BS: Alternative to Science??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 06:42 PM

The God that I am referring to, GfS, is the sentient super-being who pete and his ilk believe created the universe. By the way, it's interesting to speculate whether pete's super-being created the whole universe - or just our tiny little corner of it. I imagine (although, I confess that I haven't read much of it) that the Bible doesn't contain many references to supernovae, super massive black holes, galactic clusters, exoplanets, Jovian moons, the heliopause, dark matter, dark energy or red giants. I wonder why He left all of that out when He dictated the Bible to whoever he dictated it to?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 07:19 PM

New God

Who REALLY done it!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 08:02 PM

Steve and Goofus FFS stop using the words "belief" and "believe" in your futile attempts to portray science as a belief or faith system.

I am not so pompous that I disdain from being bracketed with "Goofus", but I would thank you, Don, to refrain from describing me as someone who sees science as some sort of belief system. I think (and it is late at night) that you have the wrong man, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 08:47 PM

Now, Gfs, it should be fair for us to ask you to describe God, in the form in which you know Him (I'm just using the gender-specific noun out of habit) to exist. Please do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 08:52 PM

He won't be able to unless God is out there with the fairies too.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 09:48 PM

Don(Wyziwyg)T: "Steve and Goofus FFS stop using the words "belief" and "believe" in your futile attempts to portray science as a belief or faith system."

Steve Pshaw: "I am not so pompous that I disdain from being bracketed with "Goofus", but I would thank you, Don, to refrain from describing me as someone who sees science as some sort of belief system. I think (and it is late at night) that you have the wrong man, Don."



From: something about 'beliefs' in here....
"Kepler's Supernova

According to Walusinsky,[82] Galileo's fame as an astronomer dates to his observation and discussion of Kepler's supernova in 1604. Since this new star displayed no detectable diurnal parallax, Galileo concluded that it was a distant star, and therefore disproved the Aristotelian BELIEF in the immutability of the heavens. His public advocacy of this view met with strong opposition."

Spot the magic word??...YES, science does have it's 'bouts' with 'beliefs'.....

OH, and by the way...."According to Stephen Hawking, Galileo probably bears more of the responsibility for the birth of modern science than anybody else,[151] and Albert Einstein called him the father of modern science."

You mean he saw through the old science, 'Aristotelian BELIEF in the immutability of the heavens'...my my!
maybe we have yet to discover that YOU believe in an 'old system' as well!

As i mentioned before, and is said in the video.."This is where science and the 'spiritual' come together in a most profound way". I didn't make it up...The scientist said it!
But you're 'too hip' for the room.

(still grinning!)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 12 - 06:43 AM

Even scientists can be twats, Goofo. I wonder how much your lot got paid for making that video.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Nov 12 - 10:41 AM

Well, if you wonder..go find out!
Sorta like 'wondering' about your outdated, obsolete mindset which is being replaced with a newer science...but you won't want to find out why..because you're a fraud!~

People who IGNORE usually are IGNORANT!
In your case, this is self evident.
Ignorant, and proud of it!!

You really should consider finding out the latest in science..that is if you insist on spouting off, as if you are up on something..you ain't.
So you revert back to your hate and resentment tactics..which in all, reality is quite boring!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Nov 12 - 11:45 AM

" ... Galileo concluded that it was a distant star, and therefore disproved the Aristotelian BELIEF in the immutability of the heavens."

So the new evidence that Galileo gathered overturned an older belief system ... happens all the time in science ... so what's your point, Video Boy?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Nov 12 - 12:00 PM

You obviously did not read the posts I was replying to..which, of course, indicative of people who spout off, and don't know what their talking about....as most all your posts in this thread clearly show, Nimrod!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 24 Nov 12 - 01:02 PM

First, I am gratified that "my" thread has survived so long. Now...

The cure for polio was developed and thoroughly challenged by scientists through the use of the scientific *process.* What other *process* might have been used to come to the same end/ Please show your work.

Computers were developed through the use of the scientific process, and they obviously work, or we wouldn't be "here" discussing it. What other process might have returned the same end, and how would such *process* have led us there? Please show your work.

Various pshychotropic meds (which some of those here should remember to TAKE AS DIRECTED) were similarly developed and improved upon by the scientific process of inquiry. What other *process* might have been used to come to the same end? Please show your work.

And so on...

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Nov 12 - 01:55 PM

Saulgoldie: "Various pshychotropic meds (which some of those here should remember to TAKE AS DIRECTED) were similarly developed and improved upon by the scientific process of inquiry. What other *process* might have been used to come to the same end? Please show your work."

Well, you've sure shown yours!
He can stay stable enough to type!

GfS

P.S. Saul, all teasing aside, i posted a link, DIRECTLY on topic...and these buffoons have gone bonkers trying to discredit it...WITHOUT EVEN SEEING IT!!
They have NO idea what it is about..and in the link, and during the research, they came across some information that, as they said, "opened up a whole new field of science"...
They are NOT interested in discussing any of it, however, just because the link, had to do with the Shroud of Turin, they think they got it ALL figured out...and because the name 'Jesus' is attached to the shroud, they are having conniption fits....
The study was NOT undertaken to underline ANY religious beliefs, but was initiated by a physicist at Sandia Laboratories .

The study attracted scientists from all over the globe, (which they show you), AND Ray Downing from Macbeth Studios, who does special effects and computer animations for the film industry. In the course of wanting to 'reconstruct' the image of the shroud to be as close as the person on the shroud looked like, and with all the new technology, he undertook the task. Along the way, there was a hurdle to cross...and that was, to reconstruct the image, he and crew, and the scientists from Sandia, had to figure how HOW the image was made.
In the course of that task, they came across data that 'opened up a whole new area in science, that blew everyone's mind. To say the least, it was an interesting video link!!!
They were NOT promoting or trying to prove ANY preconceived notions, in regards to the shroud.

Steve and Nimrod just have a phobia, in regards to the hangover they got while being traumatized by religion when they were younger...and now that they have 'adopted' their 'anti-capitalism' stance, they've also 'adopted' the mindset that there is NOTHING outside their 'utopian' delusion....no matter how much they are getting the crap kicked out of 'em!

It's elementary, Watson.

Maybe you could spare Nimrod and Steve of those meds!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Nov 12 - 02:09 PM

"Galileo ...disproved the Aristotelian BELIEF in the immutability of the heavens.

"According to Stephen Hawking, Galileo probably bears more of the responsibility for the birth of modern science than anybody else,[151] and Albert Einstein called him the father of modern science."

So, put that together: The Aristotelian BELIEF in question was formulated before the birth of modern science ; it therefore has nothing whatever to do with whether modern science is in any way based on BELIEF.

Nice try, Gfs.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Nov 12 - 02:55 PM

The video that GfS refers to was in several parts and made according to a particularly irritating tele-visual formula. I watched the first part but was so annoyed with the f***ing thing that I think that I would have smashed my computer monitor if I'd had to watch any more! GfS ORDERED us to watch it in order to make some unknown point (incidentally, I don't follow orders!). He, of course, must have sat through it and could have summarised the f***ing thing much earlier. But he has finally got round to summarising it - so I have no reason to watch it now! Ha!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: sciencegeek
Date: 24 Nov 12 - 03:17 PM

First, I am gratified that "my" thread has survived so long.

Saul... survived? as what? certainly not as rational discussion between differing viewpoints....

you just asked for some "proof" or documentation for a non-scientific method of re-creating scientific achievement... well, it ain't gonna happen.

the best you'll get will be testimonials touting some untestable nonsense... like faith healing or miracles.

the only thing this thread has demonstrated is that "faith" is very resistant to "reason"...

to paraphrase Obiwan... "Who's the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool who argues with him?"

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Nov 12 - 03:28 PM

Bullshit, Nimrod..I didn't 'order' you do do anything, other than to stop making such a bloody ass of yourself. You watched a very small part, which somehow you've ordained yourself an expert!
If you don't want to watch it, fine..but shut up about that which you know nothing about!..(Gosh, do you think that leaves anything?).
Let people decide themselves, or allow them to do any other research that they wish, without your biased poop d'jour!
SOME people ARE capable. Maybe it's your mindset that everybody needs a mini tyrant telling them what and what not to do!!!

Froggie: "So, put that together: The Aristotelian BELIEF in question was formulated before the birth of modern science ; it therefore has nothing whatever to do with whether modern science is in any way based on BELIEF."

New things come up all the time in which the 'old' beliefs in science(and religion) are needed to revise or implement a flaw.
Today's 'new' is tomorrow's 'old'.
If scientists find something that is a whole new field, should we disregard it because it's not the older 'modern science'?
Science is just the gathering of data in an organized manner. A hypothesis is an educated 'hunch'.
'Dogma' is what Steve and Nimrod are pushing down everyone's throats, due to their lack of pursuing anything furthering.
New fields of science, is usually fomented by the discovery of an area usually overlooked because of old 'dogma' OR a new set of data, that blows the lid off a subject not yet broached.
Wouldn't you agree?

Besides, my Karma just ran over their 'Dogma'!
(Maybe it's time to get a new one!).

BTW, their findings also changes how people may perceive spiritual matters as well..maybe even re-defines it!!

GfS

P.S. Think quantum!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Nov 12 - 05:00 PM

"If scientists find something that is a whole new field, should we disregard it because it's not the older 'modern science'?"

No! Who ever said that we should?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Nov 12 - 05:34 PM

""Steve and Goofus FFS stop using the words "belief" and "believe"""

OOOps! My sincerest apologies for that vile calumny Steve.

It was indeed very late at night and that post should have said Pete and Goofus, to whom I make NO apology.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Nov 12 - 05:40 PM

""Spot the magic word??...YES, science does have it's 'bouts' with 'beliefs'.....""

NO!   Science does not. Outsiders wjho attempt to describe that process should, bu t often don't, choose their words more carefully.

Scientists don't say "I believe". They say "The evidence suggests".

They are not responsible for the ways in which others, including you, twist their words to serve a different agenda, or sometimes in innocent error.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Nov 12 - 05:57 PM

""In the course of that task, they came across data that 'opened up a whole new area in science, that blew everyone's mind. To say the least, it was an interesting video link!!!
They were NOT promoting or trying to prove ANY preconceived notions, in regards to the shroud.""

I have now waded through that whole link from start to finish, and I'm not grateful to Goofus for providing one the most unedifying experiences of my life.

What he refers to as a whole new area of science, is in fact a turgid mess of speculation, guesswork and just plain fantasy. The conclusions drawn are wholly unsupported by anything other than the faith of those "scientists" in their collective pipe dream.

Thanks for nothing Goofus! And you call us ignorant.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Nov 12 - 08:22 PM

So I'm looking at the posts...and I have to ask...Don, do you have a stuttering problem?....Senility???


Just wondering..you keep repeating yourself.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Nov 12 - 11:12 PM

a whole new area in science
a whole new area in science
a whole new area in science
a whole new area in science
a whole new area in science
a whole new area in science

Gfs, do you have a stuttering problem?....Senility???


Just wondering..you keep repeating yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Nov 12 - 11:52 PM

I just wasn't sure if either some of the 'box of rocks' couldn't read..or comprehend.

Maybe they should have just watch the flick...and stop bitching about what they won't/can't understand!....but then, even a jack hammer has to hit the surface repeatedly to get through...I mean THEY are the ones doing the whining...over stupidity.


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 04:56 AM

I've come to the conclusion, GfS, that you're some sort of masochist. You've had several severe beatings now (all of them richly deserved) but you keep coming back for more. Perhaps, though, it's a case of, as my old Mum used to say: "Where there's no sense, there's no feeling!"

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: number 6
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 09:27 AM

an alternative to Science ??

hmmmm

how about ... witchcraft !

biLL ... :)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 10:24 AM

No brain, no pain. That's how I recall it...

This thread can never be sorted because some people put labels that require philosophical debates with no outcome to resolve. For instance; if you accept a scientific suggestion for why something happens to be, there are those who would say, perhaps in good faith, that you believe it to be a fact.

Now... That brings belief into the equation.... Which puts a conclusion from the evidence at the same level as fairy stories, magic and clinging to a comfort blanket.

You're buggered if you even try to rationalise it.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 10:39 AM

For instance; if you accept a scientific suggestion for why something happens to be, there are those who would say, perhaps in good faith, that you believe it to be a fact.

Well I suppose some people might put it that way. I wouldn't automatically assume that they're bringing faith into the equation, though. Perhaps they're just being human and talking more loosely than formally. Without wishing to puts words in anyone's mouth, I suppose they could simply be saying that they have considered the evidence available and, on balance, come to accept the notion.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 10:47 AM

of course,if your god is darwin or some other material entity there is a beginning.the same i guess for tooth fairies and spahgatti beasts.

Well Darwin was certainly not all-knowing and all-powerful, quite poorly a lot of the time and riddled with self-doubt, and he snuffed it, so I don't see him as much of a god, frankly. And I can demonstrate beyond reasonable dout (though don't make me dig him up and do a DNA test) that Darwin had a beginning and end. Unfortunately, you are signally unable to provide such e


matter etc is running down if i am correct and consequently cannot be eternal or it would have long since ceased.your beginning is some big bang from some condensed singularity[and before that?].
the maths experts here can tell me if there is consensus on the following-to wit that the probability of nothing exploding to begin everything and first life building blocks has so many zeros after it as to amount to an impossibility.
the theist points to an eternal,spiritual,supernatural,all powerful God and IMO the One described in the bible fits the bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 10:55 AM

Correct. But I wasn't referring to the colloquial use of language. I was, perhaps not as succinctly as I could have, referring to people who insist that believing is a concept at one level. To believe that I just saw my greyhound having a shit versus believing there could have been a kangaroo in the garden. (Difficult to tell the difference in the twilight.)

One is on balance of probability what happened, whereas the other isn't, but if I believe it to be so...

Frankly, I was responding to the believe versus belief bit a few posts back. Noting the difference in believing something because it fits your preconceived hypothesis and believing something on the basis of fitting the bill till we discover otherwise. Or theological versus scientific belief.

As some on this and other threads have difficulty splitting the two, this thread can never really be resolved, even though for many people, it represents reality versus la la land. Is la la land an alternative to reality? Well, yes. if you take drugs, get pissed or go to church often enough, it sure can be.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 11:20 AM

saul-all of your examples are of testable,repeatable acheivements of the present.this is experimental science and hopefully you are not suggesting ,as some seem to have implied, that creationists are rejecting such.indeed they are involved in such.perhaps someone can demonstrate where creationist predictions/teaching has done any damage to such science.please dont give me that stuff about keeping kids in ignorance-i think thats what you call begging the question is,nt it?
on the other hand evolutionism does hinder useful science.it was not creationism that predicted/taught vestigual organs and junk dna but darwin dogma.

the assertion that scientists are beyond belief systems is a belief in itself.the more discerning at least recognize that

"our ways of looking at the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to the problem.the stereotype of a fully rational and objective "scientific method"with individual scientists as logical[and interchageable]robots is self serving mythology"
s j gould

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 11:22 AM

of course,if your god is darwin or some other material entity there is a beginning.the same i guess for tooth fairies and spahgatti beasts.

Well Darwin had a beginning and end (I can give you evidence if you like, though don't ask me to dig him up and do a DNA test), he was full of self-doubt, he certainly made a lot of mistakes, he was unacquainted with the modern genetics that would have helped him considerably and he was quite poorly a lot of the time. That doesn't make him much of a god in my book. Now, if you could provide evidence for your chap's mastery of infinity, then let's be having it.

matter etc is running down if i am correct and consequently cannot be eternal or it would have long since ceased.

Well we don't know whether you're correct or not because we don't know what you're on about. Do feel free to expand on what you mean by matter "running down", and, perhaps, while you're at it, tell us what that little "etc." of yours comprises.

your beginning is some big bang from some condensed singularity[and before that?]

There is no "before that". Time started with the Big Bang. It's an integral dimension of the universe (spacetime, innit) and any "concept" of time outside that context is nonsensical.

the maths experts here can tell me if there is consensus on the following-to wit that the probability of nothing exploding to begin everything and first life building blocks has so many zeros after it as to amount to an impossibility.

Well now, I freely admit that I happen to be far more confident about the truth of evolution [snicker] than I am about the Big Bang, but there happens to be a lot of evidence that there was, indeed, a Big Bang, counter-intuitive though it seems (and it is to me, frankly, as a mere biologist). But, you see, there is evidence. Enough to convince most scientists (that's not weasel words - it's true) that it is a plausible explanation for the beginning of the universe. There are alternative suggestions within the realms of science, but we have to consider them on their merits, that is, taking what evidence we do have into account. Now you appear to be dismissing the Big Bang as some kind of fantastical impossibility. Then you give us your alternative as if it's the most obvious idea in the world, thus: the theist points to an eternal,spiritual,supernatural,all powerful God and IMO the One described in the bible fits the bill. Dearie me! What logic!

your objection steve [other than blind prejudice] is that such a creator would need to be more complex than that which he made.
i think that this mindset posits him with the same material limitations as his creation.He is not material but spiritual and supernatural so not complex in material terms.

No blind prejudice here. I've struggled long and hard to balance evidence, and, unfortunately, found your chap to be somewhat wanting. You, on the other hand, refuse to consider any evidence that has not already been pre-twisted by your creationist chums. As for your second point, well it's easy enough to try to circumvent all argument by putting your fellow beyond science. It's not quite so easy for you to produce any evidence for your assertion. I await.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 11:58 AM

Steve: "..Then you give us your alternative as if it's the most obvious idea in the world, thus: the theist points to an eternal,spiritual,supernatural,all powerful God and IMO the One described in the bible fits the bill. Dearie me! What logic!..."

Has it occurred to you that 'eternal,spiritual,supernatural,all powerful..' could be referring to the 'unseen'......such as all those elements that we do not see? Surely you can be so limited in your understanding that you rule out everything that you can't hold in your hand...Natural elements that are all here...including 'life' itself???
...and how much more properties do they possess, that 'science' has not even labeled as of yet.
But you got it all figured out, eh?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 12:42 PM

What God was doing before he created the world?

The dependence of creation upon God is also stressed in Augustine's treatment of time. (His most sustained and interesting treatment is in Book XI of The Confessions. ) The Manichaeans claimed that the doctrine of creation from nothing contains no sufficient explanation of why God should create at any given moment rather than any other and that it further poses the unanswerable question of what God was doing before he created the world. Augustine rebuts such objections by insisting that they rest upon a mistaken assimilation of time to an event in time. Creation from nothing entails that time too is a creature, which came into being with other things created. Thus the notion of events before the beginning of time becomes meaningless.

It's an old, old problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 02:29 PM

OR....What was God doing BEFORE the Catholic Church AND the Protestant Reformation!??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 06:57 PM

The biggest problem that people have with 'God', is the 'religions' that redefined what 'God' was about, for their own manipulative reasons, usually power and control. This is certainly true and obvious during the time of the 'Holy Roman Empire'(Second Reich). So, instead of correcting the errors, the next group vying for power, put their sights on trying to destroy 'God'...but the 'God' they are pissed at, is the Church's 'redefined version'...which, of course, is a perversion along with its tacked on dependence on that church, and financial support of...for 'atonement' or 'penance' or servitude..@ at the sale price of only.....!

Along with that comes the elongated list of 'newly defined sins', and the extra feature of 'Church Dogma', which also carries a levied financial burden if you go against those, as well.
For a more complete version, of what I just ran down, you'd have to bury your head in a library, which I did, some years ago, and study the origins of 'indulgences' and requirements, along with the history of the Catholic Church..which I did, out of the Church's own encyclopedia..complete with 'Imp-re Mater' and 'Nihil Ob stat'.
(For those unfamiliar with those terms, those are the signification from the Vatican that the book is 'approved reading' by the church).

The churches turned 'Jesus' into the 'head' of their 'for profit religion'...and steered people away from what he was talking about, or what he was demonstrating to his people. Things that were deemed 'miracles' could possibly be the results of dealing with the unseen, and he was showing us that we all have access to it...but we'd have to leave our bullshit concepts behind.

A further example of this was Nikola Tesla.
When he was working on pulling energy out of the ether in a manner that did not require miles of copper wiring, Kennecott, (yes folks, the same Kennecott of Kennecott Copper, largest copper producer in the U.S.) was buying up all those copper mines, especially in Utah.

Here's a quote from their website: "KENNECOTT COPPER MINE — The average person uses nearly 30 pounds of copper every year, and Kennecott's Bingham Canyon Mine has produced more than 19 million tons of the metal, or more than any other mine in history."

Now does anyone see a correlation to these two?
Working with 'unseen elements' that we all have access to, and the power structures of the wealthy?...to get wealthier and acquire more power??
....and we all need that much copper, don't we?...or so we are led to 'BELIEVE'.

Perhaps the answer to the world's crises lays right before us...but we just can't see it...nor will you be 'allowed' to look!...you might be labeled as 'crazy'....by some stooge, whose leaders are paid for by such concerns as Kennecott..(along with a host of others), who have made a fortune by keeping us blind and stupid..and convincing us that there is no other 'path' but through them.

Sounds sorta religious don't it?

...and you were telling us that you didn't 'believe' in....?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 07:05 PM

The great thing is, most gustiferous one, that your posts are relatively entertaining. The only difficulty is that I don't read them. Christ, I used to...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 08:03 PM

St Augustine of Hippo, eh, Snail? Nice to get it from the horse's mouth...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 11:19 PM

your beginning is some big bang from some condensed singularity[and before that?]

There is no "before that". Time started with the Big Bang. It's an integral dimension of the universe (spacetime, innit) and any "concept" of time outside that context is nonsensical.
.,,.
Yes, but this is a circular argument: it is that very 'nonsecality' that is problematical. A 'begging of the question' in the correct, or original, sense; whereby the answer to the question is taken to be subsumed in the question itself.

I refer yet again to my old thread, "What went Big Bang?", which ran for a whole year Sep09-Sep10, and to many of the posts therein.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 02:37 AM

Steve Pshaw: "The only difficulty is that I don't read them..."

Good!..Then you admit that you don't know what your talking about, then.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 04:08 AM

"The biggest problem that people have with 'God', is the 'religions' that redefined what 'God' was about, for their own manipulative reasons, usually power and control."

Probably true - and a surprisingly coherent sentence for you, GfS (well, relatively coherent).

Then we abruptly jump to Nikola Tesla who, according to you: " ... was working on pulling energy out of the ether in a manner that did not require miles of copper wiring ..." Really!!?? Tell us more!

Nikola Tesla and conspiracy theories often go together, don't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 04:46 AM

""and how much more properties do they possess, that 'science' has not even labeled as of yet.
But you got it all figured out, eh?""

Nobody, to my knowledge, has suggested certainty that a deity does not exist, the consensus being that 1) There is no evidence of a requirement for one in the development of the universe, 2) There is no evidence of the existence of one in the universe 3) there are multiple fields of scientific enquiry only peripherally connected to evolution (some not connected at all), which all lead to the inescapable conclusion that this planet is 4.5 billion years old, not 6000.

Against that there is a bunch of Creationists who "know" that God made the world in six days 6000 years ago, and don't see the complete absence of evidence as a problem.

On the balance of probabilities there's NO contest.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 05:18 AM

"i dont think darwin used that angle did he."

Huh? So what if he did or didn't? Science moves on.

"i do know he was hoping transitional forms would be found but there is not much to show for it still."

There's plenty to show for it. I actually don't think you understand what a 'transitional form' is. We have phylogenies that are built from species that are all transitional forms. Get down to the Natural History Museum and ask to see their transitional forms. Look up tetrapod evolution. Look up bird evolution.

"i presume there were fossils found in his day but all the yrs and tons dug up since have not realized his expectations.just a lot more of much the same i suspect."

Pete mate, this is a statement so infused with deep ignorance it shows you have some neck coming here to taunt and take the piss out of us. This is pretty insulting to many, many people I know and I take exception to it. Suspect? You're not even close.


"this is experimental science and hopefully you are not suggesting ,as some seem to have implied, that creationists are rejecting suh"

I'm suggesting it. Evolution and the processes that make it happen are also studied using the same criteria as the science that goes to make your computer; testable, repeatable, observable data. In truth, adherence to the Usher or biblical model of creation means you reject the following sciences:

Palaeontology
Geology
Sedimentology
Oceanography
Statistics
Anthropology
Chemistry
Physics
Astronomy
Cosmology
Molecular Biology
Biology
Zoology
Climatology
Micro Biology
Mineralogy
Vulcanology
Archaeology
Genetics
Neuroscience
Anatomy
Functional Morphology
Linguistics
Pharmacology
Mathematics

. . . and the many sub-disciplines of the above. So in fact, a denial of evolution and embracing of creationism is a denial of all the subjects that go into studying it, as you believe they are all wrong in their assessment of the evidence they find, which points to an old earth, an older universe and the big bang. These individual areas of research don't exist in isolation, but are in fact part of the massive, complex interconnected web we call science. they inform each other, and progress in one area means progress for all as the results of one discovery can have profound (and small) effects on another area of study.

All the people that have studied, and have ever studied all these sciences over the millennia have, according to you, been barking up the wrong tree.

Wow. What does it feel like to have rejected, without any robust evidence, the work of so many?

How do you reconcile this viewpoint with the fact you actually benefit from many of the scientific discoveries made by these people?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 05:39 AM

""Yes, but this is a circular argument: it is that very 'nonsecality' that is problematical. A 'begging of the question' in the correct, or original, sense; whereby the answer to the question is taken to be subsumed in the question itself.""

You mean something along the lines of:

"God made the world in six days 6000 years ago"

How do you know?

"The bible says so"

And why do you believe the bible?

"Because it's the word of God"

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 05:48 AM

your beginning is some big bang from some condensed singularity[and before that?]

There is no "before that". Time started with the Big Bang. It's an integral dimension of the universe (spacetime, innit) and any "concept" of time outside that context is nonsensical.
.,,.
Yes, but this is a circular argument: it is that very 'nonsecality' that is problematical. A 'begging of the question' in the correct, or original, sense; whereby the answer to the question is taken to be subsumed in the question itself.

I refer yet again to my old thread, "What went Big Bang?", which ran for a whole year Sep09-Sep10, and to many of the posts therein.

It is not begging the question. How can it be when I make only one assertion (which, incidentally, I haven't the confidence to claim as the truth), that time started with the Big Bang and (inseparably, in my view) is an integral dimension of the universe? The rest of my remarks simply represented the egging of the pudding for pete's sake, for Pete's sake.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 07:02 AM

Steve Shaw

that time started with the Big Bang and (inseparably, in my view) is an integral dimension of the universe?

Fascinating that that's almost exactly what Augustine (of Hippo) said around 1700 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 08:36 AM

Well, he was talking horse sense. Don't get me too enmeshed in the physics of that stuff, but what I said is how I understand it.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 10:38 AM

Is poetry an alternative to machinery?

Is colour an alternative to sound?

Are birds an alternative to altruism?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 11:46 AM

jack-i,m sorry to say that your last post was very wordy but without actually answering much of my last post IMO.
i am impressed that you can reel off so many scientific disciplines.i could,nt-even less know enough about them to assert that they all attest to any theories verity.
you did have a stab at my point that transistional fossils are missing and added a bit more browbeating for good measure,,not to mention argument from authority.i shall actually quote an authority-infact-one of your own

"the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches..."s j gould

i,m sure he wished he never admitted that and he probably got it in the neck from the darwin believers but thankyou stephen wherever you are.

you accuse me of disrepecting scientists but consider will you that you are doing the same.there are many creationist scientists now and many in the past-under whose biblical worldview science flourished.
i note too that it was a evolutionary paradigm that predicted that no purpose would be found for so called junk dna and vestigual organs.

the fact that most scientists [say they ]believe darwinism is not a valid argument.ask galileo!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 11:55 AM

Steve Shaw.

Time did not start with the Big Bang. Just time that we can measure. Think of the singularity as a wiped, thoroughly formatted hard drive and our science as incapable of analyzing anything other than digital files. Obviously the hard drive existed in some form before we could see data on it. But we have no way of measuring the nature of that existence.

Where did the singularity come from? How long did it exist before it "Banged?" We cannot know.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 12:15 PM

there are many creationist scientists now and many in the past-under whose biblical worldview science flourished.

Name them. Go on, let's have a good look at 'em.

i note too that it was a evolutionary paradigm that predicted that no purpose would be found for so called junk dna and vestigual organs.

Reference, please.

the fact that most scientists [say they ]believe darwinism is not a valid argument.ask galileo!

Galileo died over two hundred years before Origin was published. Unless you're talking about your cat, of course. Actually, can we talk to your cat please? We might just get a bit more sense out of him.