...but my brain understands that part of your brain.

I have no picture for a particle. It is non-existant in my brain. I have no pictures for an atom either, but I bet you do....

Just different reasons for different humans, that's all...

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 02:18 PM

i was reading about richard errett smally.MA phd. nobel prize in chrmistry.clearly no idiot.most of his life he was agnostic but towards the end of his life he became a christian and after looking into evolution in detail became creationist.
if cancer had not taken his life in 2005,he had intended to openly challenge the macro evolutionist community.
i wonder if a scientist of his standing would have acheived a hearing where others have failed to be heard.la la la....

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 04:24 AM

"Not going to trouble myself unduly over it but I'm curious, TFT, as to why you are attacking me for exactly the opposite of what I am saying. "

Air Force is flying low today....

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 04:03 AM

Not going to trouble myself unduly over it but I'm curious, TFT, as to why you are attacking me for exactly the opposite of what I am saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 08:35 PM

Oh, and if you hadn't guessed, it's the same Troll Power Monger Game played on the 'Global Warming is Crap' themed BS threads a while ago ...

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 08:17 PM

"if it were strictly science the mockers would not be venting their anger on me-or anyone else who even suggests there might be God!"

Ah - that is exactly what the malicious Power Mongers (Trolls, but their behavior has been around for thousands of years) who have no interest in understanding Science, or even much interest in Religion, other than it gives them a convenient believable cloak to hide under while playing their nasty psychotic manipulative mind games, want you to believe! They Win!

By getting honest trusting people like you to believe them that 'Science is a gibberish work of Satan, corrupting the Only True Way to Think', they intentionally get good people like you caught in their planned and desired retaliatory resulting crossfire that their willful stupid and malicious mocking misrepresentations stir up. Since you see only 'the nastiness in response to them', you become more convinced that they are right and Science is Rubbish. They Win.

To not respond is to let their manipulative gibberish sound believable - to respond at all, guarantees that they often garner trusting followers like yourself by their intent. They Win.

It is necessary to expose their motives, then you can make up own mind who is the nasty one.

Faith is good for humanity, except when it maliciously misrepresents reality to allow the Power Mongers to stomp all over good people like you, even getting your support while they do so. Happens in Politics all the time too ....

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 07:54 PM

QUOTE
if i were to study deeply as you suggest,it is doubtful i would become an evolutionist since others much brighter than me have remained or become creationists.
UNQUOTE

They're not as bright as they have conned you into believing they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 07:50 PM

QUOTE
I think you'll find that Steve knowns that: you apparently, by your statements need to learn that Science is based on the Certainty of Uncertainty - refer to Heisenberg, discoverer of one of the very basic concepts in Science
UNQUOTE

Oh, and then you should perhaps contact Mr Schrödinger and ask about the health of his cat ... :-0

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 07:29 PM

The wonderful thing about science (speaking as an imaginary alien, looking down in admiration at us Earthlings, obsessed as we are with scientific endeavour) is that it relentlessly batters at the door of knowledge, and, when we break through that door, we find delight and edification in abundance, and our imagination is made to catch fire and burn bright. Science is disciplined but every scientist worth his or her salt is a maverick, untrammelled by received wisdom. Religion, on the other hand, ties people down into an abject word of stilted imagination and stunted intellect. You have already been given the answers, and any leeway you may think you have to ask questions is seriously ringfenced by doctrine, dogma, fear of the consequences of demurral, and that most bogus of all "disciplines", theology.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 07:04 PM

QUOTE
The Fooles Troupe

This statement reveals that you are unable to accept/deal with the fact, that unlike 'religion' or other 'blind faith ' approaches, Science is based on Uncertainty, not 'Faith'.

I think it's Steve you need to tell that, not me.
UNQUOTE

I think you'll find that Steve knowns that: you apparently, by your statements need to learn that Science is based on the Certainty of Uncertainty - refer to Heisenberg, discoverer of one of the very basic concepts in Science ...

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 02:01 PM

But, Lizzie, Darwin's main achievement had nothing to with rejecting God but everything to do with formulating the Theory of Evolution (it was the silly God Botherers that got all het up about the implications of the Theory for their religion). Not only that but Evolution was 'in the air' at the time. Remember that Alfred Russell Wallace developed a Theory of Evolution independently of Darwin and is usually credited as the co-discoverer of the Theory (I'm not sure what he thought about God).

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 12:44 PM

Actually, I find even more magic in understanding various amazing aspects of the universe than in just stating that it's magic and resigning myself to no understanding.

Want some magic? Read a bit about entangled particles and action at a distance. Pure mind-boggling magic. And won't it be exciting if we can figure out how the magic happens?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 11:32 AM

Page 387:

" Annie's cruel death destroyed Charle's tatters of belief in a moral, just universe. Later, he would say that this period chimed the final death-knell for his Christianity, even if it had been a long, drawn-out process of decay. He was also freer to hold his beliefs in the home. Through nine pregnancies, always difficult and dangerous, Emma had need the security of thinking that they belonged to each other for ever. With no more babies, the threat of separation lifted. They would certainly be together for many years to come. Charles now took his stand as an unbeliever."


Religious fanatics are as bonkers as any other type of fanatic. Religion is about control. For me though, 'God' is about something very different. Spirituality is all around us, unseen, untouchable, apart from the way in which we touch the souls of each other at times..

You cannot define everything in life, nor figure out how or why it works, how things happen as they sometimes do, with no logical or scientific explanation....



Bruce....can I borrow that mirror of yours please? I'm in dire need! ;0)

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 11:22 AM

I don't believe that the tragedy that Darwin experienced within his family would have changed his conclusions one iota!

As for what scientists believe, Lizzie, please re-read Steve Shaw's post of 27 Mar 11 - 8:29 PM (and ignore, for the purposes of this discussion, the stuff about Snail's slime gland ... although he does deserve to have something nasty shoved up it!).

Also consider the following:

Which group displays the most humility? Religious fundamentalists who believe that they know everything that is worth knowing about the Universe (it's all in the Bible!) or scientists who readily acknowledge that their understanding of the Universe will always be incomplete?

You might also like to contemplate an earlier question of mine about 'spirituality':

"Anyone care to define the 'spiritual world'? Does it exist within or outside of Nature? If it exists outside of Nature how are some people able to perceive it? If it is in 'another dimension' (please define 'another dimension')how are some people able to perceive it? Presumably, if some people are able to perceive the 'spiritual world' there must be a flow of information from that world to our world - how does that work?"

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TheSnail
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 11:09 AM

The Fooles Troupe

This statement reveals that you are unable to accept/deal with the fact, that unlike 'religion' or other 'blind faith ' approaches, Science is based on Uncertainty, not 'Faith'.

I think it's Steve you need to tell that, not me.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 11:00 AM

Ah yes, but....had Darwin's daughter survived, then who knows what folks would believe...?

I think, with losing belief in a God, whomsoever your God may be, we lost far more than just our belief....

World seems a poorer place without Spirituality, to me at least...

Shimmy, seems to me that many Scientists get awful angry about so many things, especially things that can't be proved, one way or t'other..but then heck, what do I know, being a Wifty Wafty Old Faery... ;0)

I have a very, VERY big book about Darwin...by Adrian Desmond and James Moore..Near on 700 pages, then almost another 200 of Notes, Abbreviations, Bibliography etc...PHEW!

I like the pictures best though......

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TheSnail
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 10:56 AM

Steve Shaw

Once and fer all. Darwin's theory is a scientific proposition which is constantly and healthily vulnerable to modification. The amount of evidence gathered in support of it since Darwin's day has utterly overwhelmed any potential there ever was for overturning the theory. It will not be overturned in its main thrusts, though of course details will always have to be tweaked as more evidence accumulates.

That sounds like a fair summary of the current status of the theory of evolution.

Chucking off my lab-coat and turning all philosophicalish, I am asserting that evolution is the true story describing life on this planet. If anyone disputes that, let's have the evidence. There simply isn't any and there won't be any. If you don't like my saying that evolution is true, then tell me something that is true. Or truer. There is nothing. You agree that we scrub the word "true" from the dictionary and I'll find another word, I promise.

Evolution is the natural process by which changes take place in populations of living organisms to produce modified or new species. It is not something that the word "true" can be applied to. It is not the description or the story, it is the thing itself. You might as well say "climate is true", "gestation is true", "spaghetti bolognese" is true. It makes as much sense as "Evolution is purple".

Now, slug, that is my last word on this. Test me on it again and I will stuff something very nasty indeed right up your slime gland.

The trademark Shaw sign off.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 10:26 AM

Lizzie,

I don't think that Darwin EVER set out to prove that God didn't exist. For a start, as a scientist, he would have known that you can't prove a negative (absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence!).

Although I am thrilled by the wonder and beauty of existence every day I'm also enthralled by the insights that science can give us into its workings.

On the other hand I'm most definitely not impressed by airy fairy waffle about God, wilfully ignorant people chiding me for knowing more than they do, make-it-up-as-you-go-along bullshit or pious claptrap!

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 08:17 AM

I always felt sorry for Darwin. To lose a child is the hardest thing in the world, puts all the Natural Order out of order, so I guess I understood why he then wanted to prove that God didn't exist....Hard to hold on to your Faith when all around seems so utterly bleak...

However, I bet when Darwin first held his daughter in his arms, that very first moment, he may well have felt he'd been touched by God, or something spiritual, because hell, that's how I felt....such a miracle is Life...

Now of course, The Scientific Ones will tell me about eggs and bacon and sperm and toast, and how all mixed together, along with a little wine, can sometimes result in the same thing...but you know, just for amoment there, when that brand new tiny hand wraps around your finger, all scientific explanation is utterly insignificant...

I don't want to learn about the Death of a star, because I see the magic within them. I don't even want to know how my TV works, because that's magic too...or rather, magical...It's all just so exciting....Whereas if I sat there thinking, as I watched, that this was happening purely because of science...well, it would be a bigger turn-off than turning the TV off...

Water coming out of the tap? Magical!
Birds singing? Magical!
Sunshine and Shadows? Magical!

To dance in the sparkles of Magical Thinking sometimes brings far more excitement than having almost having sex with a test tube... ;0)

Bunsen Burners never did it for me....

And when I came in one Monday morning to find my dear little gerbil, the one I talked to and cared for at school, pinned to the board as Monday's Lesson, well, that kinda put me off those with Scientific Minds forever, because I loved that little fella, and I'd tucked him up safe and warm on Friday evening before I went home, told him to have a good weekend...and he went and died..and instead of him having a spiritual little funeral with buttercups and daises growing on his grave, he ended up like that.....It was horrific...I left the class...went and talked to the Hooded Rats instead, told them what had happened...(they looked a little worried!) and I told them to not die, whatever they did...

As far as God goes, I love it that he made it that no Scientist on earth can either prove or disprove his existence, or tell us where the Big Bang came from and what was there before it...Kinda tells me God has a rollicking good sense of humour.. ;0)

Anyway, I'm off out into my garden now, where God is most definitely hanging around...so much beauty...and I may just see Beloved and Adored, my two wood pigeons, or Nutty, my squirrel, all of whom reassure me that somewhere.....'out there'.....is.................

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 07:54 AM

"Thinking is a bit uncomfortable, but you'll get used to it; a matter of time and practice."

--Lloyd Alexander

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 05:06 AM

pete,

You have just confirmed, yet again, what we have all known all along, that you are wilfully ignorant. This is a stance that, I personally, find deeply unattractive and contemptible; it is a perverse and pointless stance to take. Because you insist on taking such a stance, you should not be surprised to encounter animosity and hostility. You are like a naughty child sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting, "la, la, la, la, la" because his parent has told him that he has to eat up his greens because they're good for him.

And, Snail, have you stopped taking your mono-mania pills? For God's (whoever he is) sake give it a rest!!! Add something useful to the debate or piss off!

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 08:29 PM

Once and fer all. Darwin's theory is a scientific proposition which is constantly and healthily vulnerable to modification. The amount of evidence gathered in support of it since Darwin's day has utterly overwhelmed any potential there ever was for overturning the theory. It will not be overturned in its main thrusts, though of course details will always have to be tweaked as more evidence accumulates. Chucking off my lab-coat and turning all philosophicalish, I am asserting that evolution is the true story describing life on this planet. If anyone disputes that, let's have the evidence. There simply isn't any and there won't be any. If you don't like my saying that evolution is true, then tell me something that is true. Or truer. There is nothing. You agree that we scrub the word "true" from the dictionary and I'll find another word, I promise. Now, slug, that is my last word on this. Test me on it again and I will stuff something very nasty indeed right up your slime gland.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 07:59 PM

QUOTE
You can't repeat what you haven't said and you have still not answered the question, "What do you mean by 'Evolution is true'"?

If you believe you have, simply point me to the relevant post. Why do you have a problem with that?
UNQUOTE

This statement reveals that you are unable to accept/deal with the fact, that unlike 'religion' or other 'blind faith ' approaches, Science is based on Uncertainty, not 'Faith'. There are NO HARD RULES! This is very disturbing to many people, they have a animal need to attack & destroy such uncertainty. Even that 'gravity' may not work everywhere is accepted by Real Scientists.

"simply point me to the relevant post"

hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Hundreds of posts, that you don't understand, haven't accepted in the past and won't accept now. I am sad for you.....

"if it were strictly science the mockers would not be venting their anger on me-or anyone else who even suggests there might be God!"

Precisely my previous point "the totally uneducated/ignorant with a faith based drum to beat, waltz in and stomp all over a discussion where they are, from their manner and words, clearly out of their depth, and refuse to educate themselves into the context because their infallible invisible magic sky fairy uses the terms in an incompatible different way, they throw abuse around and put down those goddam stupid scientists" started the mocking in order, not to gain personal enlightenment, but to play Power Dominance Games, by attacking the people saying things that upset them. The Deity Botherers are the worst Power Players in a discussion on Science (since they have a need to 'know all the answers' and Science does NOT know 'all the answers', but is trying to not reject new things, which the Deity Botherers ARE), further, they are not the slightest interested in 'Science', their motives are much more basic and selfish than that.

Scientists LIVE WITH CONSTANT UNCERTAINTY, that any currently accepted concept will be overturned, and NEW CONCEPTS found. This gives those who need to cling onto simple unchanging ideas (Religion is only one, political concepts are another), great conniptions and Brain Fugue. The Deity Botherers NEED to shut down new ideas, other than their own, of course - that's why it is only a Power Game, not Science, they are into.

Sadly, Man's early attempts to explain the world around him through guesswork and 'divine inspiration', while not totally un-useful in the past, tend to hinder the acceptance of any new contradicting concept. Certain people are fearful in response and will do all they can to destroy the people who say those upsetting ideas.

Growth creates Structure: Structure inhibits Growth. Ask any tree.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 07:43 PM

Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie...

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TheSnail
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 06:22 PM

Steve Shaw

I haven't got from now 'til eternity, and in any case I'd only be repeating myself.

You can't repeat what you haven't said and you have still not answered the question, "What do you mean by 'Evolution is true'"?

If you believe you have, simply point me to the relevant post. Why do you have a problem with that?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 05:53 PM

(Pete blinks innocently and grins gormlessly...)

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 03:58 PM

tia-thanks to you too.
i guess the answer you give me is that there is no answer that is accessable to the ignorant like myself.
at least you do so without the animosity of other evolutionists on this thread.
i am posting because it is a philosophical/spiritual debate.if it were strictly science the mockers would not be venting their anger on me-or anyone else who even suggests there might be God!
if i were to study deeply as you suggest,it is doubtful i would become an evolutionist since others much brighter than me have remained or become creationists.
you may reject their arguments but they do answer questions and they are usually understandable to me.i,ve not been told by them i need to study years to get an answer to a question.
however tia,in your case i,m sure no ill will/condesention is intended. best wishes pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 06:37 AM

To put that quote in proper context, as displayed by the anti-Science attitudes displayed by some here on Mudcat, the AnonTroll saying that is standing with the shotgun cradled in both arms, wearing the reflective sunnies, and the foot on the neck of Science...

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 11:52 PM

"W   hat weha ve her e i sa fai lu re to co m munic ate."

from the flick, "Cool Hand Luke".

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 11:05 PM

"To truly understand the answer to your question, be prepared to do some background learning in genetics, embryology, forensic and cultural anthropology, forensic dentistry, biostratigraphy, radiometric dating, and on and on. It has taken me many years of formal education and a lifetime of reading to arrive at my current understanding. I wish you great luck, and excitement on your intellectual journey. Now get started - you have a lot of work to do."

Yep years, mate... but of course the hob nail booted brainwashed bigoted dumbo rude trolls with an axe to grind, already think they know all the answers from their infallible magic invisible sky fairy, and just won't listen or waste the time studying like you and me and many others have...

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 10:43 AM

pete,

The question you ask is so broad and so basic. What are the connections between apes and humans? I think it is one that you need to research for yourself. It is easy to Google, but I encourage you to try to get back to original sources and research rather than believing online summaries by people with (sometimes hidden, sometimes obvious) agendas. You can, of course, try Wikipedia on Human Evolution, but follow the links to original books and journal articles.

If you are really only looking for the short answer (which you won't believe, and will only use to pose new time-consuming questions), just read this summary:
http://www.antiquityofman.com/ape-human.html

But, if you really want to delve into it, Arizona State, the BBC and U. Cal. have put together an interactive documentary/website with TONS of info, and many links back to original sources.
http://www.becominghuman.org/

To truly understand the answer to your question, be prepared to do some background learning in genetics, embryology, forensic and cultural anthropology, forensic dentistry, biostratigraphy, radiometric dating, and on and on. It has taken me many years of formal education and a lifetime of reading to arrive at my current understanding. I wish you great luck, and excitement on your intellectual journey. Now get started - you have a lot of work to do.

And thanks again for the polite and fascinating discussion.

Best Regards,

TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 08:17 AM

pete,

For the "links between apes and men" see my previous comment which I reproduce below:

"From what I've read, GfS, there was no "radical jump from apes to sophisticated tool makers" (note that contemporary apes, like chimpanzees, use tools). The evolution of Anatomically Modern Humans (AMHs) in Africa was a long and complex (and still incompletely understood) story stretching over, at least, 8 million years. For details see Stephen Oppenheimer's 'Out of Africa: The Peopling if the World' (2004). There were many "in betweens" but they all became extinct for the usual reasons why species become extinct*. In fact WE almost became extinct at one point."

Previously unknown species of extinct fossil hominids (upright apes) seem to turn up in Africa at pretty regular intervals. A summary of this data, at least up to 2003/4, is contained in the prologue to Oppenheimer's book. He admits that the exact links between these creatures have not yet been fully worked out (but that's cool - we're talking about Science here not 'faith' and superstition).

So if you're going to maintain any credibility in this debate, pete, you're going to have to do some reading (and not just creationist literature).

* Mainly the effects of changing climate on habitat.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 07:46 AM

"Let's agree on a common language before the discussion even begins."

It's hard enough for scientists even in the same field to agree on definitions/meaning of terms: context conflicts can easily occur between disciplines.

But when the totally uneducated/ignorant with a faith based drum to beat, waltz in and stomp all over a discussion where they are, from their manner and words, clearly out of their depth, and refuse to educate themselves into the context because their infallible invisible magic sky fairy uses the terms in an incompatible different way, they throw abuse around and put down those goddam stupid scientists... well it's at least laughable.

And they wonder why they get ridiculed, or ignored....

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 07:45 AM

tia-could you tell me what the links are that you posit between apes and men?.interested pete.

gfs-i think "replenish"occuring in the kin g james bible did not mean what it does now.i prefer the KJV but more recent versions translate from the hebrew without the "re"prefix to "fill"
some people believed in a gap theory,partly as a misreading of their of that word,and wanting to incorporate long ages to appease "science";a futile exercise IMO.

To the mockers-i dont know anyone testifying to a sky fairy.no shortage of believers in God though
a dishonest analogy,i suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 07:10 AM

TIA has a sound approach to this issue and TIA, I'm sure, will take me on if I say anything worth taking on. I love constructive challenges to my idiocy. As for your post being challenging, the only challenging thing about you is that you will never be content with anything I ever say and, frankly, I haven't got from now 'til eternity, and in any case I'd only be repeating myself. I'm not Keith, you know. I have bikes to ride, grass to cut, wild flowers to admire.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 06:16 AM

Steve Shaw

Well how can I follow that litany of utter wackiness.

I'm sorry you found my post a bit challenging. How are you doing with TIA's post of "25 Mar 11 - 06:02 PM"?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 07:13 PM

The Foole's Troupe makes an excellent and vivid analogy above. Yes, just imagine me waltzing my Matilda into a Bahai study group (picked them 'cause I know the word, but nothing about them...sorry Bahais), and started using their words to mean things they don't and characterizing them as dummies or idealogues because they don't understand the way I just made up to use these words, and I create straw men (using these new meanings) to kick the shit out of, and accuse them of prejudice because they don't immediately relent and say "okay we've been wrong all along...thanks for straightening us out".

Yup, lots of talking past each other in this thread.
Let's agree on a common language before the discussion even begins.

Oh, and to answer Shimrod on spirituality...yes, what is it? And what assertions can it make?...and are they testable? I prefer to stay out of all that, because I crave testability. But don't misunderstand that - I don't crave absolute truth. Great quote from Matt Cartwright (Anthropologist at Duke U):

"As a young man, I craved certainty, so I became a scientist. That's a bit like becoming a bishop to meet girls".

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 07:01 PM

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth" ...That would seem to indicate, in the word 'replenish', that the earth was populated before, and depopulated and starting over. "

Folk Memory handed down. You really know almost nothing about Science ---- 'Man' was nearly wiped out, the numbers falling to a very small pool that was almost on the point of losing genetic diversity - almost died out entirely.

If somebody unknown, with no training in your religion, waltzed into your church and started lecturing your congregation that your group knew nothing of what they were talking about and were all wrong, you'd give them the same short shift that some of the people educated in Science who you claim to have 'attacked you' have displayed....

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 07:00 PM

Anyone care to define the 'spiritual world'? Does it exist within or outside of Nature? If it exists outside of Nature how are some people able to perceive it? If it is in 'another dimension' (please define 'another dimension')how are some people able to perceive it? Presumably, if some people are able to perceive the 'spiritual world' there must be a flow of information from that world to our world - how does that work?

You see anyone can ask lots of questions! I think you'll find that Science can provide lots of answers to the questions that you have posed, GfS (see TIA's excellent post above) and where it doesn't have answers - well, it doesn't have answers yet (and, in some cases, may never have answers).

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 06:02 PM

Really?
Let's revisit that post.
-------
As far as Darwinism, where is the middle link between apes and humans?..shouldn't there be some sort of middle species? Why the leap?.. with nothing in between?

@@ There are plenty, and here you are talking about a time span that is well-dated to about 6 million years, as opposed to the 10,000 years or less covered by your later rise-and-fall of civilzations post. Not the same subject at all.

Wouldn't they be higher up on the food chain, or evolutionary process, than our normal cat of hairy primates?

@@ Depends on what else is evolving in the same habitat. Creatures on the bottom of the food chain evolve too. Sometimes evolution may create progeny that occupy a different niche in the food chain than their distant ancestors. We do. We are apex predators now. Our distant ancestors were little furry vegetarians that got probably got et regularly.

Where did they go?

@@ Some lines where not as successful, and died out. Others continued (and may continue) to evolve.

Why the radical jump from apes to sophisticated tool makers?..with nothing in between?

@@ Gradual change over 6 million years is hardly a radical jump, and the process is pretty well documented by lots of "in betweens" - although more are always better, and the search continues.

I'm sure, as a scientist, wouldn't that be worth gathering information about?

@@ As I said, the search continues. In science, an endless string of unanswered questions is revealed by the answering (provisionally) of one.

I mean, isn't science the gathering of information?

@@ Plus the altering of Theories to incorporate that new information. But new information is mercilessly challenged. Truth can withstand this assault. Nonsense eventually is driven away.

Why jump to conclusions with so many unanswered questions?

@@ No jumping is involved - it usually happens very slowly (ask Alfred Wegener...oops, he's dead, damn). And the spot that is landed upon is always open to demolition by the new answers to currently unanswered questions.

Why turn 'theory' into fact, with so much unexplained?

@@ You are using "theory" in a completely different way than it is defined in science. Theories are very well-supported explanations of a body of facts. Gravity is a fact (drop your axe if you don't believe me), but the Theory of gravity is the worst in all of science. It sucks (haha). There is no good "Theory of Gravity". But gravity is still a fact (we need more proof...drop it again).

and has science delved into the possibilities of other dimensions that could be affecting this dimension

@@ Oh Yes. Go Google Multiverse Theory

and have all the answers, to draw conclusions, that rule out those possibilities?

@@ Sorry, you lost me on that one, but it's okay.

In that case, all one can draw a partial conclusion from is partial information...wouldn't you say?

@@ Yes! Double Yes!! We will always have partial information. That is why all scientific hypotheses and theories and even facts are provisional. They will ony stand up until (and if) new information comes along to force their abandonment...happens all the time, and people get really famous doing just that. It is the dream of every scientist to turn the science world on its head. But when you try to, you will be met by merciless scrutiny. This makes the whole process self-correcting, and the results as reliable as any way of the understanding the *natural* world. Spiritual world is awhole 'nother ballgame that science cannot address. But make a testable assertion about anything, and Here Come the Scientists!

Hope that helps. You might see that I agree with you on several (many?) things about this subject, but would like to have a conversation about it using terms the way they are defined, and the way they are used in science. Otherwise we don't even know what we are discussing, and everyone talks right past everyone else. LOTS of that going on here.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 01:04 PM

I have to be very brief, because I have to go to town, right now, but I wanted to point out, that fossils and the rest, are not inconsistent with what I posted. Again, you are working from the ASSUMPTION, that I was referring to the creationist interpretation, commonly taught in certain fundamental Christian, and Jewish churches. What is in the Bible regarding a 'time-line' in you will, is.. 'day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day' ....so that might offer a little bit of a leeway as to how long things took place. Another thing to consider, is that there is some evidence, that this was NOT the first time the earth, has been populated, and its civilizations destroyed. That IS consistent, though, with the very last versus of the New Testament, that ends with the 'creation' of a 'new heaven and a new earth'. In the first book, of the Bible, when 'God' is creating man, it says, "        And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth" ...That would seem to indicate, in the word 'replenish', that the earth was populated before, and depopulated and starting over. This in itself is not taught, so much, in the fundamental teachings of Christianity, but is however, consistent with prior civilizations, who had 'died off'. This is consistent, too, with archeological finds.
So, before, I gotta run, how would the writers(s) of the Old Testament either thought to include that phrase, being as it is a pretty unusual statement?
that being said, I'm NOT saying that everything in the Bible should be taken literally, as certain fundamentalists, teach, as doctrine...nor should the assumption be made, that I am a fundamentalist religious proselytizer. I am not. Along with that, certain things from possibly another dimension, COULD be seen as 'spiritual'..depending on how one would define 'spiritual'...maybe just unseen, by this dimension....and THAT would be the crux of my prior post, and what science is able to compile, as data.

Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 08:58 AM

As Iron Chariots puts it:
-----snip-----
The argument that there are gaps in the fossil record, used by apologists, basically amounts to a claim that there are no transitional forms between the transitional forms we've already discovered.

This argument

1.misunderstands what constitutes a transitional feature.
2.ignores the large number of fossils found.
3.denies the transitions those fossils represent.
4.is ignorant of the fossilization process.
5.creates an expectation of accuracy far beyond what is necessary to illustrate transition.
6.dismisses definitive examples of transitional forms, focusing on the ones that remain undiscovered.
7.theoretically moves the goalposts every time a "gap" is filled, as **each discovery of a transitional form creates two new gaps**.
8.is profoundly ignorant of the mechanisms of evolution itself.
-----snip-----

emphasis in pt. 7 added by TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 07:13 AM

As with Steve, the manipulation of historical events, and the use of manipulating those things, have soured his outlook on considering the possibility of a God, or at least anything spiritual. He was probably a 'good' Catholic...but, for every re-action, there is an equal re-action..and that's one reason he has chosen this posture. The act of being sarcastic, is just a method to mask, the effects of his personal disillusionment....and after he comes back with some idiotic punky reply, perhaps, when you get off the computer, and lay your little head down on the pillow, you might just have to turn some of this over. I'm sure it may be troubling to you, but I'm sure you have your more serious moments, in which you may consider the things that haunt you. But, alas, the very thing that he embraced, that now he is re-acting to, in the negative, still has a hold on him....otherwise, you wouldn't even be concerned!....Don't forget, they also told you NOT to listen to anything about God, that didn't come from the 'Church'.. so, in affect, you still are believing in what they taught you...no matter how far you rebel, and pursue your own 'pleasures'. Fair enough?

"Fair enough?" How would I know? The whole thing is completely incoherent.

As far as Darwinism, where is the middle link between apes and humans?..shouldn't there be some sort of middle species? Why the leap?.. with nothing in between? Wouldn't they be higher up on the food chain, or evolutionary process, than our normal cat of hairy primates?
Where did they go? Why the radical jump from apes to sophisticated tool makers?..with nothing in between?

A couple of things. Darwin himself tussled with this question. I suggest you read him to see what he had to say. You show no signs of having yet done so. Next, fossilisation is an exceptionally rare event, considering the sheer numbers of living things. Early humans/hominids commonly did not live in places conducive to fossilisation. But we do have a pretty convincing, though incomplete, sequence of fossil evidence which confirms that humans evolved in line with evolutionary theory. Next, along with most other ignoramuses who like to cast aspersions at the theory, you don't understand what you're talking about. Humans did not undergo a "leap", or even a crawl, from apes. Humans and apes evolved along their own separate lines from a common ancestor. Finally, let's suppose in a moment of fantasy that we've found complete fossils of two early humans, one a few thousand years older than the other, the only single difference being that one had a big toe 2mm longer than the other. You'd be jumping up and down complaining how terrible the theory was because we didn't have one with a toe size in between. Stick to telling people how to sing, or go and form a nice singing duo with Pete. I hear he's rather good, and he sings your kind of songs, ones which cast Daily Sport-type doubts on "evolutionism."

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 06:41 AM

"And remember, science cannot prove that the tooth fairy (or anything else) does *not* exist. "

For exactly the same Philosophical Reason that they cannot be proved to exist. But Philostogen was proved by Science to not exist ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 06:24 AM

QUOTE
Foolish Toupee: "Get the F@ing name right if you want respect D#head!"

I'm not concerned with getting your respect, as much as YOUR need for it! I think you are projecting your need for it, perhaps, because you may have issues, in that matter. I'd suggest giving up resenting people who've got you clocked. Just because one may see the 'you' in you, doesn't mean they all dislike it, as much as you do. Lighten up.
UNQUOTE

F.O.A D. Ignorant rude C***!

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 06:22 AM

"matter received consciousness, or love, or could procreate"

They NEVER DID. This is not 'Science', but 'Magic' and total bullshit.

The brain works purely because of its structure, not any magic externally endowed on it (especially by some mythical magical invisible sky fairy!).

It's called 'emergent behavior'. Superstition, Magic, and Religion do not, and can not and will not understand this elegant answer.

Google the phrase 'emergent behavior' and learn from the many entries revealed... or shut up and stop making a fool of yourself with your bigoted ignorance.

QUOTE
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_behavior
UNQUOTE

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 06:06 AM

From what I've read, GfS, there was no "radical jump from apes to sophisticated tool makers" (note that contemporary apes, like chimpanzees, use tools). The evolution of Anatomically Modern Humans (AMHs) in Africa was a long and complex (and still incompletely understood) story stretching over, at least, 8 million years. For details see Stephen Oppenheimer's "Out of Africa: The Peopling if the World" (2004). There were many "in betweens" but they all became extinct for the usual reasons why species become extinct. In fact WE almost became extinct at one point.

Existence is chock full of mysteries, unexplained phenomena and possibilities (do you think that I don't wonder about these things and speculate about them?) but I don't think that there's any merit in elevating mysteries and possibilities into facts without proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 05:38 AM

I'm not into proselytizing, but, proof?....How about, you are alive, aren't you?..and as a scientist, I'm sure you are familiar with 'Energy can not be created nor destroyed', but possibly change forms. So at what time do you reckon, matter received consciousness, or love, or could procreate? Where did all that come from?
As far as Darwinism, where is the middle link between apes and humans?..shouldn't there be some sort of middle species? Why the leap?.. with nothing in between? Wouldn't they be higher up on the food chain, or evolutionary process, than our normal cat of hairy primates?
Where did they go? Why the radical jump from apes to sophisticated tool makers?..with nothing in between?
I'm sure, as a scientist, wouldn't that be worth gathering information about?..I mean, isn't science the gathering of information? Why jump to conclusions with so many unanswered questions? Why turn 'theory' into fact, with so much unexplained?..and has science delved into the possibilities of other dimensions that could be affecting this dimension, and have all the answers, to draw conclusions, that rule out those possibilities? In that case, all one can draw a partial conclusion from is partial information...wouldn't you say?

Reasonably Respectful,

GfS