BS: Alternative to Science??

Subject: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: saulgoldie
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 12:08 PM

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.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 12:17 PM

Why, it's simple! What I think is right and correct and anything else is wrong and incorrect. And I can reproduce whatever I think anytime you want -- loudly and with fist-banging-on-the-table.

You can use this method to make new discoveries just by asking me. I can provide discoveries on request and back them up with real, fresh, mathematical stuff and statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 12:20 PM

Warning: This will be a short thread. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 01:03 PM

Hitchens' Razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Very useful.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 01:22 PM

It is an interesting question whether there are inherent limits to the Scientific method, and that is not the same as brow-beating people who believe in God. As I've said many times on this site I am by nature a scientist, and have worked in the scientific fields almost all my life (so far!) but with Godel's theorem on the one hand and chaos theory on the other, there are limitations to the things that mathematics can describe (and as a mathematician I would therefore say science can describe). There is also a very large observable universe out there. I would say it is not self-evident the one is inherently capable of describing the other completely.

Which, as I say, does not have anything to do with religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 01:27 PM

I've literally never met anyone who doesn't believe in science, saulgoldie.

I have met people who also believe in numerous other things as well (virtually everyone does), but certainly met no one who does NOT believe in science...or who would oppose use of the scientific method to solve a problem which is accessible through the scientific method.

For instance, it takes some understanding of science to design and build an automobile, make it run properly, and repair it. I haven't seen anyone who doesn't already know that and accept it, regardless of whether or not they also believe in some other things as well as science.

The other things a person may believe in are not alternatives to science. They are simply other areas of interest in life, period. Art, for instance, is not an alternative to science, nor are ethics, nor is spirituality, nor is religion, nor is philosophy, nor poetry, nor romance, nor aesthetics, etc. They do not intrinsically oppose science. They simply indicate a completely different area of concern and interest in life, arrived at through a completely different process.

As such, to declare a supposed war between any of them and science is asinine, and is only asserted by the most rigid and uncomprehending persons in any given area of thought (scientific or not).

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 01:32 PM

Alternative? Ignorant asshole fundagelical fuckwits. And the Tea Party.

Q.E.D.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: pdq
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 01:40 PM

Little Hawk's post nailed it.

Good work, Birdfeathers.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 01:43 PM

As most larger religions are based on scriptures going back between one and three thousand years, and accepting them as written to be trying to make sense of the world they observed, the God hypothesis really was the science of the day.

The issue here is one of tradition. As we get better at questioning what we observed, if became obvious that the God explanation became less satisfactory. However by this time too many people found other uses for God, especially when used for social control, hence Galileo's trial, the ridiculing of Darwin and the various geographic locations of Dumbfuckistan.

I have no issue in calling the cloud of what we don't understand yet God, as it has to be called something and that term has suited for a hell of a long time. But I have no hang ups with this God file getting thinner as time and knowledge move forward.

Sadly, many would get their way and control others by stuffing the God file with more documents.

In a world where people scream for religious equality but are actually wanting religious privilege, poor old science has to carry forward without laughing too much eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 06:03 PM

This just in from a Georgia congressman who sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology:

Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior."

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 06:09 PM

Never having heard of the idiot before, no prize for guessing he is a Repugnican representative.

Aren't they all?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: gnu
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 06:17 PM

That's a peach, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 06:28 PM

I've literally never met anyone who doesn't believe in science...

Hard to believe you've never met a fundagelical "Christian"(sic) but then perhaps you lead a sheltered existence, LH.

Or, you're just blowing smoke, perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 08:20 PM

All you have to do is ask me!! I'll tell you the truth! Have I ever lied to you yet??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 08:32 PM

When these righties get real sick they can't get enough science...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 08:38 PM

We're not ignoring you, Rap- we're just cogitatin'.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 11:50 AM

Hard to believe you've never met a fundagelical "Christian"(sic) but then perhaps you lead a sheltered existence,

There aren't actually all that many of them around in the civilised world.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 12:27 PM

Unfortunately it's not about how many there are around but how much political influence they have, how much media time they're given, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 12:48 PM

Fundamentalists believe in some science only. The kind, for example, that allows their cars to run and makes planes fly them through the air.

They do believe in math, except for the parts that went into developing things like carbon dating and so forth.

There are also tenured academics (mainly in literature, women's studies, and anthropology departments) who (claim to) believe that "science" is just a "Western (male) construct" without real validity elsewhere. So, like, if shamanism or goddess worship works for you, it's just as true.

[IRONY WARNING:] It's all subjective! What's true for me may not be true for you! Like science! [IRONY OVER]

This was big movement twenty, twenty-five years ago, but it seems to have run out of steam since then. I'm not sure any normal people were affected. (As if I know who's normal.)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 01:16 PM

There aren't actually all that many of them around in the civilised world.

Civilization aside, Kevin, there are millions of fundagelicals running amok- perhaps fewer in the UK, but believe me, they're a positive infestation in the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 01:37 PM

I suppose it depends on what you mean by civilised...

Actually civilised isn't really the right word. The thing is, however civilised the USA undoubtedly is, it really is a pretty strange place compared to other developed countries, and this is one notable case.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 07:43 PM

We have examples (of fuckwits who deny science) from the UK who post here. Some come from near Foots Cray.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 10:21 PM

There aren't actually all that many of them around in the civilised world.

Sorry McG, but plentiful and valid scientific evidence refutes your statement.

Obviously, you've not spent any real time in Kansas, or Texas, or Oklahoma, or Arkansas, or Wisconsin, or Minnesota, or ... well, there's too many to list.

The real question that needs a scientific answer is how the 120,000 active members of the Megachurch down the road who show up to picket things they're told to hate all get to Sunday services in the 16 cars in the church lot on Sunday morning. That one is sort of a puzzle, but I suppose we can assume they're "transported"(?).

John

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 01:20 AM

An alternative to Science? Well, I'd suggest imagination and poetry and song and dreaming and creativity. I wonder if Science, as most people perceive it, could have come up with Quantum Physics. Science is certainly a valid perspective, but I question whether it is or should be the only perspective. To deify Science (with a capital "S") may be as problematic as biblical fundamentalism.

Make room for diversity of thought, people. The wider our perspective, the better off we are.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 02:39 AM

Saul. There are lots of cases where "the scientific method" has not worked, where other methods have. Lots of things have been discovered by accident. Lots of things have been utilized without the user knowing how they work. I think that Joe makes a valid point. I do not believe that Darwin or Newton used the scientific method to come up with their greatest insights. On the other hand, the scientific method has been used to attempt to verify gravity and evolution. In gravity's case, Einstein saw flaws and proposed a better fitting theory. In the case of evolution it is obviously impossible to recreate the original conditions for independent verification. Though there certainly is a lot of observational data.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 03:48 AM

Hey Joe!

Fully agree that the wider our perspective, the better off we are. Just bear in mind that some perspectives are there to stifle others...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 04:27 AM

I wonder if those opposed to Science (for religious or other reasons) would stoically refuse medical tests and treatment (based on Science) if they or their children were gravely or life-threateningly ill? They would need Xrays and scans, anaesthesia, anti-infection precautions, technological equipment, medication etc etc, all the results of fine scientific research and advancement. Or would they choose to just sit on the ground and pray?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 05:52 AM

Joe: Make room for diversity of thought, people. The wider our perspective, the better off we are.

Sure, keep an open mind, up to a point....but if it's TOO open, your brain is likely to fall out through the hole!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 06:02 AM

"Or would they choose to just sit on the ground and pray?"

Do you know any Jehovah's Witnesses?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 07:00 AM

That is not exactly the case with JW they will take medicie and undergo treatments that do not require transfused blood.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 07:03 AM

What would Einstein say about God vs Science?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 07:06 AM

"That is not exactly the case with JW they will take medicie and undergo treatments that do not require transfused blood."

Yeah, I know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 07:26 AM

http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical8.htm

Religious groups that have different views about medical treatment.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 04:18 PM

Christian scientists do reject a lot of scientific (medical) interventions which has resulted in avoidable tragedies.
There is at least one poster on this site who appears to have a visceral hatred of religion and those who hold religious beliefs. In spite of his protestations to the contrary much of what he says suggests that he responds to science as a belief system rather than a process.
Most people of faith that I know have no problem with embracing science. Fundamentalist atheists have a very rigid view of religion and refuse to credit believers with the ability to negotiate their way through to a personal position which enables them to accommodate more than one idea.
Sorry about the portmanteau posting, I've just caught up with the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 04:42 PM

Mind you, when Aids cropped up and affected people through blood transfusions, I imagine a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses found themselves thinking "I told you so".

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 05:29 PM

Obviously, you've not spent any real time in Kansas, or Texas, or Oklahoma, or Arkansas, or Wisconsin, or Minnesota

True enough. But that's more or less the point I was making.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 05:39 PM

I hate science. I don't want Obamacare. I just want to live and die the way God intends. No doctors.
(:-( P)=

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 05:52 PM

Henty K-
Go ahead. Be sure to enjoy your life....it's not apt to last long. And you don't seem tro hate science enough to ditch your computer and leave the Internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 06:02 PM

""And you don't seem tro hate science enough to ditch your computer and leave the Internet.""

ZZZZIIINNNNGGG!

Direct hit Dick!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 06:08 PM

I hate computers. I hate everything I don't understand.
(:-( P)=

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 06:22 PM

No point in trying to argue with a tease...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 06:35 PM

Yep.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 08:08 PM

Less point intrying to communicate with an asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 12:20 AM

And Mr. Paul Broun, a Republican congressman who serves on ths Science Advisory Committee, pronounced recently that Evolution, embryology and the Big Bang Theory were "lies, from the pit of Hell"

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 12:01 PM

...and Paul Broun serves WITH Todd Akin of "legitimate rape" fame.

This situation is becoming intolerable.... when fundamentalist religion, propounded thru 'supposedly' competent congresspeople is allowed to distort sane educational matters.

I did not sign up to live in a theocracy. I am afraid crap like this will affect my desire to allow NON-crazy believers to practice freely. I do not want that.... but somehow, the Paul Brouns of the country need to be reined in.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 05:25 PM

Jack the Sailor-
"There are lots of cases where "the scientific method" has not worked, where other methods have."
Depends upon what you mean by "work'. THe scientific method is a means of gaining understanding. In that respect, I know of nothing else that can replace it.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 06:26 PM

Not true, Dick - ignorance, stupidity, lies, distortions & fairytales replace the scientific method all the time, 24/7.

More's the pity.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 06:30 PM

Here's an idea...

All folks who don't believe in science wear bracelets that read "DO NOT TREAT" in case they need medical attention which, of course, is based on science...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 08:29 PM

Greg-
Cute but ignoring something isn't creating an alternative. You don't need scientific method to make an accidental discovery that chewing willow bark helps alleviate a headache; you do need it to find out why, and use that knowledge make aspirin.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 08:41 PM

It seems there are few or none of the Repubs on the 'science' committee who are not off the deep end at the right aide of the pool....and maybe the gene pool.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 08:51 PM

"There are lots of cases where "the scientific method" has not worked, where other methods have."

When someone comes to a doctor with a tumor, sometimes there is no time, or not enough data for scientific the method. Medicine is and art and a science.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 11:06 PM

I had a singing buddy who was a Christian Scientist. He was not one to wear his religion on his sleeve, but he stubbornly stuck to his religious beliefs when he got cancer and refused all medical treatment. He died an angry, unhappy man - and he suffered a lot of pain in the process of dying.

Mary Baker Eddy founded Christian Science as a reform movement, and much of what she taught were health practices that were far ahead of her time - many are used by "alternative health practitioners" today. I wonder if Mary Baker Eddy intended for her followers to refuse medical treatment so rigidly, or if her followers got set in their ways after her death. I think that happens often in reform movements. After the enlightened founder passes on, the followers forget the reasoning behind the reforms and change everything into rigid rules.

One could make a case for that happening with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: EBarnacle
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 11:36 AM

It is possible to disprove a positive. The Law of Gravity should actually be the Theory of Gravity or the Rule of Gravity because all we can truly state is that all of the observations to date of things falling bear the theory out. If we eventually observe something we would expect to fall not falling then the law/theory has been disproved by the one exception.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 12:21 PM

"The House Science Committee."

An oxymoron if ever there was one.

And peopled with regular morons.

God Help America.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 01:08 PM

Stilly river Sage quoted Hitchens's razor. I would go further and quote Occam's razor, because as complicated as scientific discovery can be, it is far easier than trying to believe medieval fantasy and translations of parts of old scriptures as an answer.

Newton's law of gravity was using words of the day, and then the Latin words... Ever since Planck and Einstein, we are used to theories rather than laws and are comfortable with that. After all, classical physics describes the observable universe and many of the "laws" had been back calculated through observation prior to the 1890's when everything started kicking off.

I once put in a paper I had published that "pure" science is that researched with no hypothesis whilst theology is to work only with a hypothesis. Just a throwaway comment without the perspective and context of what I was writing about but I would gently nudge it into this type of debate, as it paraphrases that which many people realise. Sadly, it also questions the intelligence of faith, and many people get a lot of comfort from their faith, so must be less than happy with the idiots hijacking it for pure secular megalomania reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 01:38 PM

> "pure" science is that researched with no hypothesis whilst theology is to work only with a hypothesis.

Well put.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 03:33 PM

Science tests hypotheses; Faith (religious or otherwise) accepts it.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 05:42 PM

Most Christian theologians are reluctant to publicly endorse scientific theories of cosmology and human evolution because the concept of Original Sin requires a historical Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. An evolutionary perspective doesn't allow for such an event. And if there's no Original Sin, no fall from grace, then the idea of the necessity of personal salvation through Jesus gets a bit wobbly.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 12:06 PM

i think that on this side of the pond a lot of theologians do accept evolutionism.as a result their theology is inconsistant.even dawkins recognized this and mocked the compromising theologians.
so as a creationist,i agree with your assessment bee....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 01:37 PM

Well I disagree with Bee-dubya-ell, pete and apparently even Dawkins. Aren't I a disagreeable fellow?

The concept of original sin does not require a literal, historical Eve, being primarily one way of expressing - albeit a very important way - that we are fundamentally flawed as human beings when compared with how we would wish to behave. Now, to go beyond that form, which does not require any sort of God, to one which relies on a God is to enter into the whole debate of what religion is about, so I'll pass on that one. But I do say it is mistaken to assume the concept of Original Sin is really dependent on a literal Genesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bert
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 01:56 PM

...that we are fundamentally flawed as human beings...

Nope, tain't true. Observation shows us that most people are nice, caring and loving. It is a minority that are bad, but they are the ones that get noticed.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 02:02 PM

Well, bert, we can disagree about that one as well! However nice and caring we are, there are occasions where we lose or tempers or whatever, and most of us feel pretty bad about that afterwards. Whether that feeling bad is a sign of our fundamental goodness is an interesting discussion ...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 04:35 AM

And there was me thinking that theology was about studying religion rather than accepting facets of it.

Still, nice to see starry pete weighing in. This thread was getting a bit too serious. We can have a bit of fun now.

"Even" Dawkins? Surely, a clever person might be expected to "recognise" something, so why a clever person who is intelligent enough to believe in creationism is surprised that one of the leading evolutionionary scientists we have ever had can recognise hypocrisy when he sees it....

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

> Observation shows us that most people are nice, caring and loving.

While not entirely incorrect, this is a vast and misleading exaggeration.

It looks like most Nazis, Khmer Rouge, French Jacobins, etc., loved and cared for their families. Southern slaveholders did too. Hitler's Alsatian was his best pal.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bettynh
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 03:08 PM

Richard Feynman was pretty articulate about the problem of science vs. belief. His observation that scientists are comfortable with uncertainty seems to define the difference. Fundamentalists require certainty. If it's just a theory there's a possibility it's wrong, whatever you're talking about. That makes it OK to dismiss anything labelled as a theory. To consider God a theory is literally unthinkable.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 06:00 PM

I had a singing buddy who was a Christian Scientist....he got cancer and refused all medical treatment. He died an angry, unhappy man - and he suffered a lot of pain in the process of dying.

Mary Baker Eddy founded Christian Science as a reform movement, and much of what she taught were health practices that were far ahead of her time - many are used by "alternative health practitioners" today.

"Alternative health practitioners" condemn untold thousands to miserable, painful and often avoidable deaths, and even worse, lives, by their embracement, often for personal profit, of superstitions like Christian Science. It's one thing to call for open- mindedness, but quite another to claim for oneself open- mindednes while dogmatically rejecting evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 06:01 PM

alternately to consider that there is a God is unthinkable to the fundy atheist-
albeit protestations about proving negatives.....

leading evolutionary scientist recognizing hypocrisy?
i wonder if he would recognize it in himself?
either way;-he will debate compromising theologians and creationists-as long as they are not as qualified as him [and contrary to atheist assumption there are suitable opponents]

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 06:20 PM

Pete... "alternately to consider that there is a God is unthinkable to the fundy atheist-"

The actuality is, Pete, that most atheists HAVE considered it!

Think about it- IF religion were obviously true and some Supreme Being reminded us daily of his wishes and rules and explained out history, it would be a LOT easier to cope with the frustrations of this world.

Atheists HAVE tried to see the reasoning ..and seen the problems with accepting one book and eons of preachers telling them what to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 08:00 PM

I've been told that God *doesn't* make his existence and presence crystal clear, or even provable by science or reason, specifically *so that* some people will believe on faith and be saved, while others can misuse their divinely granted free will and reject him and be condemned to hell for their blasphemous pride.

Thus it's far safer to believe than not to believe. No matter what science may say about the Big Bang, Evolution, you name it.

Of course, God also created human curiosity and science, presumably as terrible temptations. Just look what curiosity did to Adam and Eve - curiosity and being tempted directly by a fallen angel who, by definition, was more evil and devious than they were. Nevertheless, they had to be punished for disobedience, even though God must have known they were going to disobey even before he created them.

Troubling? Or reassuring? Or what?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 03:18 AM

Don't forget the late Mr Hitchens (who by now can answer the ultimate question at last..) has been referred to above.

Anything put forward without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Whilst Dawkins can appear slightly forthright at times, and occasionally as forthright as those whom argue with him, let us not forget why he started his crusade in the first place.

As a genetics scientist he got somewhat fed up with his carefully researched evidence being debunked by powerful influencial people on the basis that it doesn't accord with scriptures and accepted superstition.

I reckon I'd be a bit pissed off too.

I'm not sure there is an alternative TO science, just a few traditional interpretations of answers to what "science" tries to qualify and quantify. As religion is not evidence based, I think it is safe to dismiss it.

Handy as a crutch for those who need it, but keep an eye on it when it tries attracting children and vulnerable adults all the same. After all, plenty of evidence that religions have form in that arena.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 03:25 AM

Is is too snarky to point out that the assertion "Anything put forward without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" is itself put forward without evidence? To take a silly example, if I am walking along a mountain path and come across a sign saying 'Caution: Avalanches' I will be cautious without waiting for the evidence, thank you!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 05:00 AM

That's just a restatement of Pascal's Wager, Mr McG, which only works if the alternative to no god is The God. In these times of multiple contending gods, backing the wrong one is as disastrous as not placing any bet.

You are walking on a mountain, and come to a crossroads. The sign pointing ahead says DANGER: AVALANCHES. The sign pointing to the right says: MINEFIELD. The one to the left says: MAN EATING CTHULU. So you turn round to go home, only to see the sign THIS WAY TO JIM'LL FIX IT. You know at least three are lies, but you don't know which one (if any) is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 05:14 AM

I don't think it requires deep philosophical debate. Put simply, if you say something without evidence and somebody says that is bollocks, it is hardly fair to say "prove it."

I say that I am a sex God to all women. If a single woman says no, she is in denial. If you can't prove I am wrong, I must be right.

Now, I have had my moments but also know my limitations so I certainly am not a sex God. However, it I said there is a God and went through the same argument with an atheist, few would fault my logic.

Funny that.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 05:53 AM

That's just a restatement of Pascal's Wager, Mr McG

Not really. I was not saying that therefore it is appropriate to believe in God, which was Pascal's Wager. I was saying that the assertion that you can use lack of evidence to dismiss anything is going too far.In fact, of course, precisely the reason that scientific research happens is that the scientist suspects something to be the case, but at that point lacks the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 06:01 AM

That would be research from a hypothesis. A more common research is to observe something and try to figure why it is so.

Again, too deep.

If someone says something without evidence, you can dismiss it without evidence too. Just because you can't prove something is wrong doesn't mean it is right till you prove otherwise.

If that were the case, the corrupt logic of religion would be valid. Saying a religious text is true defeats the object of faith unless I am mistaken?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 06:19 AM

If someone says something without evidence, you can dismiss it without evidence too.

I don't think that is the case, and it does not follow that therefore I must be insisting religion is right. It simply means that I think that that particular line of attack is weak. My biggest criticism of Dawkins, actually, is that he makes so many weak attacks when I am convinced he could do so much better.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 06:46 AM

""Atheists HAVE tried to see the reasoning ..and seen the problems with accepting one book and eons of preachers telling them what to do.""

And when you add to that the fact that even those who DO see a need for a Deity are at each others throats on the subject of "Our God is the only TRUE GOD", it all gets somewhat silly.

If there were substance and sense to the thinking of the US Christian Right, the Fundamentalist Muslims and the Orthodox Jews, surely they would be forced to conclude that God, Allah and Jehovah MUST be one and the same.

So why are they so bitterly opposed on religious grounds?

One for you to consider Pete?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 10:45 PM

Well, Don, Christians, Muslims, and Jews do generally think they worship the same God.

There's no accounting for the actions or opinions of the extremist element in any group, and I think it's important that we not blame a group for its extremist members. Every town has its idiot.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 06:34 AM

""There's no accounting for the actions or opinions of the extremist element in any group, and I think it's important that we not blame a group for its extremist members. Every town has its idiot.""

I thought I did a reasonably clear job of categorising the most extreme of the three religions Joe, though perhaps a little unfair to the Jews. Perhaps Zionist would better fit as a description.

I am aware that these are minorities of the three religions, but you cannot deny that they have the greatest prominence and are, as the authors of most of the atrocities of the modern world, the greatest threat.

Until the weight of the majority of moderate believers is thrown against them and they are ejected, they will destroy any chance of accord and harmony, not just between faiths, but between nations too.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 11:47 AM

The alternative to science is ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 01:48 PM

Muslims at least accept that Jesus WAS a prophet sent by God....


"Muslims believe in the prophets and messengers of God, starting with Adam, including Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Jesus (peace be upon them). But God's final message to man, a reconfirmation of the eternal message, was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad . Muslims believe that Muhammad is the last prophet sent by God, as God has said:

Muhammad is not the father of any one of your men, but he is the Messenger of God and the last of the prophets... (Quran, 33:40)"


...this doesn't exactly please Christians, most of whom who are determined to insist that Jesus was sent as a messenger for 'the entire world'.
So the problem remains that ANY religious system that demands that its basic premises must supersede any seemingly contradictory ideas of science are in constant conflict with the evidence of the world around them. There are technical names for these flaws of logic & reasoning, but the ability of hoomin beans to simply state that they don't CARE what science & logic say makes teaching science a difficult task.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 04:08 PM

well bill-you are perhaps right that most atheists HAVE considered that there might be a God but the fundy ones at least would think it unthinkable anyway.you present yourself as couteous and friendly so i am not including you in that description.


lighter-maybe pedantic but science does not say anything does it?.
when it comes to origins it is the scientist that speaks out of his prepropositions and INTERPRETATION of the data.

don-that their are competing faiths or that sometimes there may be hostility does not logically mean that none is right.
neither do i accept that religion poses the greatest threat.atheist / evolutionary believers have inflicted countless atrocities.
pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 04:36 PM

atheist / evolutionary believers have inflicted countless atrocities

Outnumbered only by those inflicted by "Christians"[sic].

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 04:50 PM

Atrocities are inflicted by those of any belief or none who think they know better what everybody else should be thinking or doing than everybody else. That means mostly all of the smug ones who look for people to blame. "Holier than thou" doesn't have to apply to religious people.

Science isn't a belief system, and I don't know that does any good arguing with people who are stupid enough to think it is. I'm not calling it "ignorant" because ignorance is an absence or knowledge and "stupid" is what you get when you ignore it. Science requires proof, and require being challenged.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 04:52 PM

""don-that their are competing faiths or that sometimes there may be hostility does not logically mean that none is right.""

Why do you always start from a position of misquoting those with whom you disagree Pete?

I did not and do not say that none is right.

I said that, assuming there is a God, ALL are right, but none will admit that the others are right. Each starts from a position of exclusivity which is neither justifiable nor logical.

It is this that sets up religions as a barrier to international and religious harmony, instead of the unifying force which they should be.

I made no claim as to whether there is or is not a God. My beliefs on that are my own affair and I don't attempt to impose them on others.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 05:56 PM

The problem is, Pete... that IF it ".. does not logically mean that none is right.", it follows that all 'could' be wrong.

Since it comes down to a matter of **belief**, it becomes very like gambling.... you are making a bet that a certain belief system will get certain rewards in an afterlife. Of course, if you are wrong, you'll never know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 07:38 PM

An alternative to Science? Well, I'd suggest imagination and poetry and song and dreaming and creativity. I wonder if Science, as most people perceive it, could have come up with Quantum Physics. Science is certainly a valid perspective, but I question whether it is or should be the only perspective. To deify Science (with a capital "S") may be as problematic as biblical fundamentalism.

Make room for diversity of thought, people. The wider our perspective, the better off we are.

It is common for believers to put science alongside their belief system as some kind of equivalent alternative. That is a very poor way of seeing things. Moreover, anyone who thinks that they can put imagination, poetry and creativity forward as alternative perspectives to science has it arse about face. Science, and not least mathematics, provides all the beauty, imagination, creativity and poetry that anyone could ever ask for. Belief, on the other hand, stifles imagination. Religions tell us that they have the explanation for everything (forgetting, conveniently, that their explanation is by far the most unlikely and most inexplicable thing that the human mind could ever come up with). Thinking you have the explanation for everything stops you looking. Your poetry is subverted and your creativity and imagination are stunted. You might think you can tell me that you are just as imaginative, creative and poetic as a free-thinking atheist can be, but you would be wrong. Far from being closed, the minds of those who have shunned religious faith are open to everything. Reality is the true magic and the beautiful synergy of form and function is more than enough to exercise the mind and trigger the wonder that keeps us looking.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 08:43 PM

There is no more alternative to science than there is an alternative to belief in G-d/god/God. The argument that presupposes one person is wrong to begin with is foolish.

I would no more denigrate or ridicule Pete (7SL) than question the knowledge or erudition of the assembled folk. Sometimes in life both sides of the equation are actually equal.

Pete, sometimes people just don't get it. I'm not sure that I always do, but that doesn't really matter. You are a good and true man, and when you and I disagree, I always know I've won or lost to a darned fine person. And I always wonder whether won or lost enters the equation at all.

B

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Oct 12 - 09:14 PM

There is definitely an alternative to belief in God. You can easily live your life well, unshackled by such nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 02:23 AM

999 puts the defence of starry pete most eloquently.

I suppose the nearest I come is thinking I may be being a bit cruel taking the piss out o his deluded conviction. My mate reckons the moon landings never took place. I had a good laugh till I realised he meant it. Now I worry for him, concerned that such a mindset may contain issues he may at some point need professional help with.

Hence people who think reality vs bible = bible wins get my pity. Those who would advocate inflicting their fantasy on others get my contempt.

Not that I should be of any concern to them. If they feel brainwashing children isn't abuse, then arguing with an old soak like me isn't worth their time.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 04:19 AM

"atheist / evolutionary believers have inflicted countless atrocities."

I can certainly think of atheist groups who have committed atrocities and, of course, there are "countless" examples of atrocities committed by theists. But, help me out here, pete, I'm struggling to think of an example of an atrocity committed by an "evolutionary believer"!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 05:42 AM

Oh, OH!

*******GODWIN ALERT!*******

Now we get the eugenics response.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 12:23 PM

Atrocities committed in the name of evolution are committed by people who have twisted and perverted evolutionary theory beyond recognition. So no fear of relevant Godwinisms here. And Godwin's Law has been long-debunked, not least by Godwin himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Joe_F
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 08:45 PM

The alternative to science -- much older than science itself -- is wishful thinking. It has been extensively tested.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 02:08 PM

no argument with your logic bill!
as a christian i have an assurance that i am following the "way the truth and the life";-but i realize that is merely subjective to the non christian.
no doubt if i am expressing a logical fallacy in the following [!] you will inform me but it seems to me that you are making a bet.if you are right you will not know it when your time comes,but if you are wrong you certainly will.that of course is no threat for a convinced atheist.

don t -do i "always" misquote my opponents?
i dont think i actually quoted you as such but i can see where you are coming from on this one.i'm sorry but i got lost somewhere on the next point.as far as affirming God/gods most religions agree .obviously the religious position of buddism and atheism dont.
when it comes to further specifics there will be disagreement and for the bible believer ,Jesus alone is the only way to the Father.
that has never made me want to fight anyone though.

thankyou 999 for your kind words.i also dont think of winning or losing arguments.thankfully some can discuss in a friendly manner.
blessings pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,)
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 03:03 PM

Any chance of giving me an example of an "evolution believer" who has committed an atrocity, pete? Or did you just conflate the terms 'atheist', 'evolution believer' and 'atrocities', and hope that we wouldn't notice, and come to associate "evolution believer" with atrocities? Is that the best that you can do? You don't do subtle, do you?

By the way, what exactly is an "evolution believer"? I don't think I'm familiar with that term ...

Subject: Alternative to Uppercase??
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 03:14 PM

Well?

Discuss!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 05:21 PM

Pete.. of course, we are both making bets of a sort. As far as I can tell, we also both try to lead a good life, respect others, and don't kick dogs.

My 'bet' is based on my personal feeling that *IF* there is a heavenly afterlife, 'leading a good life' should be enough to get me in without 'believing' a 2000 year old book and all the varied interpretations. "Jesus alone is the only way" feels very awkward to me. Yes, I am willing to take that chance because I know that there are so many religions and versions of each that my guess is that none of them has some Divine Truth. (I always wonder why a God would take a chance that Jesus and the 'word' could reach the entire world, given so many countries and different societal systems.)

Because I am sure that believing, as you do, in one specific religious tradition won't directly make any difference to me, I try to tolerate and respect those, like you, who live kind & decent lives. Some of its followers DO affect me in various ways by being less than respectful of others, so it is VERY hard sometimes to debate logic & philosophy without condemning totally the entire belief system.

I have no idea whether you were raised in a religious way, or came to it late... and in some ways it is not important. I was raised to think and decide for myself based on my best understanding, and studied philosophy to try to learn the best possible ways to MAKE decisions.

It would be interesting to meet you and sit and compare notes....but an ocean, age and money make that unlikely. I DO appreciate hearing your opinions and comparing ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 05:24 PM

It woz me wot asked pete the questions about conflation and atrocities and stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: EBarnacle
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 11:16 PM

Rabbi Akiva was once asked to explain Judaism while standing on one leg. His response: Do not do unto others what is hateful to you. The rest is commentary.
Note that there is no mention of God here. The true essence of religion is ethics rather than belief in miracles.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 05:34 AM

"The only way to the father is through Jesus."

Not sure what this has to do with an alternative to science. Most people in scientific fields I come across have some degree of religious conviction. They just don't let it get in the way of the day job.

If you take pete's "father" as the ultimate answer blah blah, then he is wrong in saying a historical member of the human race with supernatural powers attributed to him knows the answers. Not even Einstein got all of it right, so what chance would Jesus have without the outpouring of discovery immediately prior to Einstein et al?

So..back to my original point. To push religion as a moral compass, somewhere to get a cup of tea on a Sunday etc is all well and good. But to decry the progress of civilisation for no reason that "2,000 year old science" is seen to be way off the mark? It needs exposing for the paper tiger it is. If not for any other reason, so that respectable people with faith don't get too associated with idiots...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 05:56 AM

""My 'bet' is based on my personal feeling that *IF* there is a heavenly afterlife, 'leading a good life' should be enough to get me in without 'believing' a 2000 year old book and all the varied interpretations. "Jesus alone is the only way" feels very awkward to me.""

And from one who does believe in a deity, AMEN to that.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 01:28 PM

Being a devotee of religion doesn't make you a good person.

Science is neutral in that it can create medical breakthroughs or bigger bombs.

It has a beautiful side when you consider how much the chemicals in our bodies
emanate from stars and comets.

One of the most beautiful forms is "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".

Also, the Hydrologic Cycle is beautiful.

And Darwin's discoveries are lovely.

The more we know about the human mind, the richer and imaginative science becomes.

Dogma and doctrine stifle creativity, beauty and art.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 02:24 PM

Well, Stringsinger, you know me, unreconstructed pagan that I am, but I can't bring myself to think that dogmatic belief has always stifled art. I've been inside some stunning cathedrals (and much smaller churches) in my time that have contained overwhelmingly beautiful art. Last October I was in the Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta, Torcello, Venice, gobsmacked by the enormous and astonishing 12th century Byzantine mosaic of the Last Judgement. The next day I gazed for a full hour at a Titian Madonna and Child in the Accademia, trying to absorb the miraculous work in front of me. And you won't catch me ditching my Giulini Bach Mass in B minor and I just might sanction Mozart's Ave Verum Corpus at my otherwise strictly non-religious funeral. I think that a fallacious view of the world, brought about by dogma and doctrine, could stifle the appreciation of beauty and would certainly stifle enquiry by leading it up the garden path.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 11:27 AM

What dogmatic belief stifles is curiosity, imagination and individuality, because that is precisely what it is designed to do.

The problem is that these are exactly the qualities which are the motive force behind human achievement and technological progress.

They are also the basis of creativity, which is why I don't rate the religious icons and statuary of the renaissance as particularly great art, but rather very fine draughtsmanship.

Others' mileage may vary, but I see no originality, only imitative excellence, allied with improved anatomical knowledge.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 12:30 PM

thanks bill-since you wondered;-i am happy to give some background.
i was not raised in a christian family.i had a very brief spell in sunday school but got bored.age 15 a friend invited me to a youth service at a pentecostal church and i went, and continued to do so though counting myself an atheist at the time.it was some time later[about a year i think]that i accepted Gods existence followed by an expression of repentance and faith in Christ.
during this time i had read material that countered darwinism and some about bible prophesy .
i also had a very strong experience of speaking in tonques-no doubt that could be explained away by unbelievers but i was / am sure of that experience.

indeed to sit and chat with you would be nice were it geographically possible.
best   pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 12:56 PM

Fascinating, Pete... because I WAS raised in a generally religious family. (Methodist), although they were not 'fundamentalist'.. I went to church and Sunday school in the 3rd & 4th grades and was duly baptized. When we moved, my parents didn't find a church they liked, and we gradually stopped regular attendence. So.. when *I* was about 15, I started reading various things and at 17 found a book on Philosophy.
I LIKED 'thinking' and questioning and decided to major in philosophy in college, and took courses in comparative religion as well. It may have been all that information about how overwhelmingly many religious beliefs there were that showed me the folly of picking just one.

I do think, Pete, that a year of constant exposure to Pentacostal teachings can be pretty ...ummm... influential..... just as years of studying philosophy can be, in another direction. I, of course, defend the wider view as a more reasonable approach. ☺

It is at least as interesting to learn HOW people got to their viewpoints as it is to unravel the details of what they DO believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 05:28 PM

Very interesting, pete (doesn't make any sense to me - but interesting).

Now! Back to business. Any chance of giving me an example of an "evolution believer" who has committed an atrocity?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 05:39 PM

Not a good question, Shimrod... atrocities are not limited to ANY belief system, or lack thereof...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 03:56 AM

I quite agree, Bill. But further up the thread pete accused "evolution believers" of committing atrocities, and subsequently, I asked him to give me an example. In spite of repeated requests to provide me with an example he refuses to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 10:57 AM

'You might think you can tell me that you are just as imaginative, creative and poetic as a free thinking atheist, but you would be wrong'.

That sounds to me like a very closed mind indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 11:39 AM

I see your point, Shimrod... but I don't see why naming 'one'.. or even several... would make a difference to Pete's assertion.

He simply said: "atheist / evolutionary believers have inflicted countless atrocities." Even *I* realize that. Pete doesn't win any particular prize for noting an obvious fact, but making a list won't make it any clearer.... and his point doesn't alter the fact that believers/creationists have done the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 01:20 PM

interesting the points of correspondence bill,-albeit the diametricaly opposed paths thereafter.of course you far exceeded me academically.
the point about atrocities followed don t acusing religion of countless atrocities [hopefuly not misquoting him !]
to clarify-my contention is that more deaths ensued from atheist,darwin believers in the 20th c than the entire history of christendom-perhaps of the major religions included.
other than that i did not intend to pursue that point as it was covered extensively in previous threads.
pete

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 02:00 PM

Certainly I agree with you, pete, that in the 20th century atheist regimes committed many atrocities. But was that because they were atheists? Or was it because they were fanatical, political ideologues? Regimes like the Nazis, in Germany, also claimed that they drew inspiration from evolutionary science. In fact they distorted evolutionary science to their own ends ... actually, they appeared just make it up as they went along (I suspect that Darwin would have been horrified!).

I actually believe that the only sane, reasonable and acceptable reaction to any form of religious teaching or political ideology is healthy scepticism. I suspect that I would soon have been thrown out of that Pentecostal church that you went to.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 02:07 PM

Shimrod, I don't think any atrocities were committed because of religion either, though I'll grant it many were "justified" through it.


The crusades were an excuse to loot. There is nothing in the Bible calling for the torture of heretics. Certainly Jesus did not teach that.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 02:49 PM

"...-my contention is that more deaths ensued from atheist,darwin believers in the 20th c than the entire history of christendom-perhaps of the major religions included."

Ah, pete... I must take issue! Please realize that sheer numbers only make a partial point. Stalin was responsible for many millions of atrocities... but the Crusades, percentage-wise, may have done more. There are simply more people available to inflict atrocities on these days.
   Right now in Africa, there are horrendous atrocities being committed by a few groups who claim Christian links. Joseph Kony

There is no way to settle such issues by 'body counts'.... we need to look at the basic nature of people and their defense of their attacks on 'other people'.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 11:56 AM

""the point about atrocities followed don t acusing religion of countless atrocities [hopefuly not misquoting him !]""

If you think that statement of yours is true Pete, please reproduce the post in which I claimed ""countless atrocities"" by anyone at all.

I never used that phrase or anything that could be so construed, so yes, you have misquoted once more.

What I actually said was:

""I am aware that these are minorities of the three religions, but you cannot deny that they have the greatest prominence and are, as the authors of most of the atrocities of the modern world, the greatest threat.""

I went on to say that:

""Until the weight of the majority of moderate believers is thrown against them and they are ejected, they will destroy any chance of accord and harmony, not just between faiths, but between nations too.""

This is absolutely at odds with your quote, which totally ignored the fact that my comments were about the minority of fanatics in those religions.

Can you, in all honesty, looking at what has happened in the last 40 years, tell me that I'm wrong.

Sectarian warfare in Northern Ireland, still breaking out through the actions of splinter groups.

Jew versus Muslim in Palestine, Gaza, The West Bank.

Sunnis versus Shiites in Iraq, more killing than in the Iraq war.

And on, and on, and on.

The fact that religion is, in some cases, merely an excuse is neither here nor there.

These occurrences are being perpetrated in its name.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 12:50 PM

I should also like to point out that any correlations between religion and atrocities or no-religion and atrocities doesn't imply a causal relationship between religious stance and propensity to commit atrocities. Hence the Crusaders, the Inquisition or Al Quaeda probably didn't commit atrocities primarily because they were religious but because they were interested in acquiring (earthly) political power and justified their actions on religious grounds. Hitler and Stalin, on the other hand, were atheists (i.e. couldn't give a toss about religion) and justified their actions on political grounds.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 07:07 PM

ok don;-seems my paraphrase of your comments was not in accord to the original.i shall endeavour to avoid reponses to yourself in future to be on the safe side.

bill-certainly is a unsavoury mixed up man.would you say he was a christian?
i agree that it is difficult to use stats to establish conclusions over history.obviously most atheists dont commit genocide-or most christians atrocities.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 09:29 PM

Sadly, Pete, Christians are usually lumped together by what they SAY they believe. If we start taking surveys, some groups will say all the other groups are NOT Christian.

That guy is obviously a mixed up case, but he is claiming to follow Christianity... just as the Spanish Inquisition did.....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 09:40 PM

""ok don;-seems my paraphrase of your comments was not in accord to the original.i shall endeavour to avoid reponses to yourself in future to be on the safe side.""

I beg your pardon?

I thought you just said that if you can't change the meaning by "paraphrasing", you won't respond at all.

That says a lot about the validity of your stance.

Surely Pete, that can't be what you actually meant.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 07:48 AM

"Surely Pete, that can't be what you actually meant."


I suspect that pete may no longer know what he means because he's been brain-washed by fundamentalist pentecostalists.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 08:39 PM

'You might think you can tell me that you are just as imaginative, creative and poetic as a free thinking atheist, but you would be wrong'.

That sounds to me like a very closed mind indeed.

If your imagination, creativity and poetry are driven, or significantly influenced, by your religion, then 'tis you who has the closed mind. Your imagination is severely ringfenced. You won't be able to see past a perverted view of the world and the universe, with all its diversity and beauty staring you in the face, purportedly created by a rather abject, inexplicable being. That is false and it can't help but close off that part of your mind that should be free to contemplate nature as the source of edification through joy - and knowledge. You're adding an extraneous layer that is a bit like putting a very beautiful duvet over your loudspeakers when you're listening to Mozart. So beguiling in itself but, ultimately, serving to do nothing save hide the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:19 AM

You know, there is no such thing as a Christian, or a Muslim, or an atheist.

They are all people.

And if someone uses anything intangible to either further or justify their cause, it is the person doing it, not some supernatural construction.

Of course, supernatural constructions were always built in order to stifle dangerous individual thought in the first place, but that's another matter...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:24 AM

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

The Republican Party has just added a plank to their platform
that outlaws all science and declares Columbus a fake...

***********************Details at eleven*********************

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 09:55 AM

Steve Shaw, like I said, a very closed mind indeed. You know what you think, how you respond, what moves you and what leaves you cold. You have developed opinions based on your experience and you have accrued a level of knowledge and understanding. So do and so have other people. I can only gauge who you are or what you are by what you say and do. Your belief that you know what is going on in other people's minds better than they do without knowing them demonstrates either arrogance or stupidity, probably both. You really have no idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 12:25 PM

Heheh. I take it you're no atheist, Brendan. You appear to have come up with an accurate description of yourself and applied it, bitterly, to me. Incidentally, show me where I ever said or implied that I know what is going on in other people's minds better than they do without knowing them. Before you are tempted to misquote, do note the "if" at the very beginning of my last post. It applies to the whole content of the post. If you really are content to settle for creation by an inexplicable and improbable superbeing, well all I can tell you is that you're missing out on a wonderful alternative line of enquiry that really is worth living for. There was another "if" there, note.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 01:27 PM

Steve Shaw - JS Bach was a devout Christian, as was Michaelangelo, as was Milton. You are, in your estimation, more creative than any of them because, according to you, their creativity was severely ring fenced.
Where can I find evidence of your enhanced creativity?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 01:42 PM

Alternative to Science?? .....

Political agendas and their rationale!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 01:52 PM

Ah but was Bach a Christian?

If you listen to the wonderful use of cadence in his work, you have the most accurate interpretation of infinity you could ever ask for.

And in those days that was heresy. ....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 01:56 PM

"JS Bach was a devout Christian, as was Michaelangelo, as was Milton."

Again we have a confusion between correlation and causation. I very much doubt that the three individuals you refer to were talented solely as a result of their faith. I suspect that they would have been talented if they had been born into cultures in which supernatural jelly babies or phantom bicycle pumps were venerated.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 02:20 PM

Shimrod, I couldn't agree more. I was responding to what seemed to me to be a rather fatuous posting from one Steve Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 02:39 PM

Greg F: "Outnumbered only by those inflicted by "Christians"[sic]."

Who said anything about the 'churches' being Christian??
That is as ridiculous as political parties claiming to be 'for the people'...it's just like the phony do-gooders who believe in their rhetoric and can't/won't can't see it!!

Fhe fundamental law of Christianity is "Love God above all things, and love others as you would yourself"...No matter what a 'church' or organization claims, if it ain't doing that, it ain't Christian!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 03:55 PM

It matters not a jot whether Bach, Michaelangelo or Milton were Christians. It mattered not a jot whether Einstein believed in God. What I said mattered was in the post that Brendan is taking such exception to:

If your imagination, creativity and poetry are driven, or significantly influenced, by your religion, then 'tis you who has the closed mind. Your imagination is severely ringfenced. You won't be able to see past a perverted view of the world and the universe, with all its diversity and beauty staring you in the face, purportedly created by a rather abject, inexplicable being. That is false and it can't help but close off that part of your mind that should be free to contemplate nature as the source of edification through joy - and knowledge.

It would be very arrogant indeed to assume that the artistry of Bach, Michaelangelo and Milton were driven, or significantly influenced by, their religion. I should like to know how you can possibly know that. On the contrary, it is well known (excuse weasel words there...) that, for example, many great composers wrote their most cheerful works when they were often struggling with things going wrong in their lives. Mozart wrote The Magic Flute in the final year of his life, when he was burdened with financial worries and poor health. Beethoven wrote some of his most sublime pieces, the supremely lyrical and upbeat quartets in E flat and C sharp minor for example, and the witty Diabelli Variations, after he had completely lost his hearing and was ground down with distressing and chaotic circumstances in his private life. Great artists are well able to stand outside themselves. Whether Beethoven believed in God or not is a moot point, yet he wrote the amazing Missa Solemnis. Shimrod is correct in saying that these men were not solely (if at all, I'd add) talented as a result of their faith. He could easily have added that it's perfectly possible to deliver oneself of great art in spite of faith. And why not.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:04 PM

I quoted the sentence which I found fatuous in a previous post. You're a slippery little devil aren't you Stevie?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:14 PM

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

I couldn't agree more!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 06:08 PM

Beethoven was much given to somewhat overblown phraseology. I could remind you of the time when one of his compatriots said to him "The work will be finished on time, with God's help" to which Beethoven replied sharply "Oh man, help yourself!"

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 06:22 PM

I quoted the sentence which I found fatuous in a previous post. You're a slippery little devil aren't you Stevie?

If anyone is being slippery, 'tis thou. The quote you lifted out of context was from a post that derided people who put forward poetry, creativity and imagination as equivalent alternatives to science. There is a damn sight more poetry in nature, there for the seeking, than in any poetry anthology or ancient book of myths.

What I said, and I'm sticking to it: It is common for believers to put science alongside their belief system as some kind of equivalent alternative. That is a very poor way of seeing things. Moreover, anyone who thinks that they can put imagination, poetry and creativity forward as alternative perspectives to science has it arse about face.

Those amazing true gods of sound and stone and word and tint were just fine, with or without religion. Their art was free of the shackles of whatever faith they might have entertained in another part of their being.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 06:32 PM

Stevie Dingleberry, Who in their right mind would take your overblown self absorbed word about music or God????..Are you alluding that you know more about music or God than Beethoven??
Sometimes you make such an ass of yourself!!

Go impress yourself in front of a mirror...then destroy the mirror!

All hail the wisdom and great mouth of dorko!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 06:54 PM

Hey Ludwig, "Where did you get that inspiration for composing such unbelievable music?"

Ludwig: "I don't know..haven't got a clue, ask Steve, He knows everything about nothing! Me?..I just am a stooge next to him..I'm still trying to figure out how he gets such a big head up his ass!"

So am I.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 07:51 PM

Well guess who's here to raise the tone! Do put me right, point by point, or simply retreat into your over-gusty insanity.

I'm of a similar view, actually, when it comes to music as Vladimir Ashkenazy. It's a complete bloody mystery to me. Of course, if you have evidence that Bach, Beethoven or anyone else wrote music driven or significantly influenced by their faith, let's have it! Let's agree, though, that the fact that a bloke took communion and/or played the organ in church, or even that he composed music around religious subjects (they, er, had to do that to make a living...) is not that evidence, as much as many a faith-wallah would like to claim it to be so. I'm actually telling you what I don't know, if you think about it. Which you don't, cos you can't! :-)

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

I never said it was as a result of his 'faith'. He was asked, and he gave the answer..If you don't like it, too bad. Maybe he told the truth..and those who know what he's talking about, knows that he answered correctly. If you can't realize that, well, you can always just listen to all those voices in your head...we can't see them either...but it doesn't mean they don't exist!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:49 PM

Who said I didn't like it! I like it when people are true to themselves, not saying what I expect 'em to say. Anyone reading your two posts above your last one would think 'twas you who's addled with voices in the head, suddenly swanning in like that with your silly, demeaning verbiage. Are you sober? Or maybe thirteen?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:54 PM

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

                  Global warming a hoax....

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

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 10:02 PM

...and 95% of all forest fires are cause by trees!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 04:34 AM

Is there an alternative to contradiction masquerading as debate?

Thought not.

Older people of today were brought up without knowing the existence of so many ruddy galaxies, or that the internet could or would transform their lives, either actively or passively. So how the Hell could Beethoven and Bach have known that the God delusion could be challenged? We are all creatures of our day and the limit of understanding of that day.

A bit deep for me, that. Here's a joke about a greyhound having a shit...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 06:15 AM

That is entirely correct. A man of his time indeed. Beethoven was baptised a Catholic but he was not a regular churchgoer. What we know of him suggests that he embraced a personal god, or perhaps a higher power to which he may have looked for inspiration, but not God as characterised by the God squads of his time (and ours, for that matter). Denying God in those times and in his circumstances would not have been so easy in any case, even if he'd wanted to, which he may not have done. Certainly, many other composers of his time or earlier would have been expected to embrace Christianity almost as a condition of their employment, which muddies the waters somewhat when it comes to assessing their true degrees of devotion.

It irritates me quite a lot when I see people trying to claim the talents of great artists as the spawn of their faith. No-one would try to deny that religious tradition did not inspire specific works of art to be produced, but that is as much as it is possible to claim. Religion claims so much, yet rejects inconveniences such as the horrors perpetrated "in the name of religion" (I have a lot of sympathy with religion over that, actually). I attended a funeral of a lifelong friend a little while ago. The pastor, in his eulogy at the service, did not hesitate to claim my friend's long and virtuous life (which he did indeed live) to be a product of his Christianity. In the many decades I knew him he never attended church nor ever expressed the slightest interest in religion. So another claim that was a bit of a stretch at best.

There's another point to be made. Bach, Beethoven, Einstein and you name 'em were giants in their fields. In their fields. They were ordinary people in other areas of life. Beethoven drank too much and was extremely quarrelsome and unhygienic. Mozart was full of dirty jokes and Schubert loved to consort with prostitutes who were not necessarily grown up, shall we say. Bach didn't know when to stop having kids and Einstein famously frustrated his violin teacher, who accused him of not being able to count. There's many a superb scientist who is also a believer. The two can be divorced for the purpose of everyday life. Who's to say that the Missa Solemnis could not have been composed by a Buddhist? Vaughan-Williams was an atheist but he wrote a wonderful little mass, one of my favourites (Mass in G minor). "There is no reason why an atheist could not write a good Mass," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 11:53 AM

Apologies for the extraneous hyphen in Vaughan Williams. I've just worked out why it didn't look right.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 12:08 PM

I made the point in an earlier post that some atheists seem to have a very rigid view of what constitutes religious belief. Basing my judgement on Steve Shaw's posts over a considerable time to various threads I believe him to be guilty of this. I recall one occasion when I responded on another thread, I believe courteously, to an equally courteous query about my beliefs from another poster, Steve Shaw reacted with a sneering post telling me to 'get up of my knees'.

Not every believer is an anti-logic, self-deluding fundamentalist. I suspect (but I cannot know) that I derive at least as much delight from science, from the natural world and from humanity's ingenuity as he does. My enjoyment of art in all it's forms is not tempered by the artist's beliefs or lack of belief. I am fortunate in having a wide circle of friends - I am unable to say in every case what beliefs they may hold because I do not find it necessary to enquire. Some I know are atheists, but so what? I am open about my beliefs but do not feel the need to force them on anyone else.

Steve, I feel that you are very keen to pontificate and you appear to have a visceral hatred of religious faith; sometimes you give the impression that you extend that hatred to individuals who hold such beliefs. My beliefs, and the beliefs of many others, are one facet of our personalities. Just as your beliefs contribute to your personality.
They do not of themselves make us any better or worse. How we behave determines that.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 03:04 PM

Don't be so bloody silly. Most of my friends are God-fearers of various levels of conviction. I don't hate them or anybody else. You sound so stupid when you say that. And I'm fully aware that not every believer is an anti-logic, self-deluding fundamentalist. I've never claimed they are. They are, however, all deluded. I suppose I could put that slightly more diplomatically, but I say it that way in response to you. You are fairly typical of the attack-mode type of believer who appears to feel threatened by atheists who state their views from the hip. Don't worry. We're all fluffy bunnies really.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 05:22 AM

Well....maybe the 'concept' of God has been distorted by 'religion'...
God, however you conceive God to be, is regarded as God, as the origin of life. 'Religion', on the other hand, is trying to recruit people to be like-minded believers....usually to control them 'downward' sorta like 'guessing do-gooders'..but still guessing....perhaps those who have a profound respect, and hold in awe, the wonder of it all, and safeguarding their 'thought life' to preserve the information they receive as a result of their focus, are given greater sensitivities, to that dimension..and because of that are entrusted with even greater insights and power...being as they hold those things in high esteem!...Imagine what they could come into, to affect change, on this little ball spinning in space...both spiritually AND physically...especially if the information being received concerns not only life, but the very elements that make matter....and because of their focused respect for it all, ya' think they could be allowed to alter realities, to include more love...being as they also connect that as an element in the substance of life???

Ever considered that?

Beethoven was onto something....and it manifested itself into SOUND!

Next!

GfS

P.S. I am really sorry for you if you cannot conceive what I'm saying...if you can, stop fucking around and being obnoxious....the two side by side makes your manifestations mind numbingly boring!
No insult intended.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 05:39 AM

Ever considered that?

I seldom have time to try to dissect the disconnected, inchoate ramblings of a madman, to be honest. Perhaps you could convey to me, in a sentence or two, what things I'm supposed to put side by side. Have a massive espresso then get back to me... :-)

Ps. Try real sentences. No insult intended. Irony, maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 06:12 AM

'You are fairly typical of the attack-mode type of believer who appears to feel threatened by atheists who state their views from the hip'

That is bloody silly. I am assuming that in your eyes anyone who disagrees with your views in this area is an 'attack -mode type of believer'. You are beginning to sound paranoid. I do believe that you have a closed mind but that is your problem, not mine.

I note you described yourself as a pagan in an earlier post. As the term pagan covers a variety of belief systems to which do you give allegiance?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 07:09 AM

I said pagan because I have a sense of humour. Rediscover yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 09:11 AM

I have. I'm laughing at you.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 10:32 AM

"My enjoyment of art in all it's forms is not tempered by the artist's beliefs or lack of belief."

That's not such a good analogy about how you feel about science. The fundamental truth present in art is not the quantifiable, testable, observable truth that it is in science. Art in all its myriad forms represents our expression of the human (or animal, if the artist is a gorilla, for example) condition. It doesn't speak to us in absolutes.

Science, to a degree does, although any scientist worth their salt stands to be corrected when new evidence presents itself. For a scientist, moving on our knowledge of the who we are, where we're from and our place in the universe through reproducible research is the key motivation for what they do.

Imagination? Creativity? Science has all this, and more. A genuine sense of awe in the universe, and a desire to find our how and why it is as it is. Ethics? Morality? To think science doesn't struggle with these issues demonstrates a profound ignorance of what science is, and I've pontificated many times on this site on how science provides a solid moral standpoint more powerful and profound than any religion, as it's truly inclusive of all living beings. None of this 'dominion over all living things' arrogant, evil rubbish.

The scribblings of a band of desert tribesmen thousands of years ago are presented today as unquestionable fact, policies affecting the lives of billions are formulated on the writing of a people long lost to history. Accepting these writings as a fundamental truth to impose on the lives of those who don't think they represent the word of a 'God' is not really very nice.

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

Excellent.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 12:20 PM

I did not intend the sentence you quote to be an analogy about how I feel about science. I was trying to indicate that any beliefs I may have do not stop me from appreciating art in all its forms.   I also stated that that I am able to find delight in science, again, regardless of any beliefs I hold.
I am in agreement with the rest of your post although I hope that your last paragraph is not intended to suggest that I attempt to impose my beliefs on anyone. I don't; I find such attempts obnoxious - whether from those with a religious faith or with none.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 12:54 PM

I was trying to indicate that any beliefs I may have do not stop me from appreciating art in all its forms.

Then I hope you can also accept that it is unsafe in the extreme to claim that the imagination, creativity and poetry of any art are driven, or significantly influenced, by religious faith. The most that could ever be claimed is that some art is inspired to be produced by religious subject matter. To claim any more than that would be to claim that you could read the minds of artists.

I'd add that commenting, no matter how directly, on people's religious beliefs in no way amounts to an attempt to impose anything. On the other hand, imposing religious belief on people is rife. It happens in every faith school. It even starts with the christening of tiny babies.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 02:00 PM

I have never claimed to be able to read anyone's mind, I have been explicit about that in previous posts. Your post implies that I may be guilty of this. Why do you believe that you can read my mind?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 02:51 PM

Sugarfoot, I love it.

"The scribblings of a band of desert tribesmen thousands of years ago are presented today as unquestionable fact, policies affecting the lives of billions are formulated on the writing of a people long lost to history. Accepting these writings as a fundamental truth to impose on the lives of those who don't think they represent the word of a 'God' is not really very nice."

This is eloquently stated and as far as I'm concerned, the final word on the subject.

Religion should stay the hell out of science. That is so medieval!

To restate: the alternative to science is ignorance and the destruction of civilizations, despite the hydrogen bomb and weapons of warfare (many used incorporating religious views).

We live longer today because of science, not religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 04:51 PM

Regardless of what you might think of the theological content, "scribblings of desert tribesmen" is an absurd characterization.

Is the Book of Job a mere "scribbling"? How about Ecclesiastes? How about the whole notion that human beings have overriding moral responsibilities regardless of wealth or social status?

Is there much early poetry more skillfully polished than the Psalms?

Scribblings (like "Surfin' Bird") aren't very interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 06:02 PM

"How about the whole notion that human beings have overriding moral responsibilities regardless of wealth or social status?"

It's comforting that that "whole notion" has a long pedigree. Interesting to note that it doesn't really require a belief in God though. We agnostics and atheists can embrace it quite comfortably.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 06:24 PM

Not to suggest that the Old Testament invented "the whole notion" for everybody else, merely that it plays a significant role there.

That notion, however, is absent from, say, the Iliad and the Odyssey - which hardly count as scribblings either.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 06:24 PM

Exactly, Shimrod. I refer back to the example of my friend, who lived a virtuous, non-religious life for the many decades I knew him, yet who was claimed so tastelessly by religion at his funeral because he'd been such a good chap. Lighter does appear to typify the attitude of so many believers that the "moral code" set by their own particular faith is the only one that is valid. Phooey! They'd better watch out just in case I invoke the devout catholicity of Sir Jimmy Savile...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 06:52 PM

Steve, your dodge wasn't even a good one. It is obvious to anyone that you have an ax to grind....but you cannot differentiate between 'religion' and God. That's YOUR problem, not everyone elses.
..and the claim you couldn't understand my last post, is further indication that you'd rather claim stupidity than the ability to consider another person's.
My, you ARE blocked!!...no wonder intelligence evades you!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 06:55 PM

And you're pissed up. Or drugged. Or very upset by something. By the sound of it. You are a festering carbuncle on the arse of mudcat. Go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 07:22 PM

So all ethics is interchangeably relative and artificial? Interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 08:11 PM

Ethics derive from the innate goodness of people, in which I actually retain some faith. If one should ever claim that ethics derive from some exterior, imposed source, religion for example, one is a liar and a scoundrel. The evidence is seriously stacked against that bogus claim. There is nothing more unethical than claiming that one's faith, acquired through nothing other than the accident of the place of one's birth, is the one true faith, a typical claim of both Christianity and Islam. Except, perhaps, for inflicting that faith on children, which major faiths are signally inclined to do and which many an ordinary, decent Christian, for example, is minded to justify. It ill behoves persons of faith to preach to non-believers about ethics, frankly. You might as well try to prove that, due to lack of belief, we're all thieves, rapists and murderers.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 02:31 AM

So Steve, Do you have 'faith' that your resentment towards the unseen is indeed your religion???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 04:02 AM

Hey Steve..(or anybody) read this carefully....and go back to Beethoven's quote...."Ludwig van Beethoven: The vibrations on the air are the breath of God speaking to man's soul. Music is the language of God. We musicians are as close to God as man can be. We hear his voice, we read his lips, we give birth to the children of God, who sing his praise. That's what musicians are."

Alternative to Science??..and lo and behold, from ABC News.........

...and then explain it all away, from your lack of experience!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 04:06 AM

If science could be seen as irreligious, then could religion be without the benefit of science?

Just a thought..

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 04:48 AM

""...and then explain it all away, from your lack of experience!""

You do have a certain amusement value "Guest from Sanatorium", but you are straying seriously off beam.

We don't have to prove or explain anything to you, science is its own explanation, tried and tested and always prepared to take on board new evidence.

Not so religion, dreams of heaven, or the hyperbole of an admittedly genius musician from a time when religion was almost compulsory.

No evidence, no willingness to consider any such, and a fixed and determined intention to make the facts fit the desired result.

In short the antithesis, not only of science, but also of common sense, established over millennia by MEN with nothing on their minds but a desire to control others.

Belief in a deity (designer)?.....OK, but that doesn't mean that he/she/it needs us to conform to the wishes of self appointed and self important control freaks, nor to pray to him/her/it for guidance or forgiveness.

That is akin to praying to the builder of one's pre war semi D.

Don T.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 05:19 AM

Well, Gusty, I looked at your link. As ever, one has to point out that witness is not evidence, any more than tradition, hearsay, ceremony, preachings, stories or suspect ancient manuscripts are. What nailed the silliness of the whole article for me was this:

Alexander said he is scientifically certain that his stricken brain could never have produced the images and ideas he experienced -- or remembered them.

"Scientifically certain", eh? The irony of that remark was totally lost on Alexander, eh? Not an awful lot to "explain away", then, really!

As for my alleged resentment towards the "unseen" (keep the Aunt Sallys coming - I love 'em!), how can I resent something for which there is no evidence and whose existence is so improbable?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 05:51 AM

"How about the whole notion that human beings have overriding moral responsibilities regardless of wealth or social status?"

It would appear that this concept pre-dates Christianity by 100s of millenia. For 3 days this week there has been a 3 part series on BBC2 (British TV) called 'Prehistoric Autopsy' in which scientists attempted to reconstruct the lives, life-styles and appearances of 3 hominid species from their fossils. The middle episode was about the human ancestor, Homo erectus who lived in Africa several 100 thousand years ago (can't remember the exact date). A particular skull of this species was found to be toothless - and was deduced to have been toothless for some years before he/she died. The programme concluded that such an individual would have struggled to survive without the support of its fellows - prehistoric altruism long, long, long, long, long before the invention of religion. Did H. erectus have a religion? We'll never know, of course, but because H. erectus populations were probably widely dispersed and unable to communicate with each other it probably wasn't a universal religion like Christianity would be in that far, far, far future.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 10:15 AM

"...and then explain it all away, from your lack of experience!"

This is hearsay, not evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 10:20 AM

Without meaning to undercut the tremendous significance of the H. erectus discovery, I think that it more likely suggests no more than the existence of love and loyalty to one's family members.

That would be a huge first step beyond animals, who care just for their young (and for a limited time), but it would be only the first step.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 12:09 PM

"That would be a huge first step beyond animals, who care just for their young (and for a limited time)"

That comment comes across as anthropocentric arrogance, the kind displayed in the vile, evil, murderous . . .

"[1:26] Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."

. . .crap spouted at the start of the Bible. Whichever desert tribesman scribbled that bitter little bit of fiction is deserving of a whole heap of contempt and pity. Hmmm. Did He say 'us' back there? I copied this from the Vatican website.

Many animals have very strong extended family bonds and many care for juveniles evenn if they're not related i.e. meerkats, wolves. Animals are known to grieve (elephants, some corvids), laugh and have culture (many primates, some corvids), laugh, use and make tools (primates and corvids) and have the ability to recognised themselves indicating self-consciousness (apes and cetaceans). They have the ability to reason (many birds, some cephalopods), they sulk and throw tantrums (Orang-utans).

Given they show the gamut of emotions, I would suggest they can love too.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 12:46 PM

Alternative to Science??

Hey, just ignore what the scientist witnessed...we got your opinion!!!

Stevie: "...As ever, one has to point out that witness is not evidence,.."

Yeah witnesses are not relevant... and being as you haven't witnessed ANYTHING, I guess your OPINION should be valued!...(what a self absorbed idiot!).

Think about it...but don't hurt yourself!

GfS

P.S. Come to think about it, go ahead, hurt yourself...there would be no effect whatsoever!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 12:46 PM

In the beginning Man created god.

He then set out to try and understand the world around him. Lo! He said, I shall call this process science. And he saw that it was good. (Apart from the bits where he noted his science was capable of doing his bidding, then he remembered his other toy god, and thought, "They are both useful for the same end. No wonder I get confused.."

You could go on for hours, but why bother.....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 12:59 PM

Musket, On another thread I posted this one..not unlike yours.."In the beginning God created man in his image and likeness..and ever since man has been trying to return the favor!"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 01:34 PM

There is no intelligent alternative to science, certainly not religion. I do not understand the difficulty that some people have in recognising that some people can accommodate both.
With regard to the quotes from Genesis given above I am sure that thinking Christians recognise that the Old Testament does not represent a rule book or a history lesson. The creation myth that begins Genesis is a poetic way of expressing a belief in a creator, not a statement of fact. (I did say thinking Christians). There are some fairly hideous sections in the Old Testament. There are also some hideous elements in the histories of every country. For example, alleged witches were sentenced to state sponsored murder in both England and the USA. This should not be seen as defining modern Brits or Americans. I know there are people who believe that the Bible is factually true - there are also people who believe that the world is flat. Most Christians that I know demonstrate a rational approach to both their lives and their faith, they should not be judged as the same as the lunatic fringe.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 02:01 PM

Near-death experiences (including those in which the patient was pronounced dead) have been recorded frequently.

What's interesting is that except in a very vague way they don't much resemble one another. Somebody sees heaven, somebody sees hell, somebody sees light, somebody sees a tunnel, somebody sees relatives, somebody sees himself dead, somebody sees friendly strangers, somebody hears a voice, somebody hears music, etc.

The inconsistencies don't prove anything, but neither do the similarities. The most encouraging thing is that most (though not all) of the witnesses say they felt good throughout the experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 04:47 PM

Hey, just ignore what the scientist witnessed...we got your opinion!!!

Stevie: "...As ever, one has to point out that witness is not evidence,.."

Yeah witnesses are not relevant... and being as you haven't witnessed ANYTHING, I guess your OPINION should be valued!...(what a self absorbed idiot!).

Think about it...but don't hurt yourself!

Some scientist, eh, who can talk about being "scientifically certain." Heheh. You do know what science is, do you, Gustiferous One?

And bear in mind that I said witness, an abstract noun, not "witnesses." I've witnessed all sorts of things in my life, but only for some of those witnessed events could I provide evidence. That would be on several levels: did anyone else witness it who could corroborate? Was that person independent? Have I got peer-reviewed documentary evidence? Could I get you to repeat my witnessed experience with the same result? Did I get photos or video??

I saw ball lightning once. I was sober and the atmospheric conditions were, allegedly I discovered later, just right. But I was on my own when I saw it. It was in the wee small hours and no-one else was out of bed. I checked with the neighbours next day. I was on my own. No photos, no video. I can give you a very vivid description if you like. I'm certain of what I saw. I wasn't looking for an experience. I was outside trying to get my cat in. I've eliminated all other alternative possibilities. But all I have to offer is witness. I would not ask you to believe me. What I have is conviction (cf. faith) but what I don't have is evidence (cf. faith). So I'm not going to publish my story in a popular faux-science mag (unlike yer man, who went public in a rather dubious publication that is possibly, for all I know, owned and run by a bunch of evangelical types). My mate told me he'd seen a tornado over my part of north Cornwall. Tornados over north Cornwall are like rocking-horse shit. But my mate had his cheapie camera in his pocket and he took a picture. It's a brilliant picture. There is no doubt that it is a picture of a tornado. I can recognise the buildings in the pic as belonging to my farmer neighbours. Right-click on it and it tells you the date and time, and I can check the weather conditions for that afternoon, and they fit. Now that's evidence. Not truth, but good evidence. Have a think about all that, Gusty. I'm so glad to be of use in your continuing education about what science is about.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 05:00 PM

There is no intelligent alternative to science, certainly not religion. I do not understand the difficulty that some people have in recognising that some people can accommodate both.

Well, I recognise that many people happily accommodate both. That is hardly the issue. What's slightly more difficult is understanding how the self-same people who can happily embrace the rigour of evidence-requirement in science can suspend the need for evidence so completely when it comes to religious belief. That is so wacky that it's no wonder that rational people regard religious belief as deluded.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 07:49 PM

For dubious publication, read dubious dumbing-down website.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 08:19 PM

There are also some hideous elements in the histories of every country. For example, alleged witches were sentenced to state sponsored murder in both England and the USA. This should not be seen as defining modern Brits or Americans.

Hmm. Well, my family comes from Pendle in Lancashire. I took my mum for a drive round Pendle last week as it happens. Beautiful country it is, the north of England's best-kept secret. The "witches" from there who were executed a few hundred years ago were hounded by Christians. The church at Newchurch-in-Pendle, the graveyard of which contains burials of many of the witches' families, still has a huge eye sculpted on the tower to ward off evil spirits. The rabid antisemitism that gained currency in the late 19th century in Europe (thanks a lot, Wagner), and which culminated in the Holocaust, was connived in very consistently by the Catholic church. Pius XII (now up for sainthood) knowingly oversaw the removal by the Nazis of a thousand Jews from the Vatican to death camps and facilitated the escape to south America of Nazi war criminals at the end of the war. The Church was silent about Hitler and did dirty deals with Mussolini. There is institutional covering-up of child abuse in the Church that has been going on for decades and which continues to this very day. Your history is more modern than you seem to think, but it doesn't define modern Brits and Americans. It defines, if it defines anyone at all, modern Brit and American Christianity. Unfortunately, it seems that few adherents of such choose to vote with their feet.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 08:33 PM

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

Romney, if elected, will introduce legislation requiring the planet
to quit warming...

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

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 08:47 PM

This is no time for any git to come on here talking sense, Bobert old chap!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 08:49 PM

Stevie: "Insult intended"

Yup..had it pegged.....block-headed ignorance IS his religion....and it's still not the same thing as faith. His fingers must be worn out typing all that crap.
Hey Steve, maybe you're feeling guilty because you are confusing a 'religious experience' with some bad memories when growing up in a bogus church.
That's not to say that the thought of it all has escaped you.
I'm not a 'church person'....nor was Beethoven a religious kook.

I can see it now....Stevie laying on the floor, feet up on the couch, his hand down his whitey tighties, firmly gripping the volcano, while the other hand digging in the pumpkin, looking for his lost hat.....reading a quote from Beethoven, panting frantically...."No no, no...Say it's not true, it's not true, it's not true, it's not true he couldn't have..no, no, it's not true, it's not true....(groan)...ahhh.... NOOOOOOO...ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!....ooh God!!!

Oops, what did I say? ....I've been SAVED!!!!...(again).

GfS

If you really want to discuss it seriously...scientifically, let me know. Your rants are too frantically psychotic to take seriously.
Speaking of science...I've got a link that should blow your mind...might even make you THINK....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 08:57 PM

The sheer erudition of your contributions has me positively cowering, intellectually defeated natch, in a scruffy corner. How can you be so clever? So...clear-headed?

You've got a link? Wow! But why threaten me with it? Give us yer bloody link, man!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 09:08 PM

Watch ALL 7 parts...with an open mind..pay attention to the latter part when they say that what they discovered, has opened up a whole new field of science...that is if you are really interested in science.
In this video, the scientists say, flat out, that what they have discovered (and you'll hear him say it) is "where science and the spiritual come together in a most profound way".
I posted this before for you, but you blew it off thinking you knew everything about it...but it is plainly clear, that you could learn something.
Whether you care to has always been open for debate...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 09:08 PM

Links and truth don't mix here, Steve... There are thousands of wacko right winger being paid to turn chicken shit into chicken salad and the inter net is filled with them... Might of fact, if you Google anything slightly "political" they will take over the first 2 million pages of your search... This is big $$$ and Boss Hog is out to misinform 'cause if 'nwhen the woekin' man figures it out he'll fuck Boss Hog up...

That's the way it is...

Yeah, Boss Hog, like all the Boss Hogs before him will maintain control and power until that day when he's run out of time...

Bad mouthing science is in today... We see Italy convicting scientists for not predicting earthquakes.... But times change... The right wing, be it here or Pakistan, has things dialed up prudy good for them right now but they are running out of time...

Science exists... The truth exists... Humanity exists... Folks like Hitler and Romney can fool the people some of the time but science and knowledge and change will prevail...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 09:11 PM

Leave it to Bobert to go off course and talk politics.....which by its nature has NOTHING to do with truth!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 09:28 PM

Alternative to science, GfinS???

It's politics, dude... It's politics...

The Koch brothers want to poison yer water and pollute yer air...

It's politics...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 09:40 PM

BTW, my son's mother's late father - my late father-in-law - was a so-called expert on science... Not too sure how he became an "expert" 'cause all he had was a BS in "horticulture" from Cornell (no, not that Cornell) College in Iowa...

He somehow became the "expert" and was hired by API (American Petroleum Institute), a K-Street lobby...

So after the Exxon Valdez he was sent to "The Hill" to testify about the oil that was dumped on Alaska as "the expert" and the underlying theme of what he had to say was...

..."Don't worry, be happy..."

This is what science has become... Liars... Fakes... Snake-oil salesmen... So-called scientists... Paid crooks... Hit men... Thugs, goons and idiots...

Ya'll can talk as much slternatives as ya'll like... No matter... Until we get to a point where we accept that the Earth revolves around the sun we aren't all that different than the apes in "2001, A Space Oddesy"....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 25 Oct 12 - 10:49 PM

> Pius...knowingly oversaw the removal by the Nazis of a thousand Jews from the Vatican to death camps and facilitated the escape to south America of Nazi war criminals at the end of the war.

Evidence for these claims?

Not even Wikipedia seems to support them. Were there ever 1000 Jews in Vatican City? That would be roughly equal to the entire 1940 population.

Some Catholic clergy aided escaping Nazis for reasons of their own, but there is no evidence that the Pope did so or knew about their activities.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 02:07 AM

Bobert: "This is what science has become... Liars... Fakes... Snake-oil salesmen... So-called scientists... Paid crooks... Hit men... Thugs, goons and idiots..."

AND... "Alternative to science, GfinS???
It's politics, dude... It's politics..."

And somehow they are going hand in hand, and both are 'paid crooks'.

As for me, I'll dial into 'Galactic Central' via the 'Inter-Galactic Space Telephone'.....and stay tuned in. This other crap is too silly to even consider!...Fortunately it's only polluting this dimension!!

Regards, Ol' Bud,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 03:58 AM

"What's slightly more difficult is understanding how the self-same people who can happily embrace the rigour of evidence-requirement in science can suspend the need for evidence so completely when it comes to religious belief."

Exactly, Steve! I wonder about that all the time.

And yes, Bobert, I agree with you - it is all about politics.

And GUEST,GfS I haven't got the faintest clue what you're talking about!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 05:15 AM

The amazing thing, Shimrod, is that he thinks we're supposed to understand him.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 07:32 AM

Evidence? Google "Pius XII and the Roman razzia":

According to Phayer, there is no doubt that "Pius XII knew of the plan to murder Roman Jews".[5] Pius XII's under-secretaries of state Giovanni Montini and Domenico Tardini first learned of the planned deporations in mid-September 1943.[6] Specifically, the Vatican learned of a "telegram from Berlin instructing the SS in Rome to seize the city's Jews" several weeks before the razzia began.[7]
By October, "various members of the German military and diplomatic corps" were attempting to prevent the planned deportation of Rome's Jews.[7] Ernst von Weizsäcker took over from bishop Alois Hudal the task of compiling a comprehensive list of the properties of the pope in Rome and sending hundreds of "letters of protection" to those properties, guaranteeing them extraterritorial status.[7] However, von Weizsäcker delegated the task of actually warning the Roman Jewry to his assistant Albrecht von Kassel, who encountered great difficulty due to the prevailing opinion, generated by former Fascist Jews Dante Almansi and Ugo Foa, that there was "no cause for alarm".[8] In any case, according to Phayer, "Pope Pius gave them no warning".[8] In the end, very few Jews "availed themselves of opportunities to hide" before October 16.[8] Contrary to many non-contemporary accounts, historian Susan Zuccotti finds no evidence that "the populations of convents and monasteries surged before the fateful day".[8]


Father Père Marie-Benoît
According to Zuccotti, not only did Pius XII not aid the efforts of Father Père Marie-Benoît (later honored as Righteous among the Nations for his efforts to save Jews), he actively discouraged his work.[9] Father Benoît was called to Rome in June 1943, where he had no success in enlisting the aid of the pontiff to help Jews escape Italian-occupied France.[10] With respect to Benoît's actions during the razzia, Zuccotti writes, "far from claiming receipt of material aid from Vatican officials, Benedetto never even wrote that they encouraged him".[11] For example, Msgr. Angelo dell'Acqua, an official in the Vatican Secretariat of State, wrote on November 20, 1943 that he had repeatedly told Benoît to "use the maximum prudence", lamenting that Benoît had "not wished to listen to the humble advice given to him".[11] Vatican officials actively attempted to "subdue" the efforts of Benoît and others, cautioning them against even meeting with Jews, with "whom it would be better to speak less".[11] When Benoît asked Monitini for a letter of recommendation he needed to provide false documents to Jews, "he received little but a reprimand".[12]

Evidence? Google "Ratlines WW2":

According to Phayer, Pius XII "preferred to see fascist war criminals on board ships sailing to the New World rather than seeing them rotting in POW camps in zonal Germany".[7] Unlike the Vatican emigration operation in Italy, centered on Vatican City, the ratlines of Spain, although "fostered by the Vatican" were relatively independent of the hierarchy of the Vatican Emigration Bureau.[8]

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 07:53 AM

So let's see if I have this right, Gustiferissimous One ex Sanitorium. You want me to watch a seven-part series about a medieval piece of cloth containing an image that is not of Jesus. Any chance of a quick, potted version of what you suppose it tells us? I have chunes to learn for tonight, you see...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 08:13 AM

BTW, have ya'll heard that women have the ability to not become pregnant from the sperm of a rapist???

Yup, right there on the inter net so it must be true...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: saulgoldie
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 11:07 AM

Thread drift, Bobster. Nevertheless...conceiving an embryo by being raped is a "gift from G-d." I don't know what *process* led us, or at least one goofball to that *conclusion.* But I suppose that to use scientific inquiry to get there, one would have to demonstrate prove the existance of "G-d" or there can be no clear testable hypothesis. But G-d is a concept that relies on faith to "exist." Therefore, one cannot use the scientific method to prove or disprove his conclusion. Isn't that convenient? It is both a war on science AND a war on women! A lovely GOP twofer!! How DO they do it, folks??

And sadly, you did *not* hear it here first.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 12:26 PM

and hopefully moving away from the slanging match...
the featured article on creation.com today is about the amount of similarity between humans and chimps.dawkins in the blind watchmaker aserted dna correlation as 99 percent and studies seemed to confirm similar figures .now however it has emerged that data had been filtered and selectively used to arrive at higher figures.with the previously ommitted data restored the figure is 81-87 percent.there is a lot of technical discussion in the article but i think i've conveyed the gist of it.
"alternative to science" no need-just honest,unbiased enquiry.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 12:58 PM

Think of it this way, the Richard Mourdock way:

A rape victim is pregnant. She didn't intend to conceive a baby. The rapist didn't intend to conceive a baby. So Who intended to conceive the baby?

Any questions?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 01:17 PM

Any credible sources (as opposed to Creation.com) for that little snippet, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 02:14 PM

I'm afraid to have to tell you, pete, that this stuff is way beyond you. Popular science mags and snippets for news bulletins demand gross over-simplification. Those percentage figures are not what you will hear evolutionary scientists talking to each other about. And I'm sorry to disappoint you, pete, but whether it's "99%" or "85%" doesn't make a smidgeon of difference to the fact that the two species are evolutionarily linked. Anyway, you should, as good scientists always do, delight in the fact that new evidence can come to light to keep the debate fresh. Here, stop bothering us with yer creationist claptrap, embrace the truth for a change and get yer teeth into this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 04:42 PM

I know I'm wasting my time here, talking to a brainwashed person, but science is not some unalterable, unchangeable, unchallengeable, bloody great huge monolith like your religion, pete. Science is not unassailable dogma and a scientist who presents evidence to challenge a current model of reality is not some sort of heretic (well not generally, anyway - I'm sure it happens - but it shouldn't). Fresh evidence can often alter the perspective on that particular model of reality, revealing new, previously unseen, features and facets. Truly great scientists,like Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger and Darwin, have revealed to us models of reality which no-one before them had even anticipated. And other great scientists may come along in the future and overthrow those models. But that's COOL!! When new evidence comes along it doesn't mean that science must be 'wrong' and we all have to start believing that it wus God wot did it!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack out and about
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 08:10 PM

"alternative to science" no need-just honest,unbiased enquiry

OK, I'm going to take offence at this, and here's why.

I am a researcher specialising in palaeontology and this idea that the wok I do is anything else than honest or unbiased is slanderous. My objective is the truth, and I happen to know my fellow workers in this field are exactly the same.

I have zero financial or any other vested interest in my research; I do it because I want to know how and why things are why they are, and palaeontology is one way to do this.

To suggest that anyone is dishonest or a liar because they do the work, do the learning, reading and donkey work is not only rude, it's bloody ignorant. I don't take someone else's word for anything, I find out for myself and I trust my co workers to tell me the truth.

In fact, I would think the people that write the shite on creation.com can't hold a candle to those who do honest, unbiased research.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 08:14 PM

You didn't watch it all the way...so I think getting an opinion from an 'un-observer' is about as scientific as listening to someone just making shit up which you are..'guessing and hoping' otherwise known as a symptom of morons....(true story).....and I don't feel it necessary to give much credence to someone who cannot be taken seriously. The comedy/tragedy of it all is that YOU do!!!

...along with others.

Truly Yours,..(like a wart)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 08:34 PM

Have another vat of whatever you're supping. I promise I will watch it all the way if you give me good reason to watch a seven-part series about a cloth that does not have the image of Jaysus on it. I really do need a good reason, you know. I like to do tunes and not watch telly. Tell me: do you still think the shroud is a pic of Jesus?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Oct 12 - 08:38 PM

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

If Romney is elected he will ground the entire U.S. Navy while a
re-evaluation is conducted on the roundness of the Earth...

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

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 08:09 AM

""If you really want to discuss it seriously...scientifically, let me know. Your rants are too frantically psychotic to take seriously."

Says the man who has yet to post a coherent comment on this forum.

Really Goofus, what are you smoking?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 08:49 AM

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

If elected, Romney says he will close down NIH (National Institute of Health) saying that curing disease is short sighted and that the folks who work there are "hacks and quacks" with "welfare mentalities"...

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

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 09:37 AM

Hey, Sanity, just answer me this one question, will you?

Do...you...really...think...that...the...Turin...shroud...bears...the...image...of...Jesus?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 11:13 AM

Nobody interested in the Shroud can afford not to read Joe Nickell's investigative "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin."

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 11:18 AM

I am not the least bit 'interested' in the pesky thing; but I would be interested in a response from GfS to Steve's perfectly reasonable & pertinent question about it.

Answer! Answer!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 11:59 AM

I am the only one disappointed when a discussion nominally about alternatives to science turns into one solely about science versus religion, which then becomes one about rationality?

I think if people look at themselves carefully, they will find that the majority of their personal decisions are *not* scientific or rational: in fact I would hazard that for most people the big financial decisions of their lives (what house they buy, what car they buy, and so on) are almost entirely emotional. Of course, they may then invent rational explanations for it afterwards (and there is quite a lot of research on that) but as a rule the rational component of such decisions is pretty minor.

That seems to me a much more interesting area for discussion; pity we choose to go over the well-trodden ground instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 12:46 PM

First of all, you should see the documentary yourselves...and consider the evidence put forth. I'm not the one to tell you WHAT to think...and in science, by definition as well, the 'impartial observer' gathers all the data an comes to either a conclusion or at least a theory.

What is really pathetic, is when someone who claims to be 'scientific', blunders into a subject, armed with only an unlearned opinion, and tries to shoot down any other possibilities....without even looking into it, because it might step on the toes of his biased, unlearned opinion!!!

Now this all started when I posted a quote from Beethoven, who responded to a question when he was asked about the source of his ability to compose the music he was composing....and the alleged harmonica player has a pissy-fit, and attempts to shoot down Beethoven's answer because it doesn't fit into his small minded bias.

Then a scientist (I posted the link from Yahoo that same day as the story broke)who had died and was revived, reports of what he experienced and saw.... which was consistent to a degree of what Beethoven said...and again our resident alleged harmonica player says the scientist is all wrong. Hmmm......well one thing that can be said about this particular alleged harmonica player, is he certainly is equipped to play a harmonica...he is a blow hard with a big mouth!

"BS: Below the Line... Musicians or not???
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 12 - 07:57 PM

Does that mean that a kid playing in a school band is not a musician? Come to think of it, you are probably right. Although a great many musicians get their start there.

The aim of anyone playing any instrument should be to put themselves at the service of the music. "My instrument" is the harmonica."

Yeah, what the hell did Beethoven know about music???
Yeah, what the hell did scientist know about observing his own experience??
...Personally, I think I'll stick with Beethoven's answer as to what his inspiration was, than some big mouth blow hard telling Beethoven that he has it all wrong!!!

As to the video link, judge for yourself. It really is a fascinating watch done by scientists, who are NOT attempting to promote a 'religious' stance, one way or the other.
Only non-scientifically minded, biased blow-hards, would see it any other way.

BTW, the documentary starts off with a physicist from Sandia Labs, who was just curious....not a bogus church or phony religion.

Take a peek yourselves...the report made international news!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 01:16 PM

Yeah, but isn't emotionalism the dumbest "alternative to science"?   

It boils down to "if it feels good, do it, and if it sounds good, believe it."

Not the best way to stay well, solvent, or out of jail.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 02:00 PM

.........but 'politically correct!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 02:03 PM

Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 02:44 PM

Yeah, but isn't emotionalism the dumbest "alternative to science"?   
I assume this follows on from my comment.

The answer is, it depends. As I said way way way way back, I am a rationalist at heart and it's how I earn my living. As a strategy for long term development as a group, it takes some beating. But the simple fact is that not only is it not how we make many day to day choices, when it comes to fight-or-flight, or simply things like second by second driving decisions, it would probably kill us quite quickly if we took the time to carry out a proper rational analysis. And that is also true for some long term decisions: most voting decisions are not based on a rational analysis of the choices before us. For example, leaving a certain US election to one side, here in the UK we are being asked to vote for police commissioners for the first time on Nov 15th. To date I have recieved exactly zero leaflets, emails, texts, whatever from any of the candidates. In short I am being provided with no information whatever on which to make a rational decision.

So when I think about alternatives to science, I don't mean we drop scientific approaches: I mean we augment them as best we can with other approaches in other situations.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 04:35 PM

Guffs does a great big quote with my name at the head of it. In fact, just one line of that quote is by me!!

I'm more than happy to embrace Beethoven's view on his inspirations. He was a god when it came to composing music but an ordinary chap (with more than his fair share of hassles), much given to making overblown remarks (one of his endearing qualities for those of us who revere the man) in daily life. The "scientist" who "came back to life" was no such thing in either regard. He said he was "scientifically certain" that his stricken brain couldn't, etc. etc. I can't think of a sound scientist who would say he was "scientifically certain" of a particular event that only he witnessed. I can think of many a scoundrel who would say such a thing or equivalent, though. St Bernadette, for example. I did try to illustrate this to you with my own experience of ball lightning, remember? I am pretty certain of what I saw but I'm not going to write a popular science article about it, let alone expect you to believe it and castigate you if you don't. Yer man has no evidence for his experience, only his own witness. That simply won't do.

As for that damned shroud, I'm fully in the science camp I'm afraid. Unless Jesus was a thirteenth century Turk, it ain't him on that piece of cloth as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, I have it on good authority that Jesus's arse didn't look anything like that. Something Mary Magdalen said...I'll dig out that quote if I can find it...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 04:40 PM

The big mouth blow hard has spoken....it must be true.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 04:52 PM

What must be true?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 05:30 PM

Well SOMETHING must be true, Steve ... but none of us are too sure what. Guest,GfS might know but he doesn't seem to be able to tell us ... possibly ... you big harmonica player you!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 07:24 PM

Oi, Shimrod, please get it "scientifically certain": I'm only an alleged harmonica player! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 07:29 PM

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

Global warming, according to the Republican Party, is a coincidence
that has nothing to do with man burning everything he can burn...

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

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 27 Oct 12 - 07:57 PM

It sounds to me, DMcG, that when all else fails, you recommend intuition.

I'd say that intuition is scarcely different from guessing. I wouldn't rely on intuition unless I had to. (Though intuition is obviously useful for suggesting lines of research.)

When I voted in the U.S. yesterday, I was expected to vote yes or no on five complicated, proposed city ordinances. I voted on the three whose meaning was clear, and I abstained on the other two. I could have used my intuition, but it would have been irresponsible to cast a vote one way or the other on something I didn't think I understood.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 02:36 AM

Steve Shaw: "What must be true?"

Well said!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 04:17 AM

It sounds to me, DMcG, that when all else fails, you recommend intuition.
It's not so much I recommend it: when all else fails, we don't have very much else to go with.

But my main point is that for most of our decisions, even when when we have the opportunity to take rational decisions, we frequently don't. Let's take a typical decision: buying a new guitar.

The first stage is typically rational: can I afford it?
The next stage is rarely rational: do I actually need it? If a truck has run over your only other one and you have a gig to perform at, yes, you do need it in a rational sense. But the majority of the time, no, you do not need it in any rational sense. But you go off to buy one on what are I would claim emotional grounds.

Then in the store you try three or four and decide which one you want based on its appearence and sound: aestetic attributes, not scientific.

So my point really is that even those who are hard-line 'science is all' types actually run much of their lives based on non-rational decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 04:36 AM

I stand corrected Steve - you big alleged harmonica player, you!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 05:24 AM

When I voted in the U.S. yesterday, I was expected to vote yes or no on five complicated, proposed city ordinances. I voted on the three whose meaning was clear, and I abstained on the other two. I could have used my intuition, but it would have been irresponsible to cast a vote one way or the other on something I didn't think I understood.

I understand your point, Shimrod, and maybe would have done the same myself. But even an abstention is a decision which alters the chances of one side or the other gaining ground, so I don't think it automatically follows that in such circumstances an abstention is always the right action. Many company boards, for example, have a convention that the chair only votes when there is a tie on a vote, and then always votes for whatever constitutes 'no change'. So maybe the "responsible" thing to do in such circumstances it to vote for no change. But that's not a "rational" decision, in the sense of following a series of logical steps from premises.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 05:52 AM

I think you've got me mixed up with Guest, Lighter, DMcG. I happen to live in the UK and am not elligible to vote on city ordinances in the US!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 06:03 AM

Oops! My apologies, one and all!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 08:43 AM

Apology accepted.

Voting "no" would have been the equivalent in this case of "no change." Abstention means "I am not able to take a reasoned position."

Presumably many people voted yes or no without understanding what they were voting for, on the principle that if the City Council recommended it, it must be a good idea (or a bad idea). These proposals, by the way, were nonpartisan in that they weren't associated with any particular party: voters were simply being asked to ratify or thwart actions the Council itself had voted to take.

Of course we often make decisions based on feelings, intuition, wild guesses, etc. But I wouldn't consider those processes "alternatives to science" because science is a methodical and ultimately self-correcting way of understanding the world. Intuition, wild guesses, etc., aren't either methodical or part of a viable approach to general understanding. (They can be made systematic, however, though not very useful to understanding, by being combined into a mythology.)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 12:58 PM

Hey Steve...just a 'good-time out'

Just some good input for harp players..enjoy

Saw this guy play once...thought I'd post him

Figured you already heard Little Walter, Musslewhite, Mayall, and Jerry Portnoy..

Enjoy!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 02:54 PM

Very nice. Actually, I allegedly play traditional Irish, Northumberland and Scottish tunes. I'll sell you, or anybody else, Jerry Portnoy's harmonica masterclass set for 25 quid plus whatever it costs me to post it. Pristine condition. Only played the first of the three CDs once. Don't tongue-block so it's no use to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 03:59 PM

That was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 04:44 PM

"".and again our resident alleged harmonica player says the scientist is all wrong. Hmmm......well one thing that can be said about this particular alleged harmonica player, is he certainly is equipped to play a harmonica...he is a blow hard with a big mouth!""

If you are going to quote posters, it would be as well to stick to quoting what they actually said, in context, and in its entirety.

Steve did not say that the man was wrong. He said (correctly) that there was no evidence that what he experienced was anything other than a dream. In fact there could be no evidence, since none of his assertions are testable.

I would go a step further, and say that "scientist" is a misnomer for anybody who believes that he can tell the difference between a remembered dream and an actual experience while unconscious, and that this ability constitutes scientific evidence.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 05:33 PM

Well, only if the scientist, maintains the ability to remain an 'impartial observer' and is collecting data to process. The link's article didn't go into any other information that he gathered before that would have caused him to incorporate his experiences into his findings or reason to take closer notice.

That's one thing that stuck out in the link I posted, that got people pissy. The researches in the video, seemed to maintain a level of observation, rather than to prove or disprove a predisposed position.

You gotta' stay open to the possibilities.....it only closes when it gets into a political mindset....or in other ways of diminished openness to collect data...and often a political wing will distort science to further an agenda....built on bad science, but money to be made and power to control, of course!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 06:54 PM

You see, GfS, it works like this. You say to me something like ... oh, I don't know ... "elephants think in French". I might say, "that's very interesting, GfS, what makes you think that?" Hopefully, you will then provide me with some evidence and, depending on the strength of that evidence, I might come to believe the same thing.

But if your evidence is unconvincing or you're merely asserting that elephants think in French because you dreamed it, or read it on the Internet, I am perfectly entitled to be sceptical. This is NOT the same as having a 'closed mind'. If you want me to believe something that you believe then 'the ball is in your court' - you then have a responsibility to convince me by providing me with credible evidence. You can call me all the names you like but it won't change my position.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 07:29 PM

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

If elected, Romney will order all mention of "evolution" removed from
all public school text books...

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

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 08:14 PM

> You can call me all the names you like but it won't change my position.

[Irony ahead:]

So you admit you have a closed mind!

[End irony]

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 09:36 PM

Never occurred to him...mind closed for repairs.
..and did I call you a name? ..or did you just identify with a generalization?

I called Steve a name...but it was only an accurate description of his attacks against having an open mind..but I don't recall doing that with you...but if I did, sorry....but if the shoe fits, I guess ya' gotta wear it, huh?
..and 'Lighter'.....that was a sharp observation.

Regards to All Those With Functioning Minds,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 09:38 PM

..to all others: Best Wishes!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 10:11 PM

"A rape victim is pregnant. She didn't intend to conceive a baby. The rapist didn't intend to conceive a baby. So Who intended to conceive the baby?"

Wrong way to even phrase a question, Lighter. Even the idea that 'choice' was involved assumes too much... but maybe you knew that.

I just saw this weekend, at a friend's house, a book by Stephen J. Gould called The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002) . It runs over 1200 pages...and he had a number of OTHER books dealing with the issues. Anyone who has doubts about evolution should browse a few... then read a few... then THINK about it for several years.

It is not an easy thing to see all the interrelated ideas and history and data involved. To just say,"Oh, I don't need all that, I believe "X" is simply taking the easy way out! Science, and kind of truth science offers, is amazingly complex... but once into it a certain distance, it becomes evident that it (science) is necessary to TRULY understand who & what we and the universe are all about....honest.... would I mislead you?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 10:13 PM

I yam speechluss, is wot I yam!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 10:18 PM

Bottom line on rape???

If Romney wants to force the woman to carry a rapist's child then Romney has stepped in as "dad" and better pay that woman "child support" in the amount that would equal what she would have made if Romney didn't force her to carry the child...

I mean, let's get real here... Let's take a pre-med student... Get's raped and pregnant from it... What wo8uld she have made over the next 18 years???

All these Taliban Republicans just want to say, "Suck it up, Honey... Get over it..."

Screw them... That is the most backward thinking I believe I have ever heard of...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 10:29 PM

What if....I mean what if there are two different species of humans inhabiting the planet...some evolved from lower forms of life, ie. the traditional evolutionary process....and those who were different, ...and it could be....and how it came to be, might just be debatable
...and you can't say it isn't so!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 10:38 PM

..and you can't say it isn't so!"
Right... you can't prove a negative. But there are FAR too many who have some notion that ." you can't say it isn't so" means it probably IS so.

Why invent ideas... except poetically... that can easily be explained in other ways that at least CAN be tested?

Oh,...I remember... those invented ideas are SO much more interesting...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 12 - 10:42 PM

Bill D: "Why invent ideas... except poetically..."

NOW YOU'RE TALKIN"!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 04:20 AM

I love the internet.

Science giving us the opportunity to decry science. Unless of course, it was god, not Tim Berners Lee who had the idea?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 05:17 AM

"So you admit you have a closed mind!"

No, Lighter, I have a mind which is open to evidence. I also tend to be sceptical about claims which are not backed up by evidence - especially if someone demands that I believe those claims! I repeat it is the responsibilty of the person making the claims to provide the evidence. I have NO responsibility to believe anything without evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 12:46 PM

Shimrod: "No, Lighter, I have a mind which is open to evidence. I also tend to be sceptical about claims which are not backed up by evidence -..."

Then you should have had no problem with the video link I posted, right?..unless your mind was made up beforehand that you might not like the final analysis.

If you'd like, I could post the link again, for your scrutiny..which of course is welcome.
If there were points to discuss in the link that's OK..but to write off what you think it is about, without watching it,...well that would be silly at any level..wouldn't you agree? Because your statement: "You can call me all the names you like but it won't change my position" is only valid, if, of course, you were aware of the facts and had gone over them...but to arrive at a conclusion, without knowing what is being reviewed, is, in fact, a closed mind, narrow view, and voluntary ignorance...and that's not calling you or anyone a name...just plain true.
Take a look at it...there is not much 'supposing' in it.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 01:17 PM

I looked briefly at he video link, but was too busy with weather to go into a musical expression on electric guitar. I assume there was a message of sorts in it.

I am reminded of a 30+ year old folkish song called "You Gotta Talk My Language", written as if from the viewpoint of a slightly hard to cope with child....one line was.. "Can you make up stories I can know are true?"
It resonates coming from a childlike viewpoint. I'm not sure how it translates into adult thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 02:12 PM

Does no one here except Bill D understand the meaning of "irony"?

Apparently not. I was constantly misunderstood when I assumed irony was obvious without being labeled. Now I see that labeling it doesn't work either.

If it makes you feel better, Shimrod, I was defending you.

I am speechless (spelled as Popeye would spell it) at GfS's inability to see (even with the "irony" label) that I was using his own form of reasoning in a way to suggest how absurd it is. Calling names (ridicule) shouldn't change anybody's mind, should it?

Then he tells me I made a "sharp observation."

Jeez.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 02:35 PM

Yes..I was aware of your feelings..and the observation was sharp...even if in satire....but it was also true.
..and I still stand with my original and oft repeated position, about knowing what you are talking about, BEFORE offering a valid conclusion or theory....after all, isn't that what science is about??????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 02:47 PM

Sorry, Lighter, I did understand the ironic nature of your comments but I succumbed to the temptation to take your comment at face value so that I could express something that is seldom expressed in discussions such as this - that is the question of responsibility. Given your good intentions, this was probably a bit cavalier of me - sorry again!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 04:55 PM

..and that's why it is best to know what one is talking about! Just as your assumption was wrong about Lighter's post, it can be, and is the same with other subjects.
So in the final analysis gathering up info without preconceptions is best...wouldn't you say?

This has been an excellent illustration, and should be put to good use...unless learning is only confined to non-practical applications. I hope not!

Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 05:09 PM

The only way to 'suspect' irony in a WWW format is to be familar with the habits of the poster. *I* have to constantly remind myself. It is so tempting to go straight at a comment.... ☺... I tend not to use formats that in RT depend a lot on facial expressions, vocal tone and body language.

I now usually catch Lighter...but......

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 06:15 PM

Here's an idea... For folks who don't believe in science we could set up alternative health care facilities where tin-foilers and other misfits could pretend to know how to treat disease and injuries and other tin-foilers and misfits when they get hurt or sick could got there to be treated and subsequently...

...die...

Works for me... Let Darwinism work... We should not be saving stupid people...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 06:30 PM

Very good, Bill. I agree. I use a lot of '......'s as in a conversational phrasing. Some people don't 'get it'....also, I employ satire, cynicism, and double en-tender/humor. I've been told that sometimes ruffle feathers...good! Because often that gets people to think outside the box..in fact, sometimes it might even get people to think at all!..instead of parroting popular unthinking nonsense!
This whole divisive right wing/left wing garbage has ingrained a whole lot of folks with a contrived hostility towards each other, which is nothing more than the product of targeted propaganda...and most all of it either distorted or downright lies! ...but it definitely has cause people to think overtime, in diminished capacities!!! A lot of thinking, but never learning anything. This is primarily caused by the perpetrators of the propaganda telling people 'what' to think, instead of 'how' to think....and think objectively! People have become lazy 'thinkers', and stick to what is considered 'correct' by the party line, but incorrect when it is held up to reality!
..as a result, 'liberals' today are more like the hard nosed supporters of say the Nixon establishment of yesteryear...and more closed minded to any outside, yet enlightening thoughts or concepts, out of fear that it is going to subvert their little bubble of safe, bullshit thinking!!!
This is stupidity on a mass level.
Likewise, 'conservatives' sound more like the 'liberals' did years ago. White is black, black is white, right is wrong, wrong is right type of mentality. Morals are completely out the window...as long as 'our side' wins!...even if 'winning' means losing your liberties and freedom!
Liberals used to be the ones for peace...but threaten violence if their 'candidate' isn't re-elected. Conservatives want smaller government, like the 'liberals' of years passed wanted...Meanwhile, back at the ranch, no matter who is elected into power, while everyone is bickering over petty issues, and the persons in office, the machine is slowly and surely grinding away at everything that both sides hold sacred and take for granted!
An example: Bush ushers in the 'Patriot Act' Conservatives applaud and the liberals object, the same 'Patriot Act' that Joe Biden was the author of in the mid 90's....and that Obama implements even further with the NDAA..now the liberals applaud...because it was Obama that ran it through! WHAT????
Liberals are pissed at 'Citizens United'....as long as that doesn't include union's contributions!..WHAT????
This administration is so far removed from the 'liberal' ideal that one wonders and scratches his head at what the hell are the 'libs' thinking of!....BUT..because he is black..or half black, the liberals THINK that because he was voted into office, that 'liberalism' has come a long way...and "Oh Boy, we made progress!"...and "because I voted for him, I must be REALLY progressive now!" ...Nonsense!
now the country is about to over-re-act the other way...and think things are going to 'straighten out'...nonsense!!

As long as people's senses are dulled to abandon objective impartiality, and have that replaced with the attention span of a mayfly, we will get this kind of 'Leadership'(read: 'Dictatorship') that we've been getting...and the freedoms and liberties we grew up with, and afforded us the right to criticize, or even comment on the ills that plague our society and government, will be gone too! Note, how even the censorship goes on in here, if it doesn't go along with the 'party line'. (NOTE: it has gotten a LOT better...but their are those who would silence a dissenter of the programmed so-called liberal thought patterns, than to consider a wider point of view!

OK...enough for now.....another tactic is to say 'it was too long to follow', therefor made no sense!

Regards!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 06:52 PM

"Liberals are pissed at 'Citizens United'....as long as that doesn't include union's contributions!."

78.482% of the objections to 'Citizens United' is the ability to NOT be identified. Unions are pretty open about who they support... but CU allows 2-3 guys to 'speak' for an entire corporation. SuperPACs are worse...Unions at least usually vote on what they do.... and the union heads are elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Oct 12 - 10:19 PM

See???
Do you think that a union block speaks for ALL its members, when endorsing and contributing towards a candidate?...and spending union dues to do such?

If you have a doubt about it, check the Wisconsin union's vote during Walker's recall election.
That should tell you all you need to know.
If you can't find it, I'll be happy to find it for you....but then you run the risk of having to bear one of my accompanying comments! (wink)

GfS P.S. Here, I'll spare you....this is one of quite a few articles.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 03:36 AM

Shit...We're back to politics......but if science is really about finding the truth, politics is definitely an alternative.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 06:31 AM

on todays featured article on CMI, dino prints in australia feature.this does have a link to a evolutionary view video link from aussie tv,though i could not get it to play.
info only-othing to add!   pete.

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

CMI? A little more explanation, please. Though if you mean "The Curse of Monkey Island", I don't remember dino prints ...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 09:07 AM

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

------------------Vaccines 'cause illness------------------------

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

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 10:44 AM

In Pete's case, CMI means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Ministries_International .. whose website is Creation.com

Various of us have noted that if that's his major source of info, his view will be...umm... limited. But he doesn't wish to entertain ideas that might possibly conflict with his faith....not an uncommon attitude... and at that web site there are articles & links to various people with 'science' degrees who can twist various data to 'seem' to deny evolution concepts.
All attempts to suggest to Pete and some others that IF there is a god, it could have made the laws of evolution seem not to have much effect... *shrug*.
Pete..(and many others)... are good folk; they just resist accepting anything which might possibly conflict with literal reading of their Bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 11:40 AM

And if there's a God, there's no obvious way to know what, if anything, he wants of us.

If there were, there'd be just one religion, plus a bunch of clearly unintelligent and/or unbalanced atheists.

Not the situation we see all around us.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 12:00 PM

The CMI dinosaur footprint story is here: http://creation.com/kimberley-dinosaur-footprints

It's really a load of utter nonsense. For example:

"A river plain of such an enormous extent is monstrous compared with the rivers on the earth today. The Broome Sandstone points to an exceptionally large depositional system."

This statement is a lie. Of course massive depositional systems exist on the earth today. Want me to list them? Better still, figure it out for yourself. That's only warming up though:

"The idea of a river plain comes from the pattern of cross-bedding in the sandstone. These beds indicate that the water was flowing as the sediment was deposited. Some of the cross-beds are very large, so large that they indicate water flows of biblical proportions. In order to avoid such an interpretation, the sand deposits with the large cross-beds have been interpreted as forming in a desert. That's right—a desert. This switch implies a puzzling sequence of environments. How could there have been a fast flowing river system, followed by a dry desert, followed by another river system? By ignoring the possibility of Noah's Flood these palaeontologists create problems for themselves as they try to interpret what was going on."

So much is wrong in this paragraph I'm going to cherry pick the bollocks dangling from it's ignorant underside, and say we know switches from environments can happen very quickly indeed. Once more, a cursory glance through the literature would show this sort of dramatic change in depositional environments have happened many times in the earth's history and are happening today. No need to invoke a god who told some 500 year-old geezer to build a boat to save whatever animals said god saw fit to survive. Note that the flood was supposed to punish mankind for his unrighteous behaviour; shame that all those innocent animals had to suffer too. Nice.

Continuing on to talk about the mode of preservation of the tracks, the article states:

"It's interesting that Steve Salisbury recognises the transience of the situation. He says, "Most of the track sites that we see probably only represent, you know, between a few days and a couple of weeks, 130 million years ago, so they really do provide a fantastic snapshot."

That is interesting. So far, so good. Transience is a key concept in science. Geologists and palaeontologists are very aware of transience. Then comes this:

"Note, "A few days and a couple of weeks", and "snapshot"."

Uh oh. From a geologist or palaeontologists point of view Steve is spot on. Any sedimentary exposure is a snapshot of time, so why take note of the bleedin' obvious? Also, I can't see an issue with the possible timeline here, the margins of any body of water can change over seconds, hours, days, weeks, months, years, eons. Fact (see NYC subway at time of writing). Look up time averaging and understand why ichnologists are guarded when it rears it's head. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Must be paranoia that a creationist might make the facts fit their version of events, not the other way around.

Next comes:

"The footprints are the clear evidence for this brief, short time frame. They were made in soft sediment, and that provides a tight time constraint. And the imprints have been well preserved, which also constrains the time before the subsequent sediment was deposited on top. If the footprints had been exposed for any longer than a few weeks they would have been eroded away."

Er, possibly, possibly not. I don't know if a paper has been published on these tracks (I have a feeling Thulborn has published on the Broome tracksite but I'd have to look it up), but I would hesitate to comment until I've read it. I suspect Sailsbury knows what he's talking about, though again I'd like to see his published research on the site before I ventured an opinion. The tracks could be exposed for much longer than a few weeks depending on the environmental conditions; in some areas of Death Valley you can still see the tracks of mules made by trains driven through by miners over a century ago.

"Clearly, people who talk about those mind-numbing time periods of 130-million years have a time problem: where do they propose to insert all those millions of years into the sediments?"

Whoa! Where did that come from? Has the bullshit fairy been? Here is the news: if 130my of sediment were still there you wouldn't be able to see the tracks. Or Broome probably. But they might not ever have been laid down, they might have been laid down, worn away, more sediment laid down, worn away again and are being exposed now. There is no time problem, except in the dim recesses of the brain of the person who wrote that ludicrous sentence. But there's more:

"The Catalyst program captured the dramatic attempts of dinosaurs trying to escape the rising waters of Noah's Flood some 4,500 years ago. Although the program made no reference to this global event, and presented the information exclusively in terms of evolution over millions of years, the evidence is plain to those who know what to look for. As my friend who brought this program to my attention said, "I have to admit I just thought of dinos running from flood waters when I saw it." "

Wow. Of course, it's entirely possible his mate is correct and the dinosaurs were running away from a flood . . . or a landslide, or another dinosaur, or an earthquake, or the smell of sauropod farts . . . or just about anything else. Citing these tracks as evidence for Noah's Flood is plainly ridiculous, as they aren't. They are evidence for an animal (or group) crossing a small part of a river system some time in the Mesozoic. The whole CMI analysis is poorly thought out, badly argued and so erroneous in it's conclusions it is deserving of the utmost contempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 01:37 PM

Why bother, SJ?

Why bother?

Some minds are hermetically self-sealed.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 02:43 PM

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

Big Foot exists, Global warming doesn't........................

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

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 03:07 PM

ah come on bill-we,ve been here long enough for you to know that i have read other stuff,-though much less than you might like.i even read sugarjacks take on the article.i posted as a matter of interest and had no expectation of changing minds.
did you get the [NON CREATIONIST] video to play BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 03:34 PM

Pete - you'd change my mind if you offered any evidence. As it is, you don't have a shred of evidence and what is presented on the CMI website is at best ill-informed speculation and at worst something altogether more nefarious. Posting crap like that won't change minds. I mean, you can't even engage in reasoned debate even though I hope you might just try.

You've already insulted me and my fellow palaeontologists by calling us dishonest, so I suppose you're not going to listen to reason now.

My mind is open. Show me evidence. Show me a horse in the Jurassic, a bony fish in the Ediacaran biota. Show me evidence of a single global flood event. Not bits cherry picked from here and there, but a comprehensive, cohesive and rigorous study that shows a single layer of sediment, deposited simultaneously worldwide which contains all known species of animals extant around 4,500 BC, and also the extinct species we find in the fossil record. All mixed up as you would expect in such a chaotic event.

Post the reference here and shut us all up.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 03:48 PM

I'd settle for "most contemporary species worldwide, plus extinct ones, including a few dinosaurs and lots of human skeletons."

Of course, if you couldn't find the contemporary species and the humans in the Flood sediment, it would be evidence for evolution, at least since the Flood. That could be tricky.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 04:10 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 04:39 PM

Jack.no way am i going to contest your arguments.but just to clarify,maybe cite instances today of water inundation to desert and then back to water.i did think of flash floods in the desert but that would be the opposite scenario.of course there is the parting and drying up of the red sea and jordan but i,m sure you did,nt mean that!

"that statement is a lie"
that does not follow does it?it may be that the author was incorrect but that does not make him a liar,does it?
but just for the benefit of this layman,maybe cite a couple of flood plains of equal or greater extent than the broomestone quoted.
i believe CMI would want to leave factual inaccuracies out of their arguments - notwithstanding your "utmost contempt".

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 05:20 PM

...but is there life after death??..or is life but an illusion?...just that it is in material bodies?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 06:08 PM

Pete... note that I said "MAJOR source of info"

I know you have looked at other stuff... I just fret over how you tend to evaluate it.

I could not find the actual video, but there is a transcript of it. Nothing in it suggests that dinosaurs were coexisting with men.... the creation.com website simply states that is is so.

Taking the geological data and 'interpreting' it to support a favored result is NOT good practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 03:17 AM

...and is matter an illusion...only detected by other matter??...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 03:42 AM

"...and is matter an illusion...only detected by other matter??..."

I think that you need to think that through, GfS. I'll leave that to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 03:54 AM

I already did..........your turn.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 05:42 AM

"but just for the benefit of this layman,maybe cite a couple of flood plains of equal or greater extent than the broomestone quoted."

The full extent of the Brome Sandstone isn't actually known (another lie in the CMI article) plus it does contain mudstones (yet another lie from the CMI author). See here: http://dbforms.ga.gov.au/pls/www/geodx.strat_units.sch_full?wher=stratno=2645

As this renders the question of which delta's on earth are bigger than the Broome system redundant. Suffice to say, if you Google delta you'll find the information you're looking for. Do the research Pete, you may never know where it will lead.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 09:00 AM

""Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity - PM
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 03:17 AM

...and is matter an illusion...only detected by other matter??...""

Run along and play on the highway Goofus.

The adults are trying to hold an intelligent conversation.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 05:34 PM

seems bill i did,nt read carefully enough but strangely you seem to have read more into my post too, as i dont recall mentioning dino and man at the same time [though i do believe that] and said the video was non creationist.
pity the video dont play-i had wondered if it might just be a regional problem when i could,nt play it.
i raised some of jacks points on the comment section as did others on that facility.tas walker replied to points raised though i expect jack will just say-more lies!
i am sure interpreting to gain a favoured result is not good practise but i am sure that evolutionists are at least as much inclined to the practise as creationist researchers.presuppositions and worldview must inform and influence research.the omission of data in the man-monkey dna correspondece that i earlier cited is a case in point.
as always,enjoying the friendly exchanges bill.
pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 05:42 PM

OK, GfS, lock your front door and then take a run at it, and attempt to pass through it. Try that again tomorrow, and the day after, and so on for a week. Try the same experiment again next year. Ask your self, "was my experience consistent?" If "yes", what are the chances that you experienced an illusion? Take a suitable number of pain killers.

Find another person prepared to try the same experiment (best of luck with that!). Did that person pass through your front door as if it wasn't there?

You might also like to consider the question: can nothing experience an illusion?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 08:19 PM

i am sure interpreting to gain a favoured result is not good practise but i am sure that evolutionists are at least as much inclined to the practise as creationist researchers

You see, pete, the thing is that you are slyly equating "evolutionists" (scientists seeking truth via scepticism) with "creationist researchers" (charlatans seeking to cherrypick "facts" which confirm their prejudices). I really wish you could see just how dishonest these people you consort with really are.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 08:24 PM

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

Mitt Romney today said that if elected science would no longer be taught in school but also the word itself outlawed and removed from
all dictionaries and other books even if it mean the burning of a
number of books.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 08:38 PM

Mitt Romney today said that if elected science would no longer be taught in school

I didn't know science was even standing. Thought it was Mitt...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 01:39 AM

Shimrod: "OK, GfS, lock your front door and then take a run at it, and attempt to pass through it. Try that again tomorrow, and the day after, and so on for a week. Try the same experiment again next year. Ask your self, "was my experience consistent?" If "yes", what are the chances that you experienced an illusion? Take a suitable number of pain killers."

OK, Did it..didn't need any painkillers though....breezed right through the door...repeatedly...no problem!!

Oh, by the way...I did lock the door as requested by you....but this is where partial information can go 'not the way you thought it should', according to your directions.....Was I supposed to close the door before I locked it???

Grinning!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 04:35 AM

Ludicrous hair-splitting, GfS - you know what I meant! A serious point in all of this silliness is that you are not taking responsibility for your own notions. When I asked you to think through YOUR notion that matter is an illusion experienced by other matter, you avoided your responsibilty and bounced it back to me. I have no further responsibilty in this ... ahemmmm! ... matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 11:28 AM

Pete- I see Steve Shaw picked on the same line that caught MY eye.

" i am sure that evolutionists are at least as much inclined to the practise as creationist researchers."

That, pete, is distorting how things work in the two different approaches. By definition, 'evolutionists' become evolutionists by their inclination to follow testable scientific progress wherever it leads; they do not simply believe it because someone in authority told them so. Now... once they are convinced that certain clear evidence leads them to accept evolution as a basic hypothesis, of course they do their studies & research within scientific realms.
When creationists suggest **scientific** evidence exists for their beliefs..(such as dino footprints near human fossils..etc.), that data is looked at and evaluated scientifically. So far, NO... that is... NONE of the suggested sites and data have stood up to rigorous examination! There are many ways to evaluate the dates and relationships between items found 'near' each other, and they all indicate millions of years between the last dinosaur and the first human.
(Some supposed 'evidence' has simply proved not to be 'footprints' at all, while other real footprints were shown to be in different geological eras.)

As to 'man/monkey'....it bears repeating that no one is claiming that somehow 'monkeys' changed into men.....it is not that simple. It IS claimed that men & monkeys (actually, apes) at some point had a common ancestor(s)..(and even THAT is too simple). DNA does prove that we humans are distantly...very distantly... related to the other higher primates. This in no way diminishes what we are...and if you wish to believe the God planned and designed the way it all worked, well... *shrug*.. fine.... but ALL the evidence indicates millions of years of complex lines of inheritance that produced US at the end of one line and apes at another.

Pete... you often note that 'some' folk with degrees in science can be found who doubt the evidence and believe very much as YOU do. I note that it is still possible to find some who believe the Earth is flat.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 11:48 AM

Shimrod: "Ludicrous hair-splitting, GfS - you know what I meant!...."

Hey, that's science...NOT starting off with what ANYBODY MEANT!..or ANY preconception....just letting the cards fall where they do, and observing the outcomes.
This happens to be the basis, regardless of subject.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 11:55 AM

A mountain of tested, re-tested and well-established evidence (about anything) is no preconception. It can't be undermined and superseded by a handful of questionable challenges based on little more than "what if" and "I was taught."

That's just a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 11:57 AM

DNA does more than that, Bill. It points to a common origin for all life. Not saying, of course, that life could not have arisen in the same manner more than once, given suitable conditions. But the fact that all living organisms are based on the same DNA coding, with many genes even shared by creatures that appear to be as unrelated as can be, speaks volumes about common ancestries - and the truth of evolution.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 11:57 AM

Right...that's part of the difference between 'faith' and 'religion'!
..and why so many 'religions' have no faith.

GfS

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

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

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

GfS

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

Over to you, guys.

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

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

Wearily:

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

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

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

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

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

1. Don't believe everything you think.

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

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

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

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

Art as beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's even tangible!

GfS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

GfS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could I or GfS have created either one?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

does away with

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh yes. Mmmmm! Ursula Andress.

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

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

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

Raquel is still a very hot woman!!!

B~

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

Mmmmm! Tree ferns!




And Raquel Welch.

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

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

GfS

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

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

Mmmm. St Agur....

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

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

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

GfS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GfS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah, souls!

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

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

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

GfS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Streuth.

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

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

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

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

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

GfS

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factual consistency is a virtue.

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

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

Dogs don't sweat, they pant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If weight of nearly dead person = N

Weight of dead person = D

Weight of bag = B

And weight of (hypothetical) soul = S

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

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

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

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

Maths good, conclusion flawed.

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

However it would certainly sshoot McDougall down in flames.

Don T.

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed

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

Agreed

Still,I enjoyed the tiny algebraic excursion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GfS

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

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

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

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

Goofus, you are the amusing one.

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

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

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

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

Don T.

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

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

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

Don T.

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

Think about it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The WHOLE thing!

GfS

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

That should be "150 years," of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"...but they are all dogs."

But many millions of years ago they were .
NOT dogs

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

More of dogs ancestors

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

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

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

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

""The WHOLE thing!""

What Shimrod said!

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

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

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

Don T.

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

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

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

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

"the info is in the dna"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sciencegeek has this right.

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

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

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

Don T.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

And he's a bloody liar into the bargain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I repost this from earlier:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Minds can be changed"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill, love that Peanuts strip.

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

LUCY'S SIGN: Psychiatric Help 5c.

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GfS

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

I actually remember that!

Late '50s?

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

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

Watch for the "Peanuts" thread! Coming immediately!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don T.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

however evolutionisms very foundation is built on abiogenesis..

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

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.

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

Oh, gosh, there's tons of both evidence, discussion of evidence, speculation and discussion of speculation about this rag. What's great is that science has so assiduously applied itself dutifully to what is almost certainly a hoax (and I'm not saying that the thing itself was intended to be a hoax, rather that those Christians of the generations down the line from medieval times who like to deal in the scarily-mystic love to use it as a hoax). People like Guffissimo cling valiantly on to the exceptionally remote possibility that they actually have something here, but, in order to adopt that line, they have to not only suspend disbelief but suspend the whole of their faith in science itself. Still, it's intriguing stuff, and whoever produced the bloody thing was fairly clever, it must be admitted. But, at the end of the day (to quote the Kinks, in whom I have great faith), do you, Gustacious One, believe that the Turin shroud bears the image of the actual body of dead Jesus?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 07:48 PM

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.

As I understand it, whatever DNA traces remain on the shroud from the alleged human imprint are so badly knackered as to be useless.

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

Oral? Jesus? Yes, I remember someone shouting that out, Bobert...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 08:17 PM

What, you are not familiar with Oral Robert's dream, Steve???

I don't make this stuff up...

Oral told his followers that a "600 foot tall Jesus" appeared in Oral's dream and told Oral that if he didn't raise $____ by such and such a date that Jesus was going to come and take him home, i. e. dead...

Reminds me of Soupy Sails who told his kiddie audience to steal money from their parents and send it to him...

I don't make this shit up... I mean, you can't really make this shit up...

Fact is stranger than fiction...

B:~)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 08:19 PM

My bad... It was a 900 foot Jesus...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 08:23 PM

My bad, Part 2... It's Soupy Sales...

Google 'um up, Steve, for some laughs...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 08:33 PM

Let's try this again, for all those who are a little 'slow'....

..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 - 09:01 PM

We are not a little slow, Guffy One. We happen to know that your issues have already been addressed ad nauseam, that's all. Have a quick w... a quick w... have a w... (shit...) have a quick WIKI! You do have this thing, don't you, whereby anyone who doesn't listen to your every erudite word or watch every minute of your tedious 37-hour frickin' videos is a bit of a twot. Well what can we do, save remind you that if you have a point to make (doubtful, but we do like to indulge...), then do us the honour of saving us from a mountain of mental processing. Just state your point. One point you could usefully state right now is to tell us all whether you think that the Turin shroud bears the actual, real, no-bullshit imprint of the true body of Jesus.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 10:25 PM

Steve: "We happen to know that your issues have already been addressed ad nauseam...blah blah blah.....

...then address them..and stop trying to prove a negative....oh scientific one!
Problem is..you can't prove your position...very scientific!
So after we've come this far in this thread 'Alternative to Science??'
it's you???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 06:11 AM

You demonstrate a lamentable lack of understanding of science every time you indulge in the word "prove". Not in my lexicon, I'm afraid, when my brain's in science mode. You also have an endearing habit of chucking out half-formed or muddled ideas and then asking us to do all the hard work of sorting them out for you, including watching hours of tedious, tendentious videos or looking for confirmation that your ideas are usually daft (which we know already). Googling Turin shroud will give you all the debunking of "alternative theories" about the shroud you could wish for. Once you've done that, it might just help you to answer the big question, namely, do you believe that the Turin shroud bears the actual contact image of the dead body of Christ?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 06:21 AM

""The Catholic Protestant Churches have done MUCH to pollute and corrupt everything about Jesus, and what he was about!""

If you bothered to do any real research instead of reading biased dissertations from dodgy scientists, you would be aware of some pertinent historical facts.

1. The protestant church was the Catholic church until a king decided that he wished to ditch a wife for a newer model and was refused an annulment by the Pope.

Henry VIII declred himself Defender of the Faith to satisfy his adulterous nature.

2. The Catholic church, which you claim has ""done MUCH to pollute and corrupt everything about Jesus, and what he was about!"", is the author of that book which Creationists believe to be the "Inerrant Word of God". It adopted the "Old Testament" of the Hebrews and went on to create the "New Testament" of Catholicism, merging the pair into one "Catholic Bible", upon which the foundation of Creationism rests.

You really can't have it both ways.

I happen to believe that it is men within and without the church, with personal agendas, who have as you say polluted the whole thing.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 07:16 AM

Or maybe the whole thing is just one big piece of pollution anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 07:27 AM

"You also have an endearing habit of chucking out half-formed or muddled ideas and then asking us to do all the hard work of sorting them out for you ..."

Yep, GfS, we're back to taking responsibilty here. If you really want us to derive something meaningful from el-tedio video, you would:

1. Summarise all 3000 plonky, jerky hours of it (I nearly died about a quarter of an hour through it - and flipping woke up in a shroud!).

2. Tell us what you think it means.

3. Tell us how you think it relates to 'real' science (or whatever travesty of the truth you think of as real science).

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 07:33 AM

If you bothered to do any real research instead of reading biased dissertations from dodgy scientists, you would be aware of some pertinent historical facts.

1. The protestant church was the Catholic church until a king decided that he wished to ditch a wife for a newer model and was refused an annulment by the Pope.

Henry VIII declred himself Defender of the Faith to satisfy his adulterous nature.'

'

Before riding the high horse of historical research it is probably wise to realise that what you state there is true for the Anglican protestants. Not at all at all valid for many other protestant denominations as they came into being on the (European) continent.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: sciencegeek
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 08:04 AM

the first protestors were actually assorted sects that lost their internal, political battles within the larger organization and were then labeled heretics by the winning side. If the schism was large enough, it became a separate religious organization. The Roman Catholic Church in the west. The Coptic Church, the Eastern Orthodox - which then under went its own schisms based to the eastern remnant of the Roman Empire. this is very general, of course.

Within the western church, abuses of power got pretty flagrant & Martin Luther headed the first successful protest. And the Protestants have been squabbling and splintering ever since.

I would recommend reading Eric Flint's alternate reality series - Ring of Fire - if that kind of thing appeals to you.

For my part, the details about the religious aspects of the 30 years war was a flashback to what bored & pissed me in religion class.

My response to the Jesus freaks of the '60's & '70's and the born again Christians running today remains - Get a Life!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 03:07 PM

Oh man....The protestant and Catholic 'religions' based in Europe, as either the co-adaptation of the Roman Empire, or as the revolt from it (Protestant Movement), is the model for what we in the Western 'Civilized' world as a 'religion'.....this carries with it a tremendous amount of how we view reality, how we modeled (or rebelled), our governments, political systems, points of view(of right or wrong), and pretty much all of how we see reality..religious or political, and even physical matter and properties. It has affected our science as well. This is all true.
The study of the shroud, and their findings, DO NOT endorse ANY religion, sect, or political system..other than, if the findings are indeed true, could (would) alter our perception of 'reality'. Being as the study opened up a new field of science, that which is consistent with quantum physics, 'string theory', 'membrane theory' and how they work...and guess what?..they use MUSIC (and harmonics)to describe how it all works and to describe our relationship to the dimensions...and there are MORE than the ONE we see!..FACT!!
When Beethoven spoke about this, he used these words: "The vibrations on the air are the breath of God speaking to man's soul. Music is the language of God. We musicians are as close to God as man can be. We hear his voice, we read his lips, we give birth to the children of God, who sing his praise. That's what musicians are."

Now YOU might be the ones, because of YOUR concepts of 'God' and YOUR experiences with 'religions', not even know what HE is talking about, and I find it rather arrogant(if I do say), to refute what he is saying about that, when HE is the one who experienced it, not you, and your concepts of 'God' through the 'religious looking glass' (or anti-religious looking glass), that screwed up YOUR perceptions of a greater reality, and say he is wrong..don't know what he's talking about, and was in some sort of brain-lock to express exactly what it really was... when MAYBE HE DID....and he spoke it plainly...and you just can't conceive it!
I'm sure the reality and dimension(S) we live in are really very simple to understand and it is US that screw it up, believing those who wish to exploit us, by 'keeping us down'....ever consider that?

Beethoven was, or may have been reaching into a yet unknown dimension, or area that he musically described...and was considered a genius...maybe his 'genius' was merely the ability to 'go there'...
All this happens to be consistent with the dimensional findings spoken about on the video .

Why that should bother you does not speak well of your ability to grasp outside your little boxes! You are more hung up into your fear and loathing of religion, than a proselytizer is of their religious point of view....and the cool thing, (that a lot of blind people don't get, is that Jesus was NOT about founding, or continuing a 'religion'. Maybe he was talking about a reality that we all live in, and how to access it more easily for the reason of better LOVING each other...which in turn opens up greater access!!........and it has NOTHING to do with 'religion'!....The manipulators created that shit!.....and you are still feeling the effects of their venomous bite!

That being said...it's time for a little good harmonica music from
Carolyn Wonderland on Imus....(Notice how music speaks to both sides) . Funny thing about that.....could it be a higher form of communication???...from a higher place??....or you could run away because Imus is on Fox??
Whose cares!...Oh, and Beethoven was not so far off, at all!!!
Jeez, I understood it...and completely agree!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 03:18 PM

Fixed typo....easier to understand....:

Oh man....The protestant and Catholic 'religions' based in Europe, as either the co-adaptation of the Roman Empire, or as the revolt from it (Protestant Movement), is the model for what we in the Western 'Civilized' world understand as a 'religion'.....this carries with it a tremendous amount of how we view reality, how we modeled (or rebelled), our governments, political systems, points of view(of right or wrong), and pretty much all of how we see reality..religious or political, and even physical matter and properties. It has affected our science as well. This is all true.
The study of the shroud, and their findings, DO NOT endorse ANY religion, sect, or political system..other than, if the findings are indeed true, could (would) alter our perception of 'reality'. Being as the study opened up a new field of science, that which is consistent with quantum physics, 'string theory', 'membrane theory' and how they work...and guess what?..they use MUSIC (and harmonics)to describe how it all works and to describe our relationship to the dimensions...and there are MORE than the ONE we see!..FACT!!
When Beethoven spoke about this, he used these words: "The vibrations on the air are the breath of God speaking to man's soul. Music is the language of God. We musicians are as close to God as man can be. We hear his voice, we read his lips, we give birth to the children of God, who sing his praise. That's what musicians are."

Now YOU might be the ones, because of YOUR concepts of 'God' and YOUR experiences with 'religions', not even know what HE is talking about, and I find it rather arrogant(if I do say), to refute what he is saying about that, when HE is the one who experienced it, not you, and your concepts of 'God' through the 'religious looking glass' (or anti-religious looking glass), that screwed up YOUR perceptions of a greater reality, and say he is wrong..don't know what he's talking about, and was in some sort of brain-lock to express exactly what it really was... when MAYBE HE DID....and he spoke it plainly...and you just can't conceive it!
I'm sure the reality and dimension(S) we live in are really very simple to understand and it is US that screw it up, believing those who wish to exploit us, by 'keeping us down'....ever consider that?

Beethoven was, or may have been reaching into a yet unknown dimension, or area that he musically described...and was considered a genius...maybe his 'genius' was merely the ability to 'go there'...
All this happens to be consistent with the dimensional findings spoken about on the video .

Why that should bother you does not speak well of your ability to grasp outside your little boxes! You are more hung up into your fear and loathing of religion, than a proselytizer is of their religious point of view....and the cool thing, (that a lot of blind people don't get, is that Jesus was NOT about founding, or continuing a 'religion'. Maybe he was talking about a reality that we all live in, and how to access it more easily for the reason of better LOVING each other...which in turn opens up greater access!!........and it has NOTHING to do with 'religion'!....The manipulators created that shit!.....and you are still feeling the effects of their venomous bite!

That being said...it's time for a little good harmonica music from
Carolyn Wonderland on Imus....(Notice how music speaks to both sides) . Funny thing about that.....could it be a higher form of communication???...from a higher place??....or you could run away because Imus is on Fox??
Whose cares!...Oh, and Beethoven was not so far off, at all!!!
Jeez, I understood it...and completely agree!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 04:09 PM

The study of the shroud, and their findings, DO NOT endorse ANY religion, sect, or political system..other than, if the findings are indeed true, could (would) alter our perception of 'reality'.

The study of the shroud did not have the endorsement of any religion, sect or political system as its remit. Its aim was to discover how old the thing was and to investigate the nature of the imprint. The findings, as I understand them, are "true" in that they conclude that the shroud is a medieval piece of cloth containing an imprint that still holds mysteries. Now, all of nature holds mysteries. Science valiantly closes in on them, a little at a time, and will probably never get to the bottom of everything (like most scientists, I kinda like that). But what science will never accept is the insertion of God into anything that can't, for now, be easily explained. Religion never ceases to do that in spite of the fact that it repeatedly gets its nose bloodied as science reveals more and more.

Beethoven was, or may have been reaching into a yet unknown dimension, or area that he musically described...and was considered a genius...maybe his 'genius' was merely the ability to 'go there'...
All this happens to be consistent with the dimensional findings spoken about on the video.

Absolute tommy-rot. As a man, Beethoven was as earthbound as can be, and his great achievement was to imbue his music with boundless humanity and tell us more about ourselves. Perhaps you ought to listen to a bit more of it (careful what you say, though: he's my hero, don't forget, and his bust is six inches from my right hand as I type this. I do know an awful lot about him. Just thought I'd mention it...). Whatever piece of Beethoven you listen to, his vision is always, in the end, not mystical at all. You disagree? Okay, name a piece that you suppose pole-vaults us into another mystical dimension, or whatever it is you're claiming, and I'll shoot you down in detail. It's been tried before, old boy. The most wonderful thing about Beethoven is that he's down here, one of us, exploring our condition and revealing all our best attributes. If you want "mysticism", go and smoke dope on top of Glastonbury Tor with all the other wankers, and don't forget your tom-tom!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 05:36 PM

Steve: "....The study of the shroud did not have the endorsement of any religion, sect or political system as its remit. Its aim was to discover how old the thing was and to investigate the nature of the imprint. The findings, as I understand them, are "true" in that they conclude that the shroud is a medieval piece of cloth containing an imprint that still holds mysteries."

OK..Close, but NOT an 'imprint'...an image, holographic in nature caused by 'radiation, either of heat or light, or both. To 'lift' the image, to try to reproduce the image as accurately as possible, Ray Downing, from Macbeth Studios had to find out what caused it....THAT is where it gets interesting, as so far and the technical, and what they discovered....fair enough?

Steve: "....I kinda like that). But what science will never accept is the insertion of God into anything that can't, for now, be easily explained."

OK..but that is how you or them define 'GOD' with all it's properties...if they're/you're thinking of 'God' as a being, separate from the 'creation', a ruling guy with a big beard and silver hammer, waiting for us to get 'holy'..to bop us on the head, or to 'reward' the most 'self-righteous', as deemed by the adherence of some religious doctrine(s), then, of course, that would be a terrible misfortune of misunderstanding!!

Steve: "Absolute tommy-rot. As a man, Beethoven was as earthbound as can be, and his great achievement was to imbue his music with boundless humanity and tell us more about ourselves."

Not 'tommy-rot'....yes Beethoven was a 'earthbound man, as we know men..but that DOES NOT account for where he was able to tap into...as WE all CAN!!..and as far as his music being able to 'tell us more about ourselves', RIGHT!..because there is a 'fabric' that we all share....that 'fabric' links us...and to tap into it, and that what makes up it's properties, he doesn't draw a separation between that, and 'God'...I agree!

Steve: "....and don't forget your tom-tom!"

Keyboards, or guitar..and I may add that in composing 1/2 hour and greater pieces on the keyboards, tapping into what I tap into...if find NO discrepancy, whatsoever. As it is, as of now, at this posting, 6 separate hospitals, 4 therapists, and three extended care hospitals, along with several physicians(including sevaral cardiologists and a neurosurgeon are utilizing 'my' music, for the healing and recovery of their patients..no shit!..Hearing that even blew me away!!
Steve, there IS something to this. I know from where I am when I compose/play/perform it, the vibes in the place, and the re-actions of the listeners, along with what they tell me they experienced. It really IS uncanny...but it's wonderful!

Hey, How did you like the harp player on the Carolyn Wonderland link?..I thought they all kicked ass!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 05:37 PM

Steve: "....The study of the shroud did not have the endorsement of any religion, sect or political system as its remit. Its aim was to discover how old the thing was and to investigate the nature of the imprint. The findings, as I understand them, are "true" in that they conclude that the shroud is a medieval piece of cloth containing an imprint that still holds mysteries."

OK..Close, but NOT an 'imprint'...an image, holographic in nature caused by 'radiation, either of heat or light, or both. To 'lift' the image, to try to reproduce the image as accurately as possible, Ray Downing, from Macbeth Studios had to find out what caused it....THAT is where it gets interesting, as so far and the technical, and what they discovered....fair enough?

Steve: "....I kinda like that). But what science will never accept is the insertion of God into anything that can't, for now, be easily explained."

OK..but that is how you or them define 'GOD' with all it's properties...if they're/you're thinking of 'God' as a being, separate from the 'creation', a ruling guy with a big beard and silver hammer, waiting for us to get 'holy'..to bop us on the head, or to 'reward' the most 'self-righteous', as deemed by the adherence of some religious doctrine(s), then, of course, that would be a terrible misfortune of misunderstanding!!

Steve: "Absolute tommy-rot. As a man, Beethoven was as earthbound as can be, and his great achievement was to imbue his music with boundless humanity and tell us more about ourselves."

Not 'tommy-rot'....yes Beethoven was a 'earthbound man, as we know men..but that DOES NOT account for where he was able to tap into...as WE all CAN!!..and as far as his music being able to 'tell us more about ourselves', RIGHT!..because there is a 'fabric' that we all share....that 'fabric' links us...and to tap into it, and that what makes up it's properties, he doesn't draw a separation between that, and 'God'...I agree!

Steve: "....and don't forget your tom-tom!"

Keyboards, or guitar..and I may add that in composing 1/2 hour and greater pieces on the keyboards, tapping into what I tap into...if find NO discrepancy, whatsoever. As it is, as of now, at this posting, 6 separate hospitals, 4 therapists, and three extended care hospitals, along with several physicians(including sevaral cardiologists and a neurosurgeon are utilizing 'my' music, for the healing and recovery of their patients..no shit!..Hearing that even blew me away!!
Steve, there IS something to this. I know from where I am when I compose/play/perform it, the vibes in the place, and the re-actions of the listeners, along with what they tell me they experienced. It really IS uncanny...but it's wonderful!

Hey, How did you like the harp player on the Carolyn Wonderland link?..I thought they all kicked ass!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 06:25 PM

jack-i dont think i have called you dishonest,at least that was not my intention.but i do believe that worldview affects research.
for example when you witness yourself the amazing preservation of the remains of blood product in dinosaur bone.is it not true that prior to this discovery that this was thought impossible.now it is thought perfectly feasible .the presupposition is that dinos died out 65 million yr ago so therefore it must be possible.creationists believing in a much younger world are not so surprised.the discovery is presented as evidence for dinos being relatively recent.
or am i missing something here?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 07:00 PM

OK..Close, but NOT an 'imprint'...an image, holographic in nature caused by 'radiation, either of heat or light, or both. To 'lift' the image, to try to reproduce the image as accurately as possible, Ray Downing, from Macbeth Studios had to find out what caused it....THAT is where it gets interesting, as so far and the technical, and what they discovered....fair enough?

Well, I did say that there were still mysteries surrounding this owld rag, didn't I. I'm very happy for you to tell me that it could be any of those things, though I'm equally sure that the information won't change my life. But what would really impress me would to be told that, against overwhelming odds, this cloth truly does bear the imprint of the actual dead body of Jaysus. Whaddya think, Guffo? Do you believe that it does?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 07:16 PM

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

Jesus shaped potato dug on farm outside of Enid, Oklahoma...

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

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 08:41 PM

when you witness yourself the amazing preservation of the remains of blood product in dinosaur bone.is it not true that prior to this discovery that this was thought impossible.now it is thought perfectly feasible .the presupposition is that dinos died out 65 million yr ago so therefore it must be possible.creationists believing in a much younger world are not so surprised.the discovery is presented as evidence for dinos being relatively recent.
or am i missing something here?

Are you missing something? I should bloody coco! I'll tell you what you're missing. Real science, that's what. Real science does not dismiss anything as impossible. Real science has dating techniques (that you don't want to hear about as they don't fit in with your ignorant prejudices) that are rock-solid, ultra-reliable and repeatable. Real science gives us pretty accurate dating of any fossil remains you care to name. Not only that, real science has a ton of evidence from geology and evolution which corroborates dating. And guess what, pete. It all fits. Like a glove. There are gaps, of course, and they give concern to scientists and fuel doubts, but we wouldn't have it any other way. What don't fit are assertions plucked from nowhere that the Earth is a few thousand years old just because some long-dead deluded twat who probably never existed rattled on about a bloody ark or something and that dinosaurs chased Raquel Welch. I'm not surprised that you and you pig-stupid ilk pounce with delight on the findings about dinosaur blood (which I can't even be arsed to check, so maybe I'll take your word for it). I'm sure you'll derive great comfort from it. But, as ever, you are wrong. Stupidly, deludedly, blindly, ignorantly wrong. Get off your lazy arse, open your eyes and look for evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 08:45 PM

And it's not a presupposition, you insulting bugger. It's an established fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 08:52 PM

Jesus shaped potato dug on farm outside of Enid, Oklahoma...

Are you sure it wasn't Enid's actual baby and not a spud at all? Shaped like Jaysus you say? Ask Enid if she's virgo intacta. If she is, well it's Jaysus fer sure!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 08:59 PM

Enid is a town, Steve... Towns don't talk... Maybe you could talk with the mayor... They got the potato in a root cellar under town hall...

Well, that's what I heard...

I once thought I read "Jesus" in my alphabet soup but missed by just an "e"... I had the rest... "JSUS" so I figured it was God tellin' me that He don't like "e"s???

That has stuck with me for 50 years... Guess God talks to different folks different ways???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 09:13 PM

It's not an imprint.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 05:47 AM

I suspected it was a town. There's one called Alice in Antipodaeia. Next time you have alphabet soup think more broadly. You might find God is an Irishman and was trying to spell JAYSUS which he could do even though hating "e"s and you went and missed it. God spake unto you 50 years ago - and you bloody missed it. That is exactly how atheism is born.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 05:52 AM

Not an imprint, huh? So if I ask the question often enough, and every time you give me a snippet of what it isn't, we'll eventually whittle it down to the nub, namely, whether you think that the Turin rag ever came into any sort of contact with the dead Jesus. In the words of my hero Brucie Forsyth, good gyme, good gyme!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: sciencegeek
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 07:13 AM

I had said earlier that there is no alternative to science... thinking along the lines that the alternative to sanity is insanity or to rationality would be irrationality....

but it now occurs to me that more correct answer to the original question is that pseudo-science is the alternative to science... skewed worldview that does not follow scientific method, but twists around facts and jargon to put forth the illusion - to the untrained, gullible or others who only want to believe a certain viewpoint regardless of what anyone else says.

if you want to believe something on faith... fine that is your own business... but honest about it. my business is science and I resent having it it twisted and distorted into a prop for anti-scientific purposes.

science is the study of the natural world using scientific method to test and experiment with the goal of gaining a better understanding of the natural world by coming up with testable conclusions.

pseudo science is not a study of anything... the conclusion has already been made and the perpetrators of this hoax merely spend a lot of time and energy ignoring all the facts in context and try to spin their "conclusion" as foregone fact.


it's a bloody con job!

if it's important to "prove" that someone named Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, then you need to dig up an historical record from the Roman census to support that. that's the job of historians, not scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 08:45 AM

sciencegeek said: if it's important to "prove" that someone named Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, then you need to dig up an historical record from the Roman census to support that. that's the job of historians, not scientists.

I haven't visited this thread in ages, so was really quite lucky to come across that comment from sciencegeek. It is key to remember what sort of question you want answering. For many questions, science is by far the best method we have (and as I've said often enough in this thread I'm a scientist by nature and employment.) But there are valid alternatives for other questions, such as the historian referred to above. Where there is a conflict between science and another approach I'd always go with science [after suitable verification and stress-testing of the answer]. But I do not think that the scientific method is the best way of solving all problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 09:24 AM

The historical evidence for Jesus is as good as it is for, say, Euripides.

They haven't found his birth certificate either.

Otherwise, Sciencegeek, you're correct. If the shroud is a supernatural artifact, the scientific tests, including the radiocarbon dating, could only have supported that view, even if by definition they couldn't prove it. (An indisputable first-century radiocarbon date would have been a requirement.)

But they didn't.

Why should miraculous "resurrection energy" (which exists only in imagination) have interfered with the physical and chemical properties of the shroud anyway? It's a nonsense question, because as far as anyone can tell (including the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the U.S. National Council of Churches) a special kind of "resurrection energy" that can incidentally alter the chemical properties of carbon so as to match perfectly the 13th Century anti-shroud testimony of a Church official, has never existed. And if it did exist, then God seems to be playing a very strange trick on everyone by paradoxically making the shroud appear to support the skeptics.

There's possibility, which has the enormous advantage of not being paradoxical at all: that certain persons want to believe in that special energy (which would be even more special than supernatural energy *solely* generated by Resurrection, if it occurred) just so they can keep on claiming that scientists are a pack of bumbling idiots.

Except Creation "scientists."

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 09:27 AM

The historian, in order to get nearer the truth, still has to act "scientifically", which, among other things, means seeking, assessing and corroborating evidence. As with good science, more than a good dash of scepticism is required.

I would be wary of placing pseudo-science next to science as some kind of "alternative". By so doing you run the risk of elevating the exploits of charlatans of all kinds to equal-but-opposite status with real science. You only have to look at some of pete's posts in this thread to see how charlatans can be given false equivalence with genuine, hard-working, honest scientists. We should never, for example, allow egregious nonsense such as "creationist researchers" to pass unchallenged.

As for the existence or not of Jesus, I was of the impression that there was consensus among historians that he did exist. That is an entirely different thing, of course, to whether all or any of the words and deeds he's credited with have any credibility. I do kind of like the idea that he existed. I like to think that if he were alive today he'd be turning in his grave at the things said and done in his name. But what I'm almost certain of is that whatever it is on that shroud it has nothing to with him. Gusty...?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 09:56 AM

Other dimensions - SPOOKY!!!!


"I like to think that if he were alive today he'd be turning in his grave at the things said and done in his name."

Errrr!! Would you like to re-visit that sentence, Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 10:00 AM

***************************NEWS FLASH**************************

The evidence is in and the number of angles that can dance on the
end of a pin has now been determined...

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

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 10:01 AM

Ahhhhh, the other angles... You know, angels... lol...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: sciencegeek
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 10:20 AM

Steve, I think if you reexamine my post, I clearly state that pseudo science is as viable an alternative as insanity is for sanity or irrationality is for reason...

the alternatives - if you want to call them such- are non viable.

in fact, pseudo science is basically an intellectual con job... scam..
hoax, etcetera etcetera etcetera

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 10:25 AM

Thinking about it, this website is stuffed with people who might just like to think that folklore adds an interesting dimension to debate. So the yet to be answered origin of the shroud imprint allows fanciful excitement.

A bit like starry pete hoping that because blood might be evident in some dinosaur archeology, then all bets are on again and his superstitious hypothesis remains in the realm of probability.

Fine. But let's not forget his mates also entertain the odd hypothesis that women and gay people are second class citizens so not all his fanciful waffle is benign.

Oh, and yet again I have to dash out to B&Q because they shut early today. Why? Because Christians aren't happy with equality. No. They still have demand privilege. And then they wonder why people get angry with them as they seek to brainwash people. Interesting thing science. They can denounce it but nothing they or any other superstitious nonsense can alter the findings.

The shroud? Comfort blanket more like.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 10:27 AM

Sorry about that, sciencegeek - I didn't intend it as a criticism in any case.

That was deliberate, Shimrod, a bit like the frustrated teacher who can't keep his class quiet, "Every time I open my mouth to speak, some fool starts talking!" Or that other teacher, telling off a cheeky boy, "Don't you DARE open your mouth when you're talking to me, boy!" I'll try to be less subtle!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 10:32 AM

Oh, and yet again I have to dash out to B&Q because they shut early today. Why? Because Christians aren't happy with equality. No. They still have demand privilege. And then they wonder why people get angry with them as they seek to brainwash people.

Yep, and I can't watch the remembrance ceremony without being regaled by some bloody bishop or other leading prayers and hymns, presumably working on the assumption that if we're not all dyed-in-the-wool believers already then we bloody well ought to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 10:44 AM

Science is a way of corralling thought, testing it against the real world and seeing if it maps correctly.    It may get refined as we learn more about thought itself, but as a fundamental discipline it is not likely to be replaced.

It is important though not to confuse "science"--a way of thinking -- with "physics"--a way of thinking about the material universe. The spirit wanders in many domains, so to speak, and a scientific approach can be useful in any of them. But they are not all going to respond in the mindless repetitive way that the physical domain does.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 10:54 AM

OK, Amos...agreed.

GfS

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

Actually, most scientific discovery comes from trial and error and thinking "wonder what happens if_______________"...

The problem I have is that after that empirical process and the errors have been set aside leaving the stuff that works we have to have so many folks who say they still don't believe the the non-errors, i.e. scientific findings...

It's also strange that when these people find themselves diagnosed with a scary disease that they are all over the inter net trying to find the best physician rather than using home remedies or snake oil???

I am also disturbed that the media, in general, feels that it needs to cater to these people as if they have anything to add...

99% of climatologists agree that "global warming" exists and that it is the result of man burning everything he can find to burn... This isn't open to debate between 50% of scientists who believe that and another 50% who don't... Yet the 1%, mostly who are not really scientists at all but slick lobbyists for Big Oil, get equal time in the media??? This is insane if we are going to get folks to realize the real science here...

I've told ya'll about my late pa-in-law... He had a degree in horticulture from a small mid-western college yet was an "expert on oil spills" (?) and a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, API< who went to before Congress after the Exxon Valdez (as an expert) and told Congress, in essence, "Don't worry, be happy... The planet has ways of taking care of these things"... Where was the science in that??? Well, there wasn't any real science but he was...

...the expert, right???

Time to cut the microphone time for the wackos...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: sciencegeek
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 11:28 AM

Bobert.... I have have long maintained that the American public would never start to embrace an acceptance of global warming until it was something presented by a trusted figure in an impartial manner.

- after all, it means the rejection of the comfortable status quo lifestyle we've created and acknowledgement that we blew it with Reagan, et al -

so I have said that The Weather Channel has done more to raise America's gut feelings that global warming might be real than anything done by the Democrats or Green Party,

back in the day we had faith in Walter Chronkite or David Brinkly, to mention a few, but the news media has changed too much for that to happen now.

but people turn on TWC and leave it on... and the folks they trust for weather reporting are now talking about global warming and how it's affecting the weather. may sound crazy... but human nature can be really wackey.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 11:56 AM

The consensus for human-induced global warming is a lot more than 50-50. More like 95-5. There is no reputable scientific body that denies the link between human activity and global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 01:35 PM

"That was deliberate, Shimrod, ... I'll try to be less subtle!"

Sorry. Steve - that was rather gauche of me. I suppose I just assumed that 'Geek from Shroud' and that nice Mr pete the really, really nice fundamentalist (he's sooo nice!) had finally driven you over the edge!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 02:03 PM

Hot off the press!

I've just been 'door-stepped' by Mormons! I told them that the world had just had a lucky escape by not falling into the clutches of a Mormon! Being religious fanatics they were unphased by that and asked if I , "wanted to learn more about Jesus Christ?" I said "no" and shut the door. The mind boggles at the sheer single-mindededness of these idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 03:00 PM

***************************NEWS FLASH**************************

The evidence is in and the number of angles that can dance on the
end of a pin has now been determined...that's how Bobert (and others) THINKS he's not a bigot....but bigotry toward someone's religion is OK!!
Bobert dances at 11!

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

P.S. I'm NOT into 'religion'...but some of you guys are REALLY far into more bigotry than your 'so-called' liberal mindset would ever allow you to admit.....(that's not the only thing that it limits, either!)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Gust from Sanity
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 03:02 PM

500!...can't believe that by 500, they still haven't gotten a clue about trying to prove a negative...and then they try to say they have a 'scientific mind'...ROFL!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 04:41 PM

Inability to prove a negative doesn't make a negative true.

And absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence - when you've looked carefully for the evidence and found the evidence absent.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 04:41 PM

"gust from sanity"

It's an ill gust that blows no sense.... or some such clever wordplay

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 05:06 PM

The evidence is in the video..whether you like it or not!
It tends to 'narrow the field'.

Now if you want to start a new hypothesis, go ahead...but try basing it on something besides your prejudices!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 06:30 PM

The evidence is in the video..whether you like it or not!
It tends to 'narrow the field'.

Well save us the tedium of watching the whole bloody thing (some of us have chunes to learn, you know) and tell us what evidence you've gleaned from your videos. If it's evidence, I like it, even if it shatters my current notions.

Now if you want to start a new hypothesis, go ahead...but try basing it on something besides your prejudices!

Yes, well, you really don't get this scientific process malarkey, do you! That is not the way it works, ol' chum! Now "we" (as opposed to "you") have lots of evidence that the shroud is probably a medieval rag that has nothing to do with Jesus. You don't agree? Great! Formulate your alternative hypothesis then (don't forget to tell us what it is), then tell us what evidence you have gleaned so far and what you intend to do about gathering more evidence. And linking to a video is not evidence, in case you were wondering. That's just being a lazy-arse. If you think your video has new evidence, kindly apprise us. Just a cautionary note though (because I love to be helpful): do look up "evidence" in a good dictionary so that you'll know exactly what gathering it actually entails. And do you think that the Turin shroud is, even in the remotest sense, connected to Jesus? Just thought I'd ask...

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

Bottom line???

99% of climatologists believe that global warming is the result of man's activity...

This is straight-forward...

Can anyone find anyone in the remaining 1% who have any credibility within the science community???

Please name, por favor...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 08:18 PM

Expect silence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 12:54 AM

Steve: "Well save us the tedium of watching the whole bloody thing (some of us have chunes to learn, you know) and tell us what evidence you've gleaned from your videos. If it's evidence, I like it, even if it shatters my current notions.

Yes, well, you really don't get this scientific process malarkey, do you!"

Do you have any idea how contradictory these statements you just made are????

You don't want to watch the video, to understand the evidence, then you turn around and say I ... ME... Moi.. Yours Truly ...."don't get this scientific process malarkey???"

You are ignorant of the evidence in the video that you never watched, and you're refuting the evidence, on the video that you never saw???????

You gotta' be fucking kidding me!

...and then say you are 'into' the 'scientific process'????

You gotta' be fucking kidding me!!

Now come on folks...are you going to side with THIS???...and expect to be taken seriously?????

You gotta' be fucking kidding me!!!!!

I was right the first time, Oh Harp-Man..you are a blowhard with a big mouth! Nothing to say, that came right out the center of the nothing in your head!

Let's have a round of applause for the moron!


GfS

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

I tried watching the first part of your video, GfS, and found it long-winded, tedious, over-dramatised and unconvincing. You've obviously watched the whole f*cking thing (perhaps you're a glutton for punishment or have nothing better to do?). So come on, summarise the ridiculous thing for us and let us know what 'evidence' it contains for what.

I'm siding with Steve on this - no-one has to watch hours of boring video all the way through just because you demand that we do. If you're trying to make a point, perhaps you should make it (what's the point you're trying to make, by the way?).

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

Thank you for your calm, measured and erudite post, Gusty One. :-)

I am most certainly not refuting any evidence that your videos may contain. Naturally, as soon as you apprise me of it I shall apply the usual tests for evidence to it. Was it obtained by careful controlled experimentation on adequate samples? Can any observations be independently corroborated? Has the evidence been independently peer-reviewed? Could independent researchers obtain the same results or consistently make the same observations? Now before I even bother to apply such rigour, I should tell you that I don't count witness, hearsay, tradition, incomplete ancient texts penned by storytellers, myth or the edicts of holy men as evidence. So save yourself some time and put your evidence through that filter first. I would watch your videos if I had time, which, sadly, I haven't, though a further problem is that I watch very little on the telly these days and I even have difficulty following the plot of The Adventures Of Spot The Dog, let alone hour after hour of video with such unappealing subject matter.

And, Shimrod, perhaps the point he's trying to make is that he believes that the shroud of Turin actually did, at one point, come into intimate contact with the dead body of his Saviour (and, begod, he does sound like he need saving from something). Guffo...?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 06:39 AM

" ... perhaps the point he's trying to make is that he believes that the shroud of Turin actually did, at one point, come into intimate contact with the dead body of his Saviour"

The poor, sad schmuck!

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

OK..you don't want to watch it, fine..but keep your uneducated opinions to yourself in regards to what you know NOTHING about!.. because when you don't the only thing that spews forth is stupidity..no matter how 'indignant' you may try to mask it!!!!

Fair enough!

GfS

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

But our opinions are not uneducated. We know the evidence about the shroud being medieval, not of Jesus's time at all. If you have revolutionary new evidence to the contrary we're all ears. But you can't force us to watch hours of video to find it. If you're so convinced, sum it up for us. Kick start the procedure. Snip the video up and post the sections that are germane. If what you tell us sounds interesting we'll go for it.

By which I mean interesting enough to point to the possibility that the cloth did, indeed, come into intimate contact with the body of dead Jesus. What do YOU think, Guffer?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 10:02 AM

Being attacked by you, GfS, is like being savaged by a dead sheep (with apologies to Denis Healey and, of course, Sir Geoffrey Howe)!

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

Steve: "We know the evidence about the shroud being medieval, not of Jesus's time at all. If you have revolutionary new evidence to the contrary we're all ears...."

Horseshit! If new findings are found, the you might want to look into them...not doing so is willful ignorance and you two seem to willfully stupid and proud of it!
..as so far as the rest..you DON'T know what you're talking about..(not a rhetorical insult, just the plain truth!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 11:20 AM

""no matter how 'indignant' you may try to mask it!!!!""

I take it that you aren't an Enlish language specialist Goofus?

"indignantly"

Also, you might like to re-examine your take on scientific procedure. If you wish to present a counter argument based on a new hypothesis, it is up to YOU to present evidence to your peers to support it.

They are under no obligation either to accept your unsupported word, or to go looking for your evidence.

Genuine Scientists scotch their own snakes friend!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 11:22 AM

Nimrod: "I tried watching the first part of your video, GfS, and found it long-winded, tedious, over-dramatised and unconvincing. You've obviously watched the whole f*cking thing (perhaps you're a glutton for punishment or have nothing better to do?)."

Instead you find it a better use of your time posting inane posts, that you can't back up????
Maybe you should exit Mudcat, as long as you're computer is on, and watch something educational..besides porn!
(But then I guess you DO need help in fucking yourself!)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 11:26 AM

Don, you might find it a novel experience to know what you're talking about. Like the rest of these Nimrods, how can you comment on something you have no info on??....especially something that a whole new area of scientific studies have opened up, based on their new discoveries??.. Not interested??..Well stay prejudiced and biased...who gives a shit?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 11:34 AM

Oh dear, Jesus wouldn't like him getting all nasty with us the way Guffy does, would he? It's hardly the way to treat us who are still to be saved! Here, Guffers, I'll get you started. Here's your hypothesis:

"The Turin shroud bears an image that strongly resembles Christ as he has been described to us down the centuries. The null hypothesis is that the cloth is not contemporary with Christ's life, so cannot bear the true image of dead Jesus. I now intend to present evidence that will reject the null hypothesis."

There ya go, old chap. Next step: your evidence, please! And links to videos are not evidence!!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 11:44 AM

3rd post - 6 weeks ago

*****************************************
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Ebbie - PM
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 12:20 PM

Warning: This will be a short thread. :)
******************************************
She reckoned without some of us....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 12:05 PM

Steve Nimrod: "There ya go, old chap. Next step: your evidence, please! And links to videos are not evidence!!"

How would you know?????????????????????????????????

GfS

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

"Don, you might find it a novel experience to know what you're talking about. Like the rest of these Nimrods, how can you comment on something you have no info on??""

So educate us smartarse! Extract your evidence from the place where YOU found it and lay it out for examination.

We're not your hired staff and none of us is going to sit through four hours of pompous shite to find whatever nugget of truth (according to you, and your record ain't great) might be hidden in it.

It's your hypothesis, so you present your pertinent evidence, or shut up about it.

Every one of us except you has presented our own arguments and the evidence for them.

You float in on a cloud of whimsy and start demanding we wade through a sea of dross to save you the trouble.

Dream on! It isn't going to happen. Now piss, or get off the pot!

Don T.

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

DonT: "So educate us smartarse! Extract your evidence from the place where YOU found it and lay it out for examination."

Well go ahead and examine it..I ain't stoppin' you!

Idiots!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 01:02 PM

It's all there for anyone to look at...and examine....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 01:19 PM

This argument that you are making, GfinS, is terribly flawed... You have what you *claim* is a *documentary* that you *claim* is nothing but the *truth* and when folks watch a little of it and find it tedious and suspect and ask you to make *your* arguments your rebuttal goes like this:

No, I won't because ya'll didn't subject yourselves to what "I claim to be the truth."...

That is not an argument... That is a testimonial... Testimonials are not arguments... They are beliefs...

Folks here have been fair in asking that you lay out you evidence and make your arguments...

You refuse...

I gotta score this one a loss for ya' GfinS...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 01:21 PM

A link to a video is not evidence. Let me give you another example. You tell me that, in the lineage leading to Jesus, Salmon begat Booz (I always liked that one). I ask you for evidence. You tell me to go to the library for a bible and look it up, refusing to give me any guidance as to which verse, chapter, author or testament. Well I'll tell you what, mate. You need to consider outcomes a little more! You won't win many converts to your beliefs that way! In any case, you won't even tell us your beliefs! For example, do you believe that the shroud bears the image, made through direct contact with his dead body, of Jesus?

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

Calm down, GfS, you're over-exciting yourself! You've endured the whole teejus vijo - so you summarise it and give us details of any new evidence that you think it contains. After all, why keep a dog and bark yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 01:26 PM

He's bloody barking all right! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 01:34 PM

I like the bit towards the end of the video where they say that goofus is talking bollocks and the shroud is a windup.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 01:58 PM

Bobert: "That is not an argument... That is a testimonial... Testimonials are not arguments... They are beliefs..."


Would you say that a 'testimonial' in laboratory conditions, could be considered 'evidence'?

Bobert: "Folks here have been fair in asking that you lay out you evidence and make your arguments..."

I did several times..they are too fucking lazy and arrogant to see for themselves.

Bobert: "You refuse..."

False!!

Bobert: "I gotta score this one a loss for ya' GfinS..."

Well you are biased yourself!..Your scoring don't mean shit!
Scientifically speaking, one should look at the 'evidence' before one renders an opinion......have you looked at the evidence?..then how can I respect your opinion??!!??

GFS: "From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 05:37 PM

Steve: "....The study of the shroud did not have the endorsement of any religion, sect or political system as its remit. Its aim was to discover how old the thing was and to investigate the nature of the imprint. The findings, as I understand them, are "true" in that they conclude that the shroud is a medieval piece of cloth containing an imprint that still holds mysteries."

OK..Close, but NOT an 'imprint'...an image, holographic in nature caused by 'radiation, either of heat or light, or both. To 'lift' the image, to try to reproduce the image as accurately as possible, Ray Downing, from Macbeth Studios had to find out what caused it....THAT is where it gets interesting, as so far and the technical, and what they discovered....fair enough?"

This is one of two posts where I brought up the nature of what they found....and the numbnuts have NEVER addressed it!..because they didn't look at it, too lazy to read, or are deficient in comprehension..take your pick!
they'd rather take time to type illiterate type posts than to find out what they are talking about. Par for the course!

So, if you can't look into it yourselves, come up with an OBJECTIVE opinion, or just 'file it', who gives a rat's ass during a flying fuck what they think???!!!??..Elementary Watson...They don't know what they are talking about..(or missing).

I DO! I Already did my homework!

Jeez....makes you wonder about some of their upbringing. I wonder if their parents tied tin cans on their nuts and left them out in the blizzard all week!!

GfS

P.S...Better than keeping something so stupid in their houses for the same duration!!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 02:07 PM

Bobert: "Folks here have been fair in asking that you lay out you evidence and make your arguments..."
"You refuse..."

"FALSE!!

"From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 03:18 PM

The study of the shroud, and their findings, DO NOT endorse ANY religion, sect, or political system..other than, if the findings are indeed true, could (would) alter our perception of 'reality'. Being as the study opened up a new field of science, that which is consistent with quantum physics, 'string theory', 'membrane theory' and how they work...and guess what?..they use MUSIC (and harmonics)to describe how it all works and to describe our relationship to the dimensions...and there are MORE than the ONE we see!..FACT!!"

Bobert: "Folks here have been fair in asking that you lay out you evidence and make your arguments..."
"You refuse..."

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 08:33 PM

Let's try this again, for all those who are a little 'slow'....

..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

Wrong AGAIN, Ol' Bobert!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: sciencegeek
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 04:46 PM

Back before my dad succeeded in drinking himself to death, he managed to pickle so many brain cells that he couldn't put together a coherent argument for love or money... and believe me when I say that he was NOT a happy drunk and would pick a verbal fight over anything.

His most memorable quote from back then was... "Don't confuse the argument with facts."

This thread is really starting to resemble one of those incoherent rants he was so addicted to... besides the booze. We could no more stop his rants than we could stop his drinking... he lost his family and replaced it with his loser drinking buddies.

I fear that this thread has been hijacked by those who if they really are the God's chosen that they think they are.... boy, that is one pathetic deity.

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

Yo, GfinS...

All I have read from you are proclamations, testimonials and personal attacks on folks asking you to present a coherent case...

Normal...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 05:46 PM

...and then consider whole thing!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 05:57 PM

"Now, if the shroud was of the 13th century, how do you explain the image, ...etc...."

No one has to explain any of this unless they are either asserting or denying something.
Those who assert that it IS serious evidence of 'something', must supply an explanation which fits... and does not conflict... with all known other evidence. By themselves, certain lab tests are only interesting. Until someone comes up with a lab test which shows overwhelming evidence of a 'certain age', it is merely curious.

The church has an interest in the shroud NOT being debunked, and have so far been very limiting in what tests they will allow on what areas.

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

GfS, for some strange reason you've driven me to cliches (dead sheep, barking dogs etc.). But here's a final one: when you're in a hole stop digging!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 06:43 PM

> The church has an interest in the shroud NOT being debunked.

Maybe not as strong an interest as you might suspect. The Vatican has taken no special position on the shroud's authenticity, and as far as Christian doctrine is concerned, it doesn't matter whether the shroud is real or not. A fake 13th century shroud doesn't logically discredit a real first-century Resurrection - which was accepted for 1300 years with no shroud in evidence.

Those with the strongest interest in pushing for authenticity any way they can are fundamentalist types who want a "smoking gun" they can use to boost creationism and discredit science at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 06:46 PM

BillD: "The church has an interest in the shroud NOT being debunked, and have so far been very limiting in what tests they will allow on what areas."

Actually, not only was there dissension among the hierarchy, at the Vatican, about letting the do the tests in the first place(as relayed on the video), the Official position of the Papacy, was that the 'inspiration' of the shroud was the most important, even if it wasn't the real thing...that's on the video, as well...The compromise was that the team only got about ten days, to inspect it, photograph it, run tests...ans stuff that if you had seen the video, this wouldn't be necessary to explain on here..the video is faster, easier and more detailed...and as per aforementioned, NOT church or 'religiously based' group or entity who wanted to run the tests nor who did the tests.
Why there is so much agony at the thought of getting pretty interesting input staggers the imagination, in regards to the depth of brain-blockage!
If you're interested (anybody) check it out yourself...if not, keep you stupid opinions about what you have no idea about in this next place..........................................>>>>

.............>>>> Nimrod: "But here's a final one: when you're in a hole stop digging!"

Speaking of holes...did you find any polyps, yet?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 04:58 AM

Cheap insults do nothing for your credibilty, GfS!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 07:09 AM

For those of you interested in the ongoing science around the Turin Shroud, here's a page of references
Shroud Science

The radiocarbon dates, measured by 3 labs in 1988, all came out suggesting the shroud was mediaeval but that doesn't answer the question of where the image came from.

One interesting suggestion is that there was a Coronal Discharge or 'St Elmo's fire' event that you can sometimes see in thunderstorms.

Body Image Formation Based on Coronal Discharge

There doesn't seems to be anything in the research that either requires or excludes a supernatural event, so I guess we can all hang on to our preconceptions for a while yet...

KP (who was a research chemist before spending most of the time trying to tune 12 string guitars)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 08:12 AM

> The radiocarbon dates, measured by 3 labs in 1988, all came out suggesting the shroud was mediaeval.

If the shroud is medieval, as the contemporaneous testimony and the scientific evidence suggests, then it becomes very unlikely that it bears the imprint of a real person. The elongated appearance of the image also works against it.

The interesting question is precisely how the image was made.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 09:50 AM

On rare occaisions someone with a kilogram of neurons in there head comes up with an idea other people can not picture easily.
Sometimes the ideas are correct.
When they are correct it is rare for the idea to gain traction with the current language of the day.
Sometimes the correct language (usually math) expresses the new idea with traction and correctness.

For correct ideas that have no current common language the path for the new idea is usually oblivion.

A few brave people with new ideas create their own language for their idea. People like Richard Feynman and his Feynman diagrams.

I would not call his diagrams an alternative to science but an attempt for a new way for communication new concepts that are hard for 2 dimensional thinkers to see without a new language to elucidate and translate the ideas to the liear thinking brains, or as I call them obsolete operating systems of the past.

Today with graphic animations we can help linear thinking people to actually see the truth of how time exists in all its future and past expressions just as space itself exists in all of of its micro and macro expanses, right now, everwhere.

These animations are helping people to see what they had no eyes to see before. People who already see in 3 and 4 D are inventing new language to describe what is challenging for them to see.

We now have special space telescopes to quantify the previously subjective concepts that were once thought to be unknowable.
This is wonderful news for the curious at heart. The process of science itself is expanding the process of what can be known as well as what can be inferentially seen.

These discoveries are not a simple alternative to science but rather an expansion of science like the universe/multiverse itself/themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 10:52 AM

"The interesting question is precisely how the image was made."

We don't know, therefore it must have been God wot did it. Simple this science business, when you get the hang of it, isn't it, GfS?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 11:00 AM

Hi Martin Gibson, Nimrod or whatever fake ignorence advocate person you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 11:01 AM

Donuel, good post!

Nimrod, you are jumping to assumptions...grow up!

KP, Shall review the links...thank you.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 02:35 PM

a fake ignorance advocate is not a put down

Steven Colbert is the king of fake ignorance advocates.


Deciphering the savant and dyslexic minds of today by looking without predjudice, is turning up many great truths about the universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 02:37 PM

Oh you mean to say you are not a FAKE ignorant advocate?
I'm sorry, damn my blurry eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 05:25 PM

not committing one way or another as far as the shroud is concerned but contrary to the imaginations of some;- creationists are not, that i know of, that het up about it
maybe its the atheists that are more worried about it!
gfs-i seen to recall that the nail prints are positioned in the wrists in the image rather than through the palms of the hand, as i understand is traditional in medievel art.am i right?.

i have today realized that birds might have come from dinos after all-

if they vomited after eating them!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 07:16 PM

not committing one way or another as far as the shroud is concerned

Oh, go on, why don't you. Commit yourself! The facts are clear! It ain't Jaysus! It's clever, it's medieval and it ain't Jaysus! It won't affect you! Creationism is just as possible with a fake shroud! Off the fence with you,, dear boy!

but contrary to the imaginations of some;- creationists are not, that i know of, that het up about it
maybe its the atheists that are more worried about it!

So who's getting all worked up about the bloody thing in this thread, hysterically trying to force all us laid-back, rational types to watch a silly video, reinforcing his call with every possible raving insult known to humanity? Why, 'tis not an atheist, old bean!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 08:51 PM

tsk... Pete.. birds did not exactly come FROM 'dinos'... one basic species does not magically change into another. Whatever happened, it was extremely complex and over LONG time.
   Once you accept the 10s of millions of years involved and the many, many lines of relationship and branches, it is a lot easier to talk about.
I am aware that you already have a simple way of explaining different species..."God made them as He wished"... but the hard evidence says that it happened in the complicated way... whether or not some super-being planned it. What we have evidence of is the evolutionary path.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Nov 12 - 01:00 PM

Still checking out those links...and cross checking them...

Hey, to some of the others..don't let your bigotry get in the way of collecting scientific data... you might have a problem calling a spade a spade, but bigotry is bigotry...and some of you might check yourselves out. It's patently obvious to those who aren't even 'religious'!!!...oh, and that being said, should clear thinking people take the point of view from bigots seriously????

"Love me, love me love me..I'm a 'liberal'"-Phil Ochs

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Nov 12 - 02:04 PM

"Hey, to some of the others..don't let your bigotry get in the way of collecting scientific data."

I used to collect "scientific data" for a living. As far as I can remember this activity never involved watching plonky, over-dramatised, over-extended videos about dubious old bits of cloth. What sort of lab did you work in, GfS?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Nov 12 - 04:19 PM

Nimrod: "I used to collect "scientific data" for a living...."

Then you know that what I was saying was true.

Amos said about the same...Amos: "You never know what you'll find if you start looking without prejudice."

So, when you worked in a lab, did you keep testing the same thing over and over again, and not look at any new data???
Sorry, you trying to 'qualify' yourself, by saying 'you worked in a lab', and then turn around and display nothing but 'anti-religious' bias is staggering! I, myself am NOT religious...but if a new piece of evidence/data comes in, I certainly wouldn't rule out checking it out, before I offered a blathering opinion..wouldn't you??..oh never mind, you've already answered that!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 14 Nov 12 - 07:21 PM

For those who may be interested:

What you see aimed at the public in a video, on a TV show, on the Internet, or read in the Enquirer, etc., is not "scientific evidence."

What *is* scientific evidence? Evidence that results from rigorously conducted experiments or observations by people who know what they're doing. This evidence is then written up in a professional manner, with a highly detailed description of the procedures involved, including a mathematical calculation of the likelihood that the results are due to pure chance. A team of researchers, all with advanced degrees in a relevant to their research, is considered to be more reliable than just one. The completed article is then submitted for publication to a professionally edited, refereed scientific journal.

"Professionally edited" means that the editor is also a scientist, and "refereed" (or "peer-reviewed") means that the article is scrutinized for errors and bad procedure by other experts in relevant fields. An article may be returned to the authors with further questions, or it may be rejected for sloppy methods and conclusions that are unwarranted by the evidence.

It is an editor's duty to print cogent criticisms of a published article from other scientists and to allow the original authors to reply. Discussion provides a further protection from false conclusions.

If the findings survive all of that, they're still not established until some other team (or teams) confirms them through better experiments, or looks through a different telescope, or whatever. At that point, the scientific community generally accepts the findings as reliable - unless and until new, equally rigorous evidence appears calling them into question. If that happens, it means more research.

What's more, believable findings are consistent with older, even better established findings. If something new and contradictory appears, countless scientists will be looking at it, many of them in hopes of winning a Nobel Prize for discovering something or extraordinary significance.

If the creators of sensational commercial videos have the convincing evidence they claim to have, they should submit it to one of the hundreds of refereed scientific journals, all of which are eager to publish important and reliable data.

If they haven't submitted their evidence for this kind of review, ask yourself why not. One reason may be that it's easier to persuade the public than it is to persuade the scientific community, because video audiences, TV viewers, readers of tabloids, etc., know very little about how science works.

In fact, it's rather more rigorous than this outline alone might suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Nov 12 - 08:29 PM

Thank you Lighter. You saved me a lot of wasted time trying to get through to Goofus the idea that no real scientist would rock up with a new theory and say "This is what I believe, and you can find my evidence by ploughing through a four hour video made by somebody else".

Any who tried that one would get damn short shrift.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 14 Nov 12 - 08:47 PM

My pleasure.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Nov 12 - 09:34 PM

Empirical v. emotional...

Age old conflict...

I have never figured out how people will believe stuff that has been proven to be wrong???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Nov 12 - 10:19 PM

That's funny..you believe in your political party, don't you??...no matter how many times they've been proven wrong!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 12 - 10:22 PM

GfS,,, your reply to Bobert is an **equivocation**

The words are not used the same way.... maybe you knew that, but it doesn't read like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Nov 12 - 10:30 PM

Where is it that I have ever said that I believe in any political party, GfinS???

I have said that, at least for now, that Dems will hold off the loony right, you included...

That ain't exactly an endorsement of the dems...

They are, at best, a stop gap against the complete destruction of the New Deal and the somewhat civilized society that it insures...

You can side with the folks who would shred Social Security and Medicare... That's your right and prerogative... That ain't me...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Nov 12 - 01:29 AM

Bobsie: "I have said that, at least for now, that Dems will hold off the loony right, you included..."

I'm not on the right..nor the left...neither have enough truth, nor free from corruption for me to identify with either of them.
Simple as that!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Nov 12 - 05:04 AM

There's not much to add to Lighter's excellent summary of the nature of scientific evidence and how it is published - except to note that a scientific paper invariably begins with a summary or 'abstract' which allows the reader to decide whether or not there is anything to be gained by reading the whole publication. In addition scientific papers do not usually take the form of a series of endlessly drawn out 'cliffhangers' - the form taken by the 'Shroud of Turin' video cited by GfS. Of course YOU could have provided an abstract, GfS and then we could have decided whether it was worth our while to sit through the whole melodramatic, grossly over-inflated thing!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 15 Nov 12 - 05:24 AM

So.. demanding evidence and not accepting peoples' word is exhibiting bigotry now?

Well, bugger me, I'm a bigot after all. Thanks, I often wondered.

zzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: sciencegeek
Date: 15 Nov 12 - 05:41 AM

thank you, Lighter for that fine summary.

I will occasionally watch shows on the History Channel or Discovery on interesting topics... but get really annoyed with the phoney "drama" they insist on adding... as if this is the "entertainment factor" that needs to be added to "dry facts". yuck!

And when they finally get to their conclusion... you can practically hear the drumroll as they "spring" it on you. They drag out 15 minutes of info into an hour's format. And then we wonder why the general public has no clue about what constitutes a scientific investigation. sigh...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 12 - 07:43 AM

I'm not on the right..nor the left..

Too right you're not. In fact, you appear to be on a completely different planet to everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 15 Nov 12 - 09:36 AM

Shimrod, sciencegeek, Don T: thanks. And I'm not even a scientist.

One more point: if scientists were as arrogantly dogmatic as some would claim, why did they bother to investigate the shroud in the first place?

They could have just laughed it off.

The reason they tested it was that spectacular claims had been made accompanied by photographic and historical evidence. They knew that a the provably genuine shroud of Christ with a possibly inexplicable image would be the greatest scientific discovery in history.

They didn't test it to debunk it; they tested it because they wanted to see if it really was a miraculous artifact from the first century.

And the weight of the scientific evidence says that it isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 15 Nov 12 - 10:10 AM

"or am i missing something here?"

Well, yes. The work you refer to was by Schweitzer et al and remains controversial, and although I was cautious about these findings I heard her present on her recent work on these results a few weeks ago and found the argument convincing (in that they're probably not bacterial films). The proteins that have been detected are collagen and are virtually identical to some extant birds; this is not so much of a surprise as the bone studies is from a _T. rex_, a close relative of birds. As far as I'm aware these findings haven't been reproduced by other labs, so some caution is still required.

Thing is, it doesn't matter. If these structures are the remains of blood vessels then we've discovered that some soft tissue can survive for long time periods in certain circumstances. If it turns out the structures aren't part of the original fossil then finding out how they got there will inform our understanding of the process of fossilisation. Science moves our understanding on another step.

So finding proteins in dinosaur bone might be unexpected, but not perhaps as befuddling to science as you might think. In fact, it opens up whole new areas of possible research and understanding. Palaeontology is becoming a multi-disciplinary science and many very sophisticated techniques are being employed to extract information from fossils. We now know the colours of some feathered dinosaurs thanks to new work on synchrotrons and mass spectrometry.

No need for a supernatural explanation for any of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 15 Nov 12 - 11:17 AM

One thing that recommends the findings as true is that bird-like DNA makes sense in the light of what we already know. If human-like DNA had been found, for example, it would have seemed impossible.

Not that it would have required any less investigation.

My point, though, as SJ already knows, is that gut-level appeal and sheer plausibility don't rule out error or make a finding true. More study is needed to make preserved dino DNA a fact. We'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 12 - 03:30 PM

Aargh! The next person who types "dino" for dinosaur may very well find themselves having their botty spanked good and proper!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Nov 12 - 05:53 PM

well bill- if the "hard evidence" is really that birds come from [in whatever complicated and inexplicable gradualistic pathway]dinos it strikes me as strange that there are evolutionary avian experts who reject such interpretation.telling me that something is hard evidence tells me little more than what you believe or accept, since the creationist can do just the same.they have the same evidence to interpret as the darwinist.

jack- your learned post did still indicate that what has always been thought impossible is now considered more than just possible by virtue of the supposed fact of dino extinction 65 million yr ago.
i do however note the priviso that somehow the blood residue might not be part of the original fossil.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 12 - 08:42 PM

if the "hard evidence" is really that birds come from [in whatever complicated and inexplicable gradualistic pathway]dinos it strikes me as strange that there are evolutionary avian experts who reject such interpretation.

It is not inexplicable. Current gaps in understanding or evidence (which are forever closing, thanks to hard-working people who are curious and like to explore with eyes open, unlike you) mean that the full explanation may be deferred for now. That is not the same thing as the defeatist "inexplicable." And no bloody Gods of Gaps, please.

telling me that something is hard evidence tells me little more than what you believe or accept, since the creationist can do just the same.they have the same evidence to interpret as the darwinist.

Of course, but you won't look at that evidence, will you, let alone "interpret" it (aka, in your case, reject it out of hand and take the piss out of scientists, as ever). You can but you won't. Evidence scares you lot. Have you read "Origin" yet, for example? And stop saying "dino." Go and kick your own arse for doing that.

"Evolutionary avian experts" is rock-solid weasel words, by the way. Name names and describe their views that give you so much comfort.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Nov 12 - 11:33 PM

Just so long as nobody asks about the 'missing' links..where are they?
No 1/2 fish 1/2 amphibian? No 1/2 ape 1/2 man? No 1/2 amphibian 1/2 mammal??..Hey I want my money back!!.. This book stinks!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Nov 12 - 04:12 AM

" ... it strikes me as strange that there are evolutionary avian experts who reject such interpretation ..."

Not strange at all, pete. As many of us have told you over and over and over and over etc. again, absolute certainty is an extreme rarity in science; differences of opinion go with the territory. A difference of opinion, on a particular subject, does NOT represent a gap into which you can shovel creationist claptrap!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 16 Nov 12 - 05:39 AM

"bird-like DNA"

It's not DNA, it's collagen and although that might seem picky it's a very important distinction.


"your learned post did still indicate that what has always been thought impossible is now considered more than just possible by virtue of the supposed fact of dino extinction 65 million yr ago."

Not sure what you're getting at here. If you mean we're learning, then yes we are. If you mean we've revised our ideas in the light of new data, then yes we have. If you mean the new data somehow negates what we understand about the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs, then no it doesn't.


"if the "hard evidence" is really that birds come from [in whatever complicated and inexplicable gradualistic pathway]dinos it strikes me as strange that there are evolutionary avian experts who reject such interpretation"

You're referring to people like Feduccia who ply a very individualistic furrow, and are essentially fighting a lone rearguard action against scientific orthodoxy. Not a bad thing you might think, but these people (and they are very few) are essentially ignoring a mountain of evidence, sort of evolutionary flat-earthers. Interestingly, Thomas Huxley (a personal hero of mine) first recognised a relationship between birds and dinosaurs way back in 1868, but it took 100 years for his ideas to start on the road to acceptance.

Also, your statement that the evolutionary developmental pathway of birds is inexplicable is wrong, full stop. Although the exact origin of birds is still unresolved we are homing in on it. The main issue here is to stop thinking of birds as separate to dinosaurs; they are dinosaurs and clade aves sits firmly within the dinosauria. Look it up. They share many characters with non-avian dinosaurs, including all the features that make a dinosaur a dinosaur, as well as derived characters such as feathers, which almost certainly evolved before birds did.

I doubt there are many palaeontologists who would place birds outside dinosauria (I've never met one) and in all honesty the debate within the field moved on long ago, even if public perception hasn't. With over 10,000 extant species we are still in the age of the dinosaurs, and I for one are glad they are still here in all their incredible diversity of form. Wonderful.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 12 - 05:58 AM

It's not DNA, it's collagen and although that might seem picky...

Heheh. Masterly understatement there, Jack. I was once having a cup o'char in the prep room behind the lab from which I could hear the head of science telling his top year 11 biology group that chlorophyll was a protein. After he'd finished I informed him that he was in error telling them that. After arguing fruitlessly that he had been right, he conceded, but claimed he'd had to tell them that in order to keep it simple, that it was a half-truth he'd used to get a difficult point across. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 12 - 07:15 AM

Just so long as nobody asks about the 'missing' links..where are they?
No 1/2 fish 1/2 amphibian? No 1/2 ape 1/2 man? No 1/2 amphibian 1/2 mammal??..Hey I want my money back!!.. This book stinks!

Oh God, ignorance is such bliss. If you would care to read On The Origin Of Species you will find that Darwin himself agonised at length over the apparent lack of intermediate forms. Far from "nobody asking", the main man himself asked and asked, and evolutionary biologists have addressed the question ever since. Science does not sweep under carpets. Do yer homework before posting such twaddle, and take science-blind pete with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 16 Nov 12 - 08:07 AM

Thanks, SJ. Not picky.

The unscientific TV news reports left me thinking it was DNA.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Nov 12 - 11:18 AM

"Just so long as nobody asks about the 'missing' links..where are they?"

They are there.... just not ALL of them! There was no automatic mechanism to have several die each year in a 'convenient' spot, so we could have a continuous line to study...... and if they had, we'd need a museum the size of the Pentagon for each species!


However..... at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, there is a building where one wing is dedicated to cabinets containing multiple thousands of mouse skins, all carefully documented as to generation & heritage. They are learning things about how ONE species changes.

Also, certain insects which breed rapidly, like the fruit fly, have been studied for years. There **IS** clear evidence in some areas of evolutionary changes in a micro environment which helps us understand how it works over longer time spans.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 16 Nov 12 - 11:31 AM

And in terms of pointing people to YouTube videos here's one that *does* contain usfeul information, in a clear, concise manner. It shows yet another piece of evidence that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor....well, either that or the fact that there's an intelligent designer who's actively deceitful:

Human-Great Ape Common Ancestery

This one's only 4 1/2 minutes long and it's pretty well all relevant, so I don't feel the need to direct people to a particular segment of it! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Nov 12 - 05:35 PM

as i understand it the claim of dinos with feathers is open to other explanations but even if some of them did it does not follow that they began turning into birds [by what ever inexplicable pathway].i k now that word was challenged and i have not checked a dictionary but assuming that "inexplicable" means being incapable of explanation i think it appropriate.gaps in the theory are admitted and no explantion is offered except the assurance that it is still being sewn up.
darwin may well have agonized over a lack of transitional forms and he would still.he just expected that time would validate him and he died in blind faith because over 150 years and probably tons of fossils later there is only a handful of debatable candidates. micro changes in rodent fur hardly accounts for the aquisition of new info in dna needed to facilitate mouse to man evolution.
rob-i did watch the vid-twice.a bit tech so i have no comment,at least not yet.pete

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 12 - 05:55 PM

he died in blind faith

This marks you out as as completely useless, insulting waste of space, only I could never get you to realise it because you're too bloody stupid and dishonest. Why don't you just spend your life in prayer and keep yourself off the streets.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 16 Nov 12 - 06:16 PM

Pete that vid clip isn't very technical at all. If you consider it "a bit tech" then I have abetted understanding of why your misconceptions seem so impervious to rectification!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Nov 12 - 12:09 AM

Now I'm reading this thread, and come across this 'gem':

From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 12 - 05:55 PM

(GUEST,pete from seven stars link)... "he died in blind faith"

Steve Shaw: "This marks you out as as completely useless, insulting waste of space, only I could never get you to realise it because you're too bloody stupid and dishonest. Why don't you just spend your life in prayer and keep yourself off the streets.


OK..Now does that sound like an honest rebuttal of anything regarding the rest of the first post commented on??
Can you say 'o-b-n-x-i-o-u-s'?

First it was supposing Beethoven didn't know what he was talking about when asked about his source of inspiration......

Next it was supposing how stupid and full of lies the Shroud documentary was/is...that he never watched......

Next is nobody ever experienced a real OBE or supposing there is no one who got a glimpse of the 'other side'....so he supposes them to be either dishonest or wrong......

Next is supposing any time someone speaks of an 'afterlife' he must be nuts...

Next he is supposing that "This marks you out as as completely useless, insulting waste of space, only I could never get you to realise it because you're too bloody stupid and dishonest."

So with all this SUPPOSING going on..I KNOW!!...I GOT IT!!...In your previous lifetimes you were a suppository!.....and 'we've got to ourselves back to the garden'......
Play yo' hah-monick-uh, Boy!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket with cookie growth
Date: 17 Nov 12 - 03:04 AM

See, I'm evolving. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Nov 12 - 04:02 AM

Musket with cookie growth: "See, I'm evolving. ."




Well aren't we??..Oh boy, I could go 'off' on that one!...

Wouldn't you think that the first primordial slime, to evolve to something higher, would 'try to get higher'?...I mean like from one thing to another, the big thing was adapting to a new 'environment', as well, and be 'equipped' to survive.....you know like when that first fish thought there might have been something out there, that would be cool...so he worked his shit till some of them 'started evolving' to 'amphibian-hood'...well cool..no problem at all....OK, let's examine that scenario... fish in water...outside water is death..it's air..to the fish it's a different dimension than water...hmmm adapt?..or say it isn't there??

Ya' listening, Steve?

Maybe that's why we have some of each.....

OK..Recap:.....Mankind to 'evolve' higher has to overcome or adapt to what two things?...umm..death....and perhaps enter a new 'environment'..you know..maybe like a dimension, of sorts....I mean, we should have something flashed 'built-in', in our fish gene..or DNA.......

..and maybe it ain't just got anything to do with 'religious', either!

...just LIFE evolving...

Anybody come to mind..yet?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Nov 12 - 05:21 AM

rob.so this prof on the vid [and his follower?]thinks that he had the magic bullit to shoot down the" pesky creationists".maybe he was tackling the lesser minds like myself when he claims creationist silence before his evolutionary interpretation of the data..the answer is in the following which did make the issue clearer to me.i wont highlight any part as its a fairly short article!
http://creation.com/human-ape-fused-chromosomes-paradigm
it is a direct critique on the vid.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Nov 12 - 12:23 PM

"Oh boy, I could go 'off' on that one!..."

And true to form, GfS, you did! Boy, did you ever!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Nov 12 - 04:23 PM

Well thank you!...(Takes a bow)....because if it stimulated an interpretation.....the perception is in the reader....I did not offer an interpretation, and then comes the question to you, "Why did I automatically perceive it this way?"
I know my examples we 'far less than precise, for every step"....but the concept (minus all the centuries) is there...and even Darwin wrestled with it....but following the 'theory', we CAN play it out and 'bottom line it'!

Besides, IF man has evolved, shouldn't his intelligence capacity grow with it..? ..or did we lose something else? ..maybe certain response to instinct?.... maybe being tuned in on a little higher frequency for communication...maybe not...but the fact remains, the next step for man in the evolutionary process is going to include overcoming death in this form, that we know as 'normal'....fair enough?

....then why were the first aquatics, evolving to be on land?
If you have a theory..play it out both ways....and of course ask "WHY".....and be open for the input.

Do you think that man has 'evolved' beyond listening to his instincts... to even detect that changes are being made?...and to adapt..and use his brain in the processing of ALL the input?..so it's not all unconscious....?.......maybe somewhere the two get better acquainted...and be aware of a larger picture?....
The possibilities are wide open.....and that's not even saying evolution or creation is the 'one'...or maybe both happened...maybe not...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Nov 12 - 05:10 PM

And then you went and went off on another!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Nov 12 - 07:40 PM

...or maybe ON to another possibility...not so negative or closed minded'...as some 'others' on here!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Nov 12 - 08:05 PM

So, why are my tax dollars going to schools that teach "creationism"???

Huh???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 04:28 AM

So many questions, GfS, and so few answers. Your speculations must give you great pleasure (!)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 05:15 AM

"as i understand it the claim of dinos with feathers is open to other explanations but even if some of them did it does not follow that they began turning into birds [by what ever inexplicable pathway]"

Then you misunderstand Pete. The proof of dinosaurs being feathered is unequivocal. I know one of the palaeontologists who has done much work on the structure of dinosaur feathers using a synchrotron. We now know the internal structure of the feathers (identical to birds, no surprise there), we can infer colour from them and indeed we now know what the plumage of several dinosaurs and early looked like.

I wrote a rather more lengthy post yesterday which included a broad phylogeny of the derived theropods including birds, but the post went awry, and I don't have time to write it all again. Suffice to say the position of birds within clade Paraves is known with some certainty, but the precise location will almost certainly change as more data comes to light.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 05:59 AM

Well done Goofus. Almost managed to confuse me. Then I realised you were being irrational so I don't need to understand after all.

The argument for creationism is based on medieval superstition and their agenda ridden translation of older texts used to control people. Not exactly a basis for a rational hypothesis?

Evolution however is a rational exploration of finding out why and where. The difference is that it doesn't have the stipulation of having to accommodate an imaginary friend.

Nothing wrong with faith, nothing wrong with being a member of a cult. Just not relevant to scientific discovery.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 06:36 AM

The possibilities are wide open.....and that's not even saying evolution or creation is the 'one'...or maybe both happened...maybe not...

Now just look at the equivalence in there. Heheh. Creationism and evolution juxtaposed as equals! Well, Guffers, that simply won't wash. There is a mass of evidence for evolution, so much that evolution has long since passed the point at which it stopped being just theory and became, in its main tenets, incontrovertible. But there is not a shred of evidence for creation by a supernatural being. Despite the efforts of billions of believers down the millennia, God has never been persuaded to show his hand (naturally, I exclude attempts by believers to insert him into "explaining" anything they find a bit mysterious). Not only that, science (unwittingly, because it isn't science's job) relentlessly closes in on him. There is no point between the Big Bang and the evolution of modern humans which requires the intercession of a creator to make things possible or to explain what is going on. It's all there in the science. So your valiant attempt to give evolution and creationism equal billing is, I fear, yet another of your big failures.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 08:19 AM

> Not only that, science (unwittingly, because it isn't science's job) relentlessly closes in on him.

An important point.

Science never started out to discredit God, and has spent zero time in trying to do doing so.

So any doubt cast by science on His existence should be blamed on the nature of the universe (which He is said to have created), not on science.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 09:15 AM

Do you suppose that *IF* there is a god up/out there, watching over us and caring about what goes on, that 'it' is concerned about whether UPPER CASE letters are used for reference? Or whether it is sacrilegious to spell out the whole word? (G*D)


Oh, never mind

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 10:14 AM

ask pete hell tell you

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 11:30 AM

Didn't mean to 'confuse' you, Musket...you take it that I'm a strict 'creationist'..and that came from the medieval times...wrong on both counts. The Biblical account of 'creation' was written thousands of years before the medieval period...(you can check that out yourself)...and the premise I laid out in my post,

"Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Nov 12 - 04:23 PM "

uses evolution as the premise, not creation, and points out a few questions worthy of thinking about....or at least to answer, in regards to where we are at now.

To say man is nothing more than a physical being, in turn, must encompass MORE than thought of, in relation to intelligence, love and a few other 'unseen' phenomenon, that we as humans seem to have access. To say that these 'unseen' attributes do not exist, is the premise for human chaos..because it is one of the common traits found in every culture, from industrialized countries to aboriginal societies. It is when these attributes are either violated or ignored to we see the 'injustice' of it all for our fellow humans..by the way, where did we get that sense of injustice?
It has been noted that humans void of these attributes become self-centered psychopaths, who do offenses to their fellow man, without ANY cognizant empathy, or remorse for their behavior.
Those who Do tap into it, in like fashion have performed some of the greatest deeds to benefit mankind as a whole......go figure.
If we were to follow your model of human behavior, everything would be in an upheaval, and that would be just fine..because there is nothing higher, to inspire or correct us with.
Could it be that our minds are just 'modems' tapping into a higher collective consciousness? Does a higher form of intelligence even exist?...and if it was comprised of love, don't you think it would be open to being communicated with?
...oh yeah, we can't prove there is love...or intelligence...nor that it is part of a larger living being....which comprises the WHOLE...unless, of course one wishes to exclude themselves...but would that mean they don't have access to love, or intelligence?

Would it be futile to suggest, "Think about it?"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 12:36 PM

Not if you explain exactly what you want us to think about. Go on, have another go.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 12:46 PM

Who has ever demanded that 'love' has to be 'proved'?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 01:06 PM

If you read King James bible you will find that Jesus said some contradictory things.
Some not so nice.
In science, this doesn't work. If it's wrong, it will be disprovable.
The alternative to science can only be unprovable.
Love can be proved by psychoanalytic means.

"It has been noted that humans void of these attributes become self-centered psychopaths, who do offenses to their fellow man, without ANY cognizant empathy, or remorse for their behavior."

This could easily be said of many self-described Christians, or any other religious view.
That's why we had bible verses engraved on American rifle butts in Iraq.

As for the logical fallacy of defending the lack of proof of any god, this seems to me
to be the epitome of self-centered psychopathy. This is why many religious inmates are running the asylum. You can't prove BS.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 01:15 PM

Hey Strings....talk to Pete, that is if you still communicate. I'm not the one to prove or disprove 'God'..but I can and WILL ask questions..that frankly some of our resident evolutionists can't answer..BUT, if it makes them THINK harder and beyond the box that they are trying to convert everyone to, then let them answer the questions..I mean, THEY are the ones who are claiming to have all the answers!
So far, I haven't seen doodily-squat except stupid name calling if you don't agree with a premise they cannot prove, nor answer simple questions.
Is that really THAT unreasonable??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 06:37 PM

I must have missed the bit where an 'evolutionist' (whatever one of those is?) tried to convert someone into a box! Now behaviour like that NEEDS to be stopped!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 06:54 PM

a lot of the evolutionist talk consists of assertions,appeals to authority or downright mockery.as i have said before-argument weak,shout like blazes. lack of understanding due to lack of explanation is supposed to be cured by extensive reading of darwin,dawkin,j gould etc.if i,m asked what the bible says about something i can mostly tell someone and give the ref,but if i ask about something in their sacred text i just get told to read it-eg where is the mechanism explained in origins or elsewhere for the information increase that facilitates increasing higher lifeforms?
admittedly evotheory is so complex[not to mention flexible]that it may be difficult for its followers to give explanations understandable to the layman.or maybe thats to their advantage!
i was amused gfs by your challenge about half and half transitions but in fairness it is not what they now say.mind you the 40yr long half and half hoax was accepted gladly by darwinists back then!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 12 - 07:20 PM

admittedly evotheory is so complex[not to mention flexible]that it may be difficult for its followers to give explanations understandable to the layman.or maybe thats to their advantage!

Stop being such an insulting bloody idiot. I'll be patient with you one more time. Darwin's idea is so simple that even a confounded thickie like you should be able to understand it. Are you ready? Here goes, the whole thing, chapter and verse, alpha to friggin' omega, the sentence that explains the whole of life on Earth, and probably on any other planet where there's life as well, in all its beauty and complexity. Sit your arse down on a chair and allow it to sink in. It's more sublime in its directness and simplicity than ten million bloody words in your liar-Bible!

Ready??

"Given sufficient time (four billion years in our case), the non-random survival of hereditary entities (genes, if you like), which occasionally miscopy (mutate, if you like), will generate complexity, diversity, beauty and an illusion of design so persuasive that it is almost impossible to distinguish it from deliberate intelligent design."

(Thank you, Richard, and apologies for the contents of the brackets)

I should give up trying to be a layman if I were you. It appears that that role, in your case, has the odd effect of making the blindingly simple, nay, blindingly sublime, look impossibly complicated to you. Have you considered taking up golf? As only wankers do that, you can't really do much harm by annoying your fellow participants with your silly nonsense, and the game lasts so long that you won't have time to come on here to spout your ignorant verbiage.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 05:32 AM

Well ducked on the feather issue Pete.

"where is the mechanism explained in origins or elsewhere for the information increase that facilitates increasing higher lifeforms"

Er, what defines a 'higher lifeform'?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 06:35 AM

That guest above was me - got cookie problems.

SFJ

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 07:09 AM

Yeah. And what is "information increase" supposed to mean? That's it, pete. Toss around a few faux-technical terms that you think make you sound all sage. After all, that's what tossers are good at.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 09:14 AM

dont know what i,ve ducked jack.you say your machine proves feathers and my sources wisps/collogen? .i think i already said that even if some dinos had feathers it is no evidence of flight or evolving into birds.neither does the creation model insist on no feather dino anyway.
is not cladistics comparison of similarities inferring a common ancestor ignoring the possibility of a common designer?sure you can put it more tech and accurate to evolutionary theory but hopefully i got the drift
higher life form?-well i suppose if a man is of no more value than a monkey,a mouse or the muck we was supposed to have come from?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 09:52 AM

Does starry pete write in lower case in order to make it difficult to read?

I didn't notice that evolution had "followers" as it isn't a superstitious cult, it is a term describing what we have deduced about how we got to where we are.

Higher life forms is an interesting one I suppose. As crocodiles, lions etc could eat us easier than we could eat them, or that we have weapons that tilt the table the other way, are we higher? I don't know.

I am however reminded of many orators who point out that if aliens landed and tried to work out which life form was in charge of the planet, they may make observations to confirm it. They would see me and my dog out walking. My dog has a crap, I pick it up, put it in a bag and carry it for him......

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 09:59 AM

Pete, have you ever *read* an introductory book on evolution?

There are lots of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 10:04 AM

is not cladistics comparison of similarities inferring a common ancestor ignoring the possibility of a common designer

The possibility of a common designer has never been ignored. It's just that rational people tend to weigh possibilities against the evidence for them. Natural selection (the alternative possibility that I prefer myself) explains every bit of complexity in every organism without the need for miracles or magicianly intervention. Not only that, the explanatory ratio is superb. You have to make next to no assumptions. The evidence is all there. We know that genes exist. We know that genes occasionally miscopy. We know that genes are non-randomly selected. We know the mechanisms of replication and protein synthesis. We know that there has been a huge amount of time - over four billion years - for evolution to work. Whether you think that is sufficient time, well, you get your head round four billion.

Now, pete, every time I say the word "know" in the above, it means that there is a mass of evidence for it that ticks all the boxes for what real evidence is. It adds up to an explanation of life that requires very little in the way of assumptions, and nothing at all strays from any laws of nature that we have ever discovered or requires any form of divine intervention.

Now let's look at your preferred possibility, the common designer. Well it's a nice idea, but whoever this designer is he's never shown himself. Let's contemplate what he must be like. Well, a pretty complex being if he really has created the whole universe as well as myriad complex and diverse life-forms, all from scratch. Intuition strongly suggests that he must be far more complex than anything he's ever created. Some brain-power there all right, and you don't find that squashed into a simple little box of tricks! But this complexity is only the start. He also appears to know how to circumvent all the laws of nature, and, if his advocates are to be believed, he had no beginning and will have no end. Now the thing is that, in order to believe in him, we have to start by suspending our disbelief that the laws of nature can be breached. Well, as I suppose they're his laws, let's assume he can do what he likes with 'em! We have to also assume that he has good reason for never showing his hand. Oh well, he is supposed to work in mysterious ways.

The trouble with all this is that, in order for him to have any credibility, we have to make a mass of assumptions. It wouldn't be half so bad if all those people who want to believe in him would agree on those assumptions, but they don't. One minute he's the big cheese up there with a beard, next minute he's down here personified as Jesus, next minute he's some kind of underlying force that drives everything, like a wind kissing us with life...Blimey!

So for natural selection we have a mass of real evidence and have to make very few assumptions (and the beauty of Darwin is that everything we've discovered in biology since he died has tended to corroborate his idea). A brilliant explanation ratio, in other words. But the common designer, alas, endures a pathetic explanation ratio. We have no evidence and we have to make a mass of assumptions, about his breaching the laws of nature, his eternal existence and his impossible-sounding complexity. And no-one has ever produced even remotely convincing evidence that they have ever seen him.

So weigh the two "opponents" up. Applying what's left of any rationality I still possess to the choice, I think I'm going with natural selection. I do like evidence, you see! I can't categorically dismiss the possibility of a designer out of hand, but from a personal perspective I'd score the two at, lessee, about 99.9999999% for natural selection and evolution and about 0.00000001% for the designer. Not much of an insurance policy there if I'm wrong, but hey-ho.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 10:14 AM

He don't need no introductory books, Lighter. Origin is a lovely read, even though it's tautly-argued with no flannel. You do have to keep your concentration, a bit like getting the most of hearing a great symphony. You can get versions with pictures to leaven the task slightly. Don't forget, Darwin was writing before the days of the technical language that can befuddle the uninitiated who chance a delve into modern genetics and evolution.

I like the dog turd scenario, Musket. Brilliant! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 10:27 AM

i think i already said that even if some dinos had feathers it is no evidence of flight or evolving into birds.


FWIW, an article in the Guardian happened to ponder that question a few days ago:

Could pterosaurs really fly?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 11:31 AM

Consider this scenario.

Six thousand years ago God created feathered dinosaurs, which could not fly. He created birds, which could. He created creatures that resembled both: maybe some could fly, maybe they couldn't.

Then, he set things up so that millions of bits of evidence discovered by our God-given intellect, would fool us into thinking that none of that happened, that instead the earth was billions of years old, that evolution is real, and that birds almost certainly evolved from certain kinds of dinosaurs.

Dos that seem likely to you? That God would go out of His way to *trick us* into not believing His own Biblical word? If you think that's what happened, you should be prepared to explain why God is a hoaxer, and why He went to such lengths to deceive us. If it's to "test our faith," then he set reason up not as a complement to faith but as faith's enemy. How benevolent a God would that be?

Or was belief in evolution inspired by the devil? If you think so, you should remember that the devil can't do anything without God's permission because God is omnipotent. Would God make a deal with the devil?

Well, He did where Job was concerned, which raises a larger question. Do you really believe human life is a joke sprung by an all-loving God who then makes deals with the devil to test human beings (whom He knows are gullible, since He created them) in ways He knows will lead more and more of them into atheism and, for all we know, eternal punishment? What would be the point?

Is the universe just a game set up for all but Biblical literalists to lose? Or is reason (which Adam and Eve were forced to use in order to survive after The Fall) really a tool of deception and evil?

Those, it seems to me, are the choices: evolution revealed by reason or some kind of enormous cosmic hoax.

(I'm not denying that evolution as revealed by science might be guided by God - the Vatican's view, by the way - but that's not in line with Creationist or literalist thinking, which is the subject here.)

So which is it? And why?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 11:39 AM

"you say your machine proves feathers and my sources wisps/collogen?"

The synchrotron (which is not 'my' machine - I've never seen one) is used for studying the microstructure of feathers (amongst other things) and reading the chemical signatures in them. It doesn't 'prove' feathers at all. As for the collagen theory, that was disproved years ago, so do keep up. I don't know what you mean by 'wisps'.

"i think i already said that even if some dinos had feathers it is no evidence of flight or evolving into birds"

So? Because you said it then it must be true? Well, feathers are a derived character that have only evolved once as far as we know. We have that pathway, we understand the way feathers form and we also knew before finding feathers on dinosaurs that birds were actually dinosaurs themselves. The adaptions that led to flight didn't occur in one morphological frenzy, but occurred stepwise over hundreds of millions of years.


"Is not cladistics comparison of similarities inferring a common ancestor ignoring the possibility of a common designer?"

Science doesn't ignore the possibility of a common designer, it's just zero evidence that stands up to any scrutiny has ever been discovered that supports the existence of a designer. Not a scrap. You can't count the Bible as it's the old testament represents the scrawlings of a load of (not particularly) imaginative desert tribesmen. It's not evidence, it's unsupported by any factual data at all and even the many writers over the years who have proposed dates for the creation of the earth by god can't agree, with estimates ranging between 20,000 - 3600 years ago. The reason for this is they are making the date up.

"sure you can put it more tech and accurate to evolutionary theory but hopefully i got the drift'

Pete, I'm going to let you into a little secret. I'm thick. Stupid. Dense. I struggle to form my words into coherent sentences and I have to wrestle my thoughts onto the page. I'm not joking, I am quite fucking ignorant. But here's the thing: I'm trying, to the best of my limited capabilities not to be, to better myself through learning about the world I live in, and palaeontology is my way of doing that, as it encompasses many aspects of science and asks some pretty big questions, which remain big despite the efforts of people such as yourself to corrupt the ideas they raise to fit your myopic dogma. So don't come all that "I can't understand because I'm not clever enough" crap any more. It's boring and I don't believe it.

"higher life form?-well i suppose if a man is of no more value than a monkey,a mouse or the muck we was supposed to have come from?"

OK, this is where I get a tad heated. The idea that man is a 'higher life form' is patently absurd, destructive, disrespectful, dangerous and inherently evil. Our 'dominion' over nature is based on our ability to destroy it, to kill that which we don't understand. In pogroms, the holocaust and in countless wars the enemy are portrayed as 'animals' or 'subhuman', giving those with power the right to inflict unimaginable suffering and death on millions. This whole concept, with it's arrogant, anthropocentric and utterly heartless central conceit of man being 'higher' than the rest of the natural world came to being because some nameless dirtwad wrote it down a few thousand years ago. The poison in this idea has caused, and continues to cause, has meant untold suffering across the world for both humans and the beings unfortunate enough to share the planet with us.

I can't articulate my contempt for that mean, nasty and evil verse. Is a man of more value than a monkey or a mouse? How do you judge value? Do you have the right to? You might say that right was god-given; I will say you have no right at all and should show some humility.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 12:00 PM

An excellent demolition of the creationists' case, if I may say so, Sugarfoot Jack?
Like you I am constantly sickened and appalled by the "man is a higher life form" dogma and its horrific effect on the world around me. I suspect that the next couple of generations are destined to find out the hard way just how wrong that obscene, shitty assumption really is.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 12:37 PM

All this hassle for a mere theory that you can't prove...
Welcome to too much time on your hands!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 01:07 PM

more on cladistics from following Peter Labans link

You MUST realize, Pete, that evolution is so very much more complicated than the fairly simplistic way Creation.com tends to analyze it by taking concepts 'out of context' and then interpreting them in ways that by definition do not contradict their biblical presuppositions.

99% of scientists CAN quote chapter & verse showing not only what their conclusions are, but also the evidence & reasoning that got them there.

*I* can quote many interesting and crucial parts of the King James bible, but nowhere in the bible is the substantive basis for its validity.... that is why the words "faith" and "belief" exist... to refer to stuff that cannot be tested- much less proven.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 01:10 PM

Is that more or less the 'faith' and 'beliefs' it takes to believe Darwin?..Who BTW, re-canted his whole rap?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 01:30 PM

If you can even ask that, GfS, you do not comprehend the basic difference between **believing** Darwin -- and studying and understanding the science and reasoning involved in working out the relevance of what Darwin brought to our attention!

(You don't..ummm.. "re-cant" something unless you find better evidence. ANYONE who claims to didn't understand it well enough to have an opinion!!)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 01:39 PM

'Who BTW, re-canted his whole rap?"

Reference?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 01:39 PM

*Darwin* recanted?

Please give the passage and the details.

Perhaps you're thinking of superstar evangelist Marjoe Gortner, who revealed in 1972 that he'd really been an unbeliever for many years.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 02:04 PM

Well, Lighter, I did look it up..and on this link this paragraph wound up the post:

"CON 3

First of all I'd like to recognize that this myth is TOTALLY irrelevant to the creation/evolution issue, but it is something that comes up frequently. Darwin did not recant. He was not an atheist either. Darwin moved from an anemic orthodoxy in his early years to a nonorthodox theism in his middle years to agnosticism in his senior years. Reports of Darwin's alleged conversion have been common in some evangelical circles. None of Darwin's biographers report such an experience, and there are no other records of it. Even a study of the letters written by Charles Darwin between the time of his alleged conversion and the time of his death clearly reveal that he experienced no such change of mind and heart. As far as can be determined, Darwin remained an evolutionist and an agnostic to the day of his death."

It appears that he did not 're-cant'.
...but, as the link said "First of all I'd like to recognize that this myth is TOTALLY irrelevant to the creation/evolution issue,...."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 02:28 PM

"...but, as the link said "First of all I'd like to recognize that this myth is TOTALLY irrelevant to the creation/evolution issue,...."

Credit for this much, GFS, you admitted the recant-by-Darwin is a myth. But you were the only one who brought it up, and I'd bet you were quite happy to let it stand if you hadn't been called on it. There remains that stinky little suspicion as to whether you knew better in the first place, and thought you could get away with announcing that Darwin was moving production of evolution to China to score points.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 03:37 PM

Well Froggie, It was a piece of common misinformation' that was out there...and at least I made it right...nonetheless, Darwin's Theory is just a theory, and not a proven fact...if you read on.
Some people hold onto the 'Big-Bang' Theory...maybe we're still in the middle of the 'bang'!
Regardless, in the premise I laid down, about man evolving still holds true to both 'creationists' AND 'evolutionists'.
I mean, how many people on here walk around during the day pondering the two?..or even worse yet, is I think you're a buffoon and have no value as a person because you believe one over the other!
Either way, I still believe that we should be loving one another..and this IS the path........

...and if not, have it your way..you piece of worthless crap!

Just for what it's worth...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 03:47 PM

All this hassle for a mere theory that you can't prove...

{He rattles on at us because we won't watch his hours of silly video. But he can't even take in one very, very simple idea, can he, no matter how often we say it.)

Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 04:32 PM

Because certain persons on this thread cannot or will not adapt to the requirements of a logic environment, I suggest letting it die out naturally.

Darwin is buried in Canterbury Cathedral. He didn't recant. Even religious leaders like the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Dalai Lama accept the scientific findings of evolution. Biblical literalists and creationists lack even one leg to stand on.

Like it or not, you're stuck with it. The end.

Bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 04:35 PM

No Steve, that's not why I 'rattle on'....you've been rattling about the video THAT YOU NEVER WATCHED!
How sane is that?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 06:21 PM

I rattle on about quantum mechanics in the pub but I've never see a quark. At lesdt there is a reason for that. To do with sight being photon dependent.   Goofus' s video has to lack reason due to the bollocks he says is the conclusion.

The last video I saw was Men in Black 3 and I'm not sure some of that was true. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 06:40 PM

Figures!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 04:29 AM

Just in passing, GfS, I wonder if you can clear up a point that has been puzzling me? That is, how can you be a Guest FROM an abstract noun (i.e. 'Sanity')?

I suppose that your nom-de-plume would make more sense if you were from a PLACE called 'Sanity'. Is there such a place, I wonder? Are you, in fact, a denizen of ... oh I don't know ... Sanity, Missouri or somewhere?

And, if it makes any grammatical sense at all, what is your nom-de-plume supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that you are saner than others? If this is the case, isn't this a rather sweeping assumption? In what way are you saner than others who contribute to this board?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 05:05 AM

Easy. Guest from sanity is easy to condense into the far more logical Goofus.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 05:46 AM

I will (rather reluctantly) reserve judgement, Musket, until I hear from GfS himself/herself.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 06:22 AM

I'm a little surprised that amongst the futile attempts to involve pete, Guest from Sanity and Chongo in rational debate, nobody batted an eyelid at Lighter's "I'm not denying that evolution as revealed by science might be guided by God".

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 06:50 AM

I'm a little surprised that amongst the futile attempts to involve pete, Guest from Sanity and Chongo in rational debate, nobody batted an eyelid at Lighter's "I'm not denying that evolution as revealed by science might be guided by God".

Well, quite. I have prattled on about this several times before. At least s/he said "might" and didn't put a figure on it. Bolting on God in that way turns a beautiful story into an inelegant and clumsy hybrid notion. I'd like to know at what point God could possibly have intervened in order to make stuff happen. Seems to me like the laws of nature take care of all it, but hey ho.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 08:10 AM

Aren't we touchy?

Evolution is the subject at the moment. Perhaps I should have said, "might possibly, conceivably, and without flying in the face any absolute supercosmic law of ineffable existence that anyone is aware of, be guided."   

When the most highly educated theologians of every faith concede in principle that Darwin was right, it certainly makes the Creationist position look...well, choose an adjective.

Particularly since the theologians can't logically be charged with being slaves to atheistical, hubristic science.

By the way, I'm still waiting for a reply to yesterday's Big Question, "Is the Cosmos a Just a Con Game?" and please explain your answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 10:50 AM

""I'm not denying that evolution as revealed by science might be guided by God".

That is a perfectly fair sentence IF it means that some 'god' ***might*** have pushed the Big Bang button 14 billion years ago. It plays hell with Occam's Razor, because it then requires all sorts of speculation about how & why there was a 'god'... and where he got a button.

I like the idea because it does give fundamentalists a way to accept evolution as "God's mechanism" and stop trying to deny all the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 11:08 AM

Occam's Razor doesn't have the force of a logical law: it's a useful guideline for investigation.

Sometimes it can mislead, particularly when an unchallenged premiss turns out to be wrong, or when a previously unknown factor is suddenly revealed to be operative.

But to hell with that. Is the Cosmos a Con Game? Or, for those who prefer a choice, Is Reason the Devil's Tool? And please explain your answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: frogprince
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 11:16 AM

I'm gonna borrow a bit from another thread to compare examples of thought:

"....at least those who were REALLY floating above the operating table KNOW what they're talking about!"      GFS

Yes, they know what they're talking about; they are talking about an experience in which it honestly seemed to them that they were floating up there. Neither of us is a know-allogist about it. You don't know for a fact that they were floating up there, and I don't know for a fact that they weren't. FP

Yeah..all we got is the 'testimony' of the witnesses....
What do you got?    GFS

All this hassle for a mere theory that you can't prove... GFS

Those who accept the reality of evolution have overwhelming evidence from genetics and every other branch of biology, from zoology, physical anthropology, geology…
What do you got?      FP

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 11:19 AM

interesting that this thread has been overwhelmed by the creationist/intelligent design vs. natural selection argument...


where are the Astrologers or Alchemists fighting for their beliefs vs astromony or chemistry?

horoscopes vs the Hubble telescope?

life on this planet is a temporary situation... and not just on the individual level... long before our little star dies, the change in solar radiation will make planetary body number 3 uninhabitable...

maybe our species... or some other species.... will move on to other worlds... I can only hope that they will leave this argument behind when they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 11:55 AM

> long before our little star dies, the change in solar radiation will make planetary body number 3 uninhabitable...

If the government doesn't interfere, maybe the private sector will be able to fix that.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 11:56 AM

Oops. I forgot the requisite Irony Alert on that one.

Sorry if I've mislead.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 12:57 PM

Lighter

Aren't we touchy?

When it comes to intruding God into scientific theories, yes.

Evolution is the subject at the moment. Perhaps I should have said, "might possibly, conceivably, and without flying in the face any absolute supercosmic law of ineffable existence that anyone is aware of, be guided."

Well, you can say that if you like, but it's nothing to do with Darwin's theory which is " The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection". It is somewaht fundamental to the theory that evolution is NOT guided by supernatural forces or anything else.

My real point was that, although various people seem to be quite prepared to argue with pete, who is a self declared believer in the literal truth of the Bible, Guest from Sanity , who appears to be deranged, and Chongo, who is a fictional chimpanzee, nobody seems to be prepared to address your challenge to scientific orthodoxy which only differs from Creationism by degree not principle. Those three seem to be beyond reason but I would have thought that you were still open to persuasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 01:05 PM

good one, Lighter   lol

I remember when I first realized that the original air pollutant was ... drumroll... O2 ... from those pesky photosynthetic organisms.... :)

and not too long ago I watched a show that discussed the expected changes as our sun started to age and the resulting changes in solar radiation would result in the likely demise of photosynthetic organisms and "life on earth" would likely be little different from the original primordial slime.... humbling, don't you think

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 03:34 PM

Well I'm not feeling touchy. The problem is, Lighter, that your suggested notion flies in the face of reason. What you're doing with your evolution-guided-by-God notion is bolting something highly improbable and completely explicable, needlessly, on to something that is very well explained already (almost certainly a complete explanation itself, in fact, for all of life on earth), and which is highly probably true (OK, Snail, I bloody know you're watching....). All that evidence! Self-contained, elegant and in accord with all the laws of nature, working perfectly without add-ons. What you're trying to do is insert Little Red Rooster into the Pastoral Symphony, or blu-takking a crumpled Tracy Emin photocopy on to the Mona Lisa. Your God additive detracts severely from the science. It looks about as good as Bradley Wiggins with stabilisers. But the more thoughtful believers know they can't, in all honesty and rationality, ditch the science. So they have to find a desperate way of inserting God into it instead. This is so common with evolution, but it's just nonsense. Now I'm not saying you either have to ditch one or ditch the other (though they are incompatible, in spite of the strenuous attempts of theologians to deny it), but you have to have some kind of partition in your head, with evolution, done properly without bolt-ons, on one side and God on the other, and just regard God's role as a mystery at best. That should do you. Alternatively, take the rational path, apply the evidence and conclude (inevitably if you're doing this properly) that the possibility of your God existing, whilst not absolutely zero, is vanishingly small.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 03:36 PM

Inexplicably I said explicable instead of inexplicable.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 05:32 PM

i looked up the word "tautology" today.basically means a lot of surplus repetitive verbage repeating the same thing-i know,i just done it-LOL.The assurances of the GTE being established fact being pushed ad nausium in my direction is not evidence of fact.
im going to press you on just 2 issues i think have not been answered yet.
chemical evolution/abiogenesis is unscientific as at this time and is taken by darwinists as an article of faith by virtue of an apriori position that it is virtually impossible that there is a God.

despite over 150 years since darwin PREDICTED discovery of fossil evidence of transitional forms there are only a handful of debatable candidates-which will likely join previous candidates since binned.

jack -i note your admission that you are no better than an ignorant animal.just jesting because you know I dont believe that!

lighter-if you want to talk theology specifics ask elsewhere as creation is enough at present

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 05:54 PM

...and is taken by darwinists as an article of faith by virtue of an apriori position that it is virtually impossible that there is a God.

If you want to have a proper conversation with thinking people you desperately need to desist from making provocative and stupid comments of this kind. There are no articles of faith among "Darwinists". There are conclusions based on evidence. It is not "virtually impossible" that there is a God. The kinds of God described to us by believers in him, especially with regard to his longevity, his breaching of the laws of nature and his incomprehensible complexity, allied to a complete lack of evidence for him, renders the likelihood his existence, in the minds of rational people, highly improbable. There is nothing possible or impossible about it. Why don't you have a rethink and pose your queries again. Better still, start to think.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 05:57 PM

"Occam's Razor doesn't have the force of a logical law: it's a useful guideline for investigation."

Of course... but that razor is one decent guideline when deciding whether to simply accept a theological statement about 'creation' or **look** for answers that can be tested with math/physics..etc.
   Theology sounds simpler... "God did it." But buried in that are way more complex implications than can even be listed easily.
There is an important logical principle that is seldom appreciated properly: "From false premises, anything follows."
   Thus...**IF* God did notin factdo it, myriads of convoluted theological assertions are suspect, and Willie-O would not have enough blades for his razor.


----------------------------

Pete... you are truly NOT appreciating "fossil evidence of transitional forms" properly. I and others have tried to explain this, but you are treating lack of definitive details on transition as 'evidence' for your own unsupported beliefs. You ARE in a real minority, despite your confidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack somewhere in the electron clo
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 05:58 PM

All fossils are of transitional forms.*







*As indeed, are all living species, including us.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 06:27 PM

Occam's Razor, for what it's worth, deals with explanatory clout. It favours simple explanations that make as few assumptions as possible. It disfavours "explanations" that have to make huge assumptions that are themselves difficult to explain and/or which are impossibly complex. Assumptions, remember, are things we don't have evidence for. Apply Occam's Razor in its true spirit to creation versus evolution and poor old God don't get a look in. Well that's my take and I'm stickin' to it. I'm even fonder of Hitchens' Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 09:34 PM

Some replies suggest to me that several of you assume or suspect that I was espousing the "God-guided" evolutionary hypothesis.

That assumption, if real, may come from reading too many posts by the usual suspects on threads like this one.

I raised a hypothetical connection between God and evolution simply as a reminder that God and evolutionary change according to scientifically discoverable (and proven) principles are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Even if Pete and GfS and tens of millions of others believe they are.

In other words, my intention in bringing God in was not to unscrew the unscrutable but to impress the unimpressible.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 05:12 AM

Lighter: "I raised a hypothetical connection between God and evolution simply as a reminder that God and evolutionary change according to scientifically discoverable (and proven) principles are not mutually exclusive ideas."


Now THAT is the best post, from someone who is open to a new discovery, or facts, and is seemingly willing to adjust his reality, to what the facts really may be.......but you don't know, unless you're open.

....the rest of the time a lot of you sound like 'senility and proud of it!!'...oh except the harmonica player...he just blows and sucks and blows and sucks, sucks and blows...and didn't say nothing of any consequence!

..not only has he not looked at the video that he knows nothing of its content, he's arguing against what he presupposes its about, and he ain't got a clue.....it's alright though...because from this angle, it's pretty fucking amusing!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 05:48 AM

Some replies suggest to me that several of you assume or suspect that I was espousing the "God-guided" evolutionary hypothesis.

Fine. But don't grace the thing by calling it a hypothesis. That word needs to be preserved for things that fall inside the realms of rationality. It's merely a wacky notion without any foundation. Which doesn't mean it might not be true, of course.

Hellooo, did I hear someone mention that video again? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 06:47 AM

Hi GfS,

You still haven't given an explanation of how you can be 'from' an abstract noun. Perhaps you might consider changing your nom-de-plume to something more grammatical ... like 'Video Boy' for example!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 08:10 AM

Lighter

Some replies suggest to me that several of you assume or suspect that I was espousing the "God-guided" evolutionary hypothesis.

While Steve responded in his own inimitable style, I hope that I only commented on what you had said rather than criticising your inner beliefs.

I raised a hypothetical connection between God and evolution simply as a reminder that God and evolutionary change according to scientifically discoverable (and proven) principles are not mutually exclusive ideas.

No, Lighter, they ARE mutually exclusive. As I have already pointed out, Darwin's theory is that evolution is driven by natural selection and natural selection alone. There is nothing in it about guidance by God or any other external force. You can raise whatever hypothetical connection you like and it may help to ease the minds of theologians struggling to accommodate the evidence before them with their faith but it has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution and is, in fact, incompatible with it.

Steve Shaw

and which is highly probably true (OK, Snail, I bloody know you're watching....).

Progress! "highly probable" is enough. No need for "true".

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 08:35 AM

"but you don't know, unless you're open"

Any scientist worth his salt is open; it's fundamental to doing good science. Don't confuse scientific process with speculation, which is what you're indulging in. It's not a hypothesis because that must be testable, and the idea that god drives evolution is not testable because there is no evidence to test. There are plenty of people looking for patterns in the evolutionary process for a number of reasons, but last I heard no-one had discovered the slightest hint any of the agents of evolution were guided by a divine hand.

If evidence for god, worldwide floods and the tooth fairy etc was ever found, reproduced and tested rigorously and proved theses existed, I'd be a believer. As it is, there's not a jot apart from the scribblings of a few unknown blokes thousands of years ago which frequently contradict each other, are open to a raft of interpretations and demonstrate a rather unpleasant attitude to women.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 09:29 AM

I always hated the works of DF H Lawerence, tho I studied English at Cambridge and was up to a point influenced by the 50s literary guru F R Leavis, to whom he was a sort of godlike figure. Too hysterical, too fudamentalist in his own idiosyncratic beliefs. Always found him summed up [Patience: the relevance to this thread is about to be revealed!] by the following story about him related by Aldous Huxley, which rfeminds me to a great extent of the way GfS and some others go on on this thread; and also the simultaneously ongoing 'Afterlife' one ~~

Huxley's vivid Introduction to his 1932 edition of Lawrence's letters includes an incisive vignette that dramatizes the two men's attitudes toward science:
His [Lawrence's] dislike of science was passionate and expressed itself in the most fantastically unreasonable terms. "All scientists are liars," he would say, when I brought up some experimentally established fact which he happened to dislike. "Liars, liars!" It was a most convenient theory. I remember in particular one long and violent argument on evolution, in the reality of which Lawrence always passionately disbelieved. "But look at the evidence, Lawrence,"
I insisted, "look at all the evidence." His answer was characteristic. "But I don't care about evidence. Evidence doesn't mean anything to me. I don't feel it here." And he pressed his two hands on his solar plexus. (Introduction xiv-xv)

See what I mean?...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 09:44 AM

Snail, you mean it isn't *possible* that Evolution by Natural Selection, whose principles are discoverable, could *not* have been invented and guided by an Ultrabeing whose existence is beyond the reach of science?

It may be a wacky idea, but that doesn't make it inconsistent with Evolution by NS. (And I mean actual E by NS as it occurs, not just Darwin's take on it.)

A more basic question is whether *anything* could, in theory, be beyond the reach of science. How about the quality of life on planets in parallel dimensions, if any? How about what image of which Hollywood starlet I have in my mind right now?

The answer is there's no way to know. I can't even be sure I'm not a brain in a vat in the 39th century. Can you?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 09:50 AM

M.: Yeah, some say all historians are "liars" too.

That way one can believe whatever one wants. Neato!

I too have always thought DH was overblown, despite a few good poems. His essays are on American literature are fun to read, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 11:43 AM

Following drift a bit:

Agree Lighter in preferring DHL's essays; and his plays were excellent; and some poems, e.g. The Collier's Wife (online as "a comic poem", but I don't think it's very comic).

But, oh my sirs [as his own Collier's Wife would put it], have you ever got the right word for so much of his fiction --

Overblown! Yay!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 12:20 PM

Sugarfoot Jack: "Any scientist worth his salt is open; it's fundamental to doing good science. Don't confuse scientific process with speculation, which is what you're indulging in."

Well of course...but being 'open' means being willing to accept findings that are beyond one's prejudices...wouldn't you think?..Some people just curl up and croak at the thought of 'God'...when they haven't even identified what 'God' is, yet.....then they go onto describing all these 'attributes' the figured this 'God' is that they claim they don't believe in, but don't like!
Go figure.

On the other hand, you might come to a place where there is some sort of consciousness or intelligence playing something out..and we are just the manifestation.

"Any scientist worth his salt is open..."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 12:22 PM

Snail, you mean it isn't *possible* that Evolution by Natural Selection, whose principles are discoverable, could *not* have been invented and guided by an Ultrabeing whose existence is beyond the reach of science?

It may be a wacky idea, but that doesn't make it inconsistent with Evolution by NS.

The problem is (apart from the science) that poor old Ultrabeing doesn't belong anywhere in the process, and you can extend that process as far back as you like, right back to the Big Bang. Everything we know about the formation of elements right "up" to the evolution of humans (cheers, Jack ;-) ) can be explained in terms of the laws of nature. As time goes on, science solves more and more of the questions along the way that have puzzled us. What's wrong, inconsistent and incompatible about the Godly bolt-on is that he's an impossibly complex and completely inexplicable intruder into a story that is elegant, clear, normal, largely innocent of assumptions and, ultimately, devastatingly simple. And for which, unlike him, we have evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 12:28 PM

We're wide open, Guffers. But we're wide open to evidence. Imagination and speculation are wonderful things, but, ultimately, edification comes through knowledge, and true scientific knowledge advances via evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 12:43 PM

Steve Shaw: "We're wide open, Guffers. But we're wide open to evidence."

Oh bullshit..you just like attention...if you want to discuss something mutually, then get a common ground premise. The video link has the topics you should be discussing.
The rest is your speculation about the reaction to your suppositions...how silly is that???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 01:31 PM

Lighter

Snail, you mean it isn't *possible* that Evolution by Natural Selection, whose principles are discoverable, could *not* have been invented and guided by an Ultrabeing whose existence is beyond the reach of science?

It is not a question of what is possible, it is question of what is or is not the Theory of Evolution. For the third time, the theory, originated by Darwin and refined over the the following 150 years states that the driving force of evolution is natural selection an natural selection alone. Any hypothesis that evolution is driven by natural selection AND intervention by God, a trans-dimensional super-intelligence or the programmers who wrote the vast computer simulation in which we all live is a differnt (and incompatible) theory. It is up to anyone who proposes such a hypothesis to demonstrate that it is not only able to explain the observed facts but that it does so better than the generally accepted theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 02:06 PM

"On the other hand, you might come to a place where there is some sort of consciousness or intelligence playing something out..and we are just the manifestation."

Well, 'Video Boy' any "blathering fool" can come up with limitless amounts of 'airy-fairy' speculation. No-one is required to take such bullshit seriously though. It may surprise you to know that what goes on in the vast,empty, windy space inside your head is not necessarily of much interest to anyone else - unless, that is, it's backed up by something more substantial than your ego!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: sciencegeek
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 02:15 PM

here is very nice discussion on genetic drift sans blue clicky

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html

I took a grad course in evolution that had a real mickey mouse text and it took me awhile to come to the realization that the professor was actually an advocate of intelligent design. Ackkk!?!

I had just assumed that he was taking the devil's advocate position... until I found myself having to defend randomness in the genetic makeup of individuals within populations and how chance can be a major factor in what genes end up in a given population. Natural selection can only work on what's there... even mutations are dependent on the makeup of the alleles present. One of the reasons why species that are reduced to a tiny fraction of their former numbers, may not have enough genetic diversity left in their gene pool to escape extinction in the not to far off future.   

There is no preordained end result of evolution. You pays your money & takes your chances. No "higher beings"... just those that are still around & leaving descendants.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 02:54 PM

There is a difference between a "theory" in science than in other fields. Richard Dawkins suggests that we call a verifiable scientific theory, a theorum. The use of the term theory is often ambiguous.

The alternative to science is to return to primitive times in history, often with outmoded "theories" that in the light of science don't work. Certain medical practices for example such as "leaching" or even today, a New Age preoccupation with alternative "medicines".


By the way, there is an art to science. They are not mutually exclusive.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 04:06 AM

I notice that at long last, this thread is working it's way down the list and about to fall off the bottom.





Oh Bollocks....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 06:40 AM

"then they go onto describing all these 'attributes' the figured this 'God' is that they claim they don't believe in, but don't like!"

Well, having been brought up in the Church of England, Methodist and finally a rather enjoyable free church traditions I do know something of the thoughts of god. I've read the New Testament (all his word apparently), been preached at and taught all the lessons, sung hymns and been an unquestioning part of that community. I can't escape the church now I'm older; it's in the news on a daily basis and it still influences law making in this country (26-odd bishops in the Lords, all of them men). I'm not prejudiced against the church, I simply don't believe their dogmatic, unquestioning and morally dubious take on the how life should be lived. I also don't like the idea of having to accept anything on blind faith . . . to my mind it seems to show a certain deficit of character were you to just submit to teachings without questioning things like the provenance, the motivations of the author and the context the teachings were written down in; the motivations of the teacher themselves.

So the 'attributes' of god are open to question, even if it gives the fundies the howling fantods, and I will question them. After all, why wouldn't I?

"On the other hand, you might come to a place where there is some sort of consciousness or intelligence playing something out..and we are just the manifestation"

You might, if there's evidence but for the time being this is pure speculation, not scientific enquiry and it doesn't display that much open-mindedness either, given the context the comment was made in.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 09:07 AM

Science has not proved the nonexistence of God, and it may be that it is incapable of doing so.

Which is not to say that God must or even probably exists. It means that science can't disprove that existence.

"Well," you say,"science can't disprove the existence of jet-propelled unicorns either. The idea of 'God' is similar." Very true. But the distinction is that I am the only person who believes in jet-propelled unicorns (and I don't mean to believe much beyond the end of this message), but belief in God or gods has been a nearly universal trait of the human mind. That, plus the fact that in its simplest form it does not conflict with scientific knowledge, gives it some presumption of credibility, though certainly at a very low level.

And by "simplest form" I mean the idea of a superintelligence that created everything but itself. All else one could say about such an entity is that It is extremely creative and powerful.

What It (if It exists) wants us to do about it (if anything), is up for grabs. That's where the wild conjecture and special pleading and religious slaughters come in.

Some will argue that perhaps the universe is God: eternal, superpowerful, and supercreative. ("Superintelligent" too, if intelligence is a purely material manifestation of physical laws dictated by the math that the universe seems to have dreamed up, if that's the right phrase.)

But at that point, since we don't know what, if anything, the universe wants us to do about it, it all becomes a pointless word game.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 09:34 AM

Er, yes, um, right, well...

Gosh. Is that the time? Must dash.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 09:40 AM

"Science has not proved the nonexistence of God, and it may be that it is incapable of doing so."

Science IS incapable of doing so because it's not possible to prove a negative. It is the responsibility of the God believers to prove that He exists. And when they've done that they need to explain who or what created God and who or what created the God creator and so on and so on ...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 09:57 AM

Science has not proved the nonexistence of God, and it may be that it is incapable of doing so.

It isn't science's job to prove or disprove anything.

Which is not to say that God must or even probably exists. It means that science can't disprove that existence.

No, but science can weigh up evidence. Evidence in its scientific sense must pass a number of tests. No evidence for God's existence ever put forward has ever qualified for scientific consideration. Not a single scrap. I've listed stuff many times before that is often put forward as evidence but which isn't. Neither the Bible, St Bernardette nor claimed out-of-body experiences make the cut. And we're not talking about shifting goalposts by unsympathetic, atheistic scientists here either. Just sensible criteria that are crucial in allowing science to move forward.

"Well," you say,"science can't disprove the existence of jet-propelled unicorns either. The idea of 'God' is similar." Very true. But the distinction is that I am the only person who believes in jet-propelled unicorns (and I don't mean to believe much beyond the end of this message), but belief in God or gods has been a nearly universal trait of the human mind.

The fact that belief in God (though I wish you lot would agree on exactly what it is you're supposed to be believing in) is highly popular, which no-one can deny, has often been proposed as evidence for God's existence. Well, the fact that Hitler was very popular doesn't make him a good man, nor does it demonstrate that German people somehow possess a fascism gene. We can only suggest that, in his case, persuasive arguments succeeded in taking a lot of people in. You'll surely agree that that is by far the most likely explanation for millions of Germans "believing in Hitler" as a good man, if you like. It is easy enough to put persuasive arguments for God's existence, usually playing on people's irrational side and often pandering to the propensity in many people to scare easily. The Power and the Glory keeping us all in line.

That, plus the fact that in its simplest form it does not conflict with scientific knowledge, gives it some presumption of credibility, though certainly at a very low level.

Your best hope is to say that God doesn't even touch science at all, not even tangentially. It is impossible for scientific evidence to be presented for God's existence. Many have said that God is beyond science, which is the whole point. I would say that believers themselves have deliberately put God outside science so that he can't be threatened by it. The first essential attribute required of God is that he is beyond threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 10:08 AM

Some negatives are indeed provable, at least to the satisfaction of any sane person. (I say the box is empty. You say it's full of cash and will be when we look. We look. No cash.)

The nonexistence of God may or not be one of those cases. I don't know. Obviously many people find the idea of that existence, one way or the other, either the most important thing there is or else a very painful bore.

They don't feel that way about jet-propelled unicorns, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 10:18 AM

"The box is empty" is not a negative at all. It is a positive assertion about a material object that can be examined (anyway, define "empty"!). I suppose you couldn't prove that there is no invisible empty box in orbit around Alpha Centauri. Though you never know.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 10:28 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 06:40 AM

That was me, cookie gone again. Sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 04:33 PM

Science has no "job." Science consists of a method combined with how and to what its practitioners apply it.

Its researchers seek results that are so reliable that they must be accepted as proven - unless and until better conflicting evidence is discovered. "Proven," in the evolved natural language we are speaking, does not entail "for all time without possibility of refinement or contradiction."

"Proving a negative" means proving that something that has been asserted is not the case. It happens frequently. It does not mean, as some might believe, falsely "proving" that something nonexistent really exists. Quite the opposite.

Creationists, unlike scientists, take it as their "job" to prove what they already believe and are often proud to say they'll keep believing no matter what. Unlike scientists, they search diligently for evidence to support their claim, ignore whatever conflicts, stretch language to the breaking point ("Science is really just another false religion like egg worship"), rely on the authority of other creationists, and in general (wittingly or not) employ debating tricks that shouldn't fool any astute college freshman.

And with that, I'm gone for good. Rave on, guys 'n' gals!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 06:25 PM

"Proving a negative" means proving that something that has been asserted is not the case.

No it doesn't. it means proving that something that has been declared to be not the case/does not exist actually is not the case/does not exist. So, if I say there is no God, I can't prove it. There ya go.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 11:29 PM

But that doesn't mean that you can't demonstrate its extreme to the nth degree unlikelihood; to which those with their fingers in their ears will pay not the remotest attention! Grrrr....

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 01:14 AM

MtheGM: "But that doesn't mean that you can't demonstrate its extreme to the nth degree unlikelihood; to which those with their heads in their asses will pay not the remotest attention! Grrrr...."

Couldn't have said it better meself!

Hey, Happy Thanksgiving!....Give thanks and praise to your latest opinions..from which all blessings flop.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 01:44 AM

Hey! GfS ~~ I said 'ears', not 'arses' or 'asses'. It's cheating to copy/paste, change the content, and then attribute it to the original poster hoping he might not notice. Shame on you!

But nevertheless a Happy Thanksgiving right back 2U; and likewise to all our Over-There friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 02:10 AM

MtheGM: "Hey! GfS ~~ I said 'ears', not 'arses' or 'asses'. It's cheating to copy/paste, change the content, and then attribute it to the original poster hoping he might not notice. Shame on you!

But nevertheless a Happy Thanksgiving right back 2U; and likewise to all our Over-There friends."

You are correct....I was being 'lazy'...I must repent!!

MtheGM: "But that doesn't mean that you can't demonstrate its extreme to the nth degree unlikelihood; to which those with their fingers in their ears will pay not the remotest attention! Grrrr...."

But that doesn't mean that you can't demonstrate its extreme to the nth degree unlikelihood; to which those with their heads in their asses will pay not the remotest attention! Grrrr....

Couldn't have said it better meself!...besides it just bore repeating!..(grins)

Hey, and Happy Thanksgiving to you over there, as well!

Regards!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 07:05 AM

But that doesn't mean that you can't demonstrate its extreme to the nth degree unlikelihood; to which those with their fingers in their ears will pay not the remotest attention! Grrrr....

Which is what I've been saying ad nauseam. Actually, I'm not sure that "demonstrate" is quite the right word there. I can make the case, for example, that the likelihood of God's existence is, once you've applied all rational means to the argument, vanishingly small, but, by so doing, I haven't really demonstrated anything save my ability to make the point. We genuine atheists are very 'umble, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 09:48 AM

the principle that - everything that has a beginning,must have a sufficient cause - is i should have thought elementary.all for now.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 11:40 AM

the principle that - everything that has a beginning,must have a sufficient cause - is i should have thought elementary.all for now.

So where's your evidence that there are things that don't have a beginning? Presumably you intend that things without beginnings don't need to have had a cause. Um, well I can see the severely-twisted logic in that.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 01:37 PM

Steve Small: "I can make the case, for example, that the likelihood of God's existence is, once you've applied all rational means to the argument, vanishingly small...."

OK...maybe you should clear something up..maybe others may agree...When YOU use the term 'God', what do YOU mean??...How do you define, what you say you don't believe in??

Honest question..fair enough?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 01:51 PM

'the principle that - everything that has a beginning,must have a sufficient cause'
.,,.,.
I OP'd a thread quite a while back called "What went Big Bang?". It ran & ran ~ but I don't think an answer to the question ever emerged.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 02:00 PM

No, because I don't "not believe in" God. By attempting to make me declare such a negative, believers are trying to put me firmly in their territory. Not only do I not want to be there, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to be there. So I never say "I don't believe in God." I just say that I look at evidence, and, from what I can see, there is only a very remote possibility indeed that God exists. God is used as the explanation for all things created, yet the explanation is infinitely more complex and infinitely more inexplicable than the things it's supposed to explain.

When I use the term "God", I mean it in any sense that believers care to put forward, and those senses appear to be manifold. Either I get a plausible explanation for God that fits the laws of nature, and that I can pursue evidence for, or I get good, solid evidence for his existence. Otherwise I can think of far more interesting chaps, such as the ones I'm having some chunes with tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 02:05 PM

Ahh....It should be interesting, if one does emerge, that isn't the 'fairy tale gone sour' by whatever 'religion' fucked it up for the resident anti-'God' patrol!

it is obvious that they equate 'god' to some screwed up idea they got from 'church' they grew up in, and have been bitter ever since...Hey guys, get a clue, yes you were 'presented' with a notion of 'God'..but were lied to about it, so some church, that didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground, could control lots of you people, and your families, to make a buck, and stay in business....but did they ever look DEEP into what science is now able to come together with in the spiritual??..NO!
So you just got stung with their bullshit, and as long as you remain bitter, and don't seek it out, you must like the taste of it!
Mission almost accomplished, church!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 02:10 PM

Well I'm not anti-God. I'm just pro-evidence. And purrrr-lease don't rattle on about your bloody video again, or else I shall have to rattle on again about what counts as evidence and what doesn't, and nobody wants me to do that, I'll be bound.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 02:48 PM

Rattle on, oh ignorant one..'cause here it is again!

..and it's in 7 parts. At least give some of the others who don't know what they're talking about a chance to reinforce that they don't know what they're talking about....OR...one or two may wish to engage in a learned discussion, instead of following in the wandering footsteps of one of your semi-literate(READ: "half witted") blathering, drooling rants!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 03:09 PM

well steve-glad you can see the logic.you almost made a concession!.
shimrod i think said "who made God?"that is an illogical question,like asking "to whom is the batchelor married"
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.
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.
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.
he is eternal,has no beginning and is the [more than ] sufficient cause required for creation.
this is not an argument that you will countenance but IMO IS a logical position-nothing twisted about it.
so we come to your version of beginnings with no scientific proof-a miracle without a miracle maker!.

so us and every thing are transitional forms?!sounds very clever but
i dont think darwin used that angle did he.im sure steve can give ch and vs if he did.i do know he was hoping transitional forms would be found but there is not much to show for it still.
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.
and as i mentioned before maybe - i could quote evolutionists confessing the dearth of such evidence.much more telling than creationists pointing it out-dont you think!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 04:06 PM

"shimrod i think said "who made God?"that is an illogical question,..."

No it's not! I think it's a very logical question. If I can't question the origin of God, you can't question the 'Big Bang'.

And, as far as I understand it, we don't know everything there is to know about the nature of the Big Bang - but the Big Bang is not a question of faith - it's a sort of holding position until we know more, and no doubt when we do know more there will be more questions.

pete, how many times do you need to be told? Scientific knowledge is necessarily incomplete. It is dishonest and naive to rummage around looking for 'holes' and (possible) inconsistencies into which you can insert God!

If you believe that all truth is contained in the Bible, that's your problem. If you're right then, if you know your Bible, you already know everything and don't need to worry any more (why should it concern you that others do not share your certainty?). Nevertheless, the PROCESS of science (which is NOT an unchangeable monolith like your faith)will go on exploring Nature and will no doubt change its perspective as new discoveries accumulate.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 04:14 PM

Nimrod: "No it's not! I think it's a very logical question. If I can't question the origin of God,..."

What 'God' are you referring to? Try your best to describe the 'God' you don't believe in. You might have some of us in agreement...because the 'God' you don't believe in is probably a 'God' that doesn't exist, anyway.
Maybe the whole 'God' thing is bigger than presented to you!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 04:43 PM

GfS ~~ The 'God' I don't believe in is any entity which could possibly be subsumed under the referent "God" in any form, shape, or concept that has ever been, or could ever be, conceived. Will that do for you? If that is not a precise enough postulation for you of what I don't believe in, then I am going to take my ball and go home.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 06:31 PM

Promise?

(grins)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 06:32 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.

IT SIMPLY IS NOT!

The scientist actively seeks that which will supercede his current knowledge and is always aware that every question he manages, by dint of scientific observation and experimentation, to answer leads, not to "the definitive proof, but to more questions.

The faithful creationist, on the other hand, already knows it all 'cos it's there in the book, and will go to any lengths to twist, stretch and fabricate the evidence to support that firm prejudice.

There is not, and never has been, any scientific evidence pointing to the need for a deity, let alone the actual existence of one.

If, in the future such a need became scientifically evident, the whole science community would accept, even welcome that new knowledge, and incorporate into total body of scientific knowledge.

If, on the other hand, the process by which life emerged were evidentially confirmed to be entirely natural, not one single creationist would accept it, or change one iota of hard wired prejudice.

That is the difference.

Don T.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 12:18 PM

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.

So tell me more about this "time" that we can't measure. You sound as confused as I am.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 12:21 PM

Righto Pete. I can't find a citiation for the Gould quote, so am not sure of it's context so if you could supply one I'd be grateful and I'll look it up. It could be he did day it, but ~I can't find where or when so it's over to your good self.w

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

Citations to support this argument please - of peer-reviewed papers published in the usual literature. I would like to read these papers.

"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."

Don't be (I suspect you're still taking the piss). However, with respect you also know rag all about geology and palaeontology but still feel qualified enough to pronounce on the inaccuracy and apparent dishonesty of much that I have presented in this thread. The fact is, how the fuck do you know whether you're right or not if you don't know anything about the subject. Where do you get your facts from?

"the fact that most scientists [say they ]believe darwinism is not a valid argument"

You know what I'm going to say. Put up or shut up time! I can't wait to see which scientists are eschewing natural selection. Fill yer boots. Shock me.

One more thing that bugs me. Much of the dogma you have expounded in this thread is widely available in creationist websites. How come you believe them without question? You obviously question my motivation for posting here, so do you ever question theirs.

My motivation? Truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 12:52 PM

Pete... The only reason that transitional fossils are missing is that most of them didn't die in a convenient place! They were eaten, or burned, or just generally broken up by nature like the bones of the chicken you had for dinner and disposed of.

As I have noted several times before, if most transitional fossils HAD been saved, there would not be enough museums on Earth to display them! However...every year MORE transitional fossils are found in various places. How many will it take to convince you that evolution DID happen, if if it was a god who designed it?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: frogprince
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 01:23 PM

Gfs, would you mind providing us with a legitimate description of God, as he would be understood if churches and religion hadn't messed up our understanding for us?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 02:21 PM

pete,

You creationists are not very hot on logic, are you? As I understand your 'philosophy', the Earth (or, possibly, the Universe?) was created 6,000 years ago and it's all in the Bible - and because the Bible is 'the word of God' it must be true (?)

But when you post on here all that you seem to come up with are 'criticisms' of current scientific knowledge. But even if (big IF) you, and your creationist chums, have found genuine inconsistencies, they DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR CASE. First, you cannot look for holes in the scientific data and then just insert God into the holes. Second, the biblical description of creation cannot represent the sole resolution of any inconsistencies that you may find (or think you've found); there may be a plethora of other explanations.
So, by continuously posting criticisms of current scientific knowledge your are wasting your time - you will not convince anyone of anything - and certainly not convert anyone to your biblical creation 'model'.

I don't expect you to respond to this post, by the way. You obviously only hear what you want to hear.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 04:52 PM

Reappearing just to say that Pete's quote from Stephen J. Gould is accurately reproduced from Natural History Magazine (May, 1977), p. 14.

Gould did not believe that the "rarity" was entirely due to haphazard fossilization.

He never "got it in the neck from Darwin believers," BTW. Quite the contrary. And he never regretted saying it (except to observe that creationists completely distorted the sense of what he wrote).

There's more to it than that. But the rest is up to you....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 06:10 PM

Steve Shaw

Well, he was talking horse sense.

It was a feeble joke the first time. Repeating it doesn't make it any better.

Don't get me too enmeshed in the physics of that stuff, but what I said is how I understand it.

In other words, you don't understand it. Neither do I. You need advanced degrees in theoretical physics to even come close. (I started out in chemistry then moved into genetics and evolution.) We don't (and cannot) know whether any of it is true, we just have to trust that the people who are doing the work are following proper scientific principals. We come dangerously close to taking it on faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 06:12 PM

GUEST,Shimrod

You creationists are not very hot on logic, are you?
...
I don't expect you to respond to this post, by the way. You obviously only hear what you want to hear.

It's taken you this long to notice?

Why are people trying to engage in rational debate with irrational people?

And as for GfS....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 06:23 PM

Yes, Snail, I'm afraid you're right. I was engaging in a futile exercise.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 06:46 PM

Steve Shaw

>Well, he was talking horse sense.

It was a feeble joke the first time. Repeating it doesn't make it any better.

It was a different joke second time, Mr Po-Face.

>Don't get me too enmeshed in the physics of that stuff, but what I said is how I understand it.

In other words, you don't understand it. Neither do I. You need advanced degrees in theoretical physics to even come close. (I started out in chemistry then moved into genetics and evolution.) We don't (and cannot) know whether any of it is true, we just have to trust that the people who are doing the work are following proper scientific principals [sic]. We come dangerously close to taking it on faith.

Well, my dodgy mathematical credentials make comprehension of such matters difficult but I do my best. I don't even come close to taking anything on faith, so speak for yourself. I don't know how many times I've said it, but I require evidence for any assertion put to me that is beyond my current state of knowledge or understanding. And there is never any need to be so defeatist as to take anything on trust from anyone. All you have to do is ask for evidence. A good scientist is a good communicator and can give you their ideas in words of one syllable. Like I did with pete and natural selection (OK, cribbed from Richard Dawkins...)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 07:18 PM

Steve Shaw

Well, my dodgy mathematical credentials make comprehension of such matters difficult but I do my best.

So do you fully understand all the theory behind the Big Bang? Have you, or have you not, assessed all the evidence for yourself and concluded that The Big Bang Theory offers the best explanation for the Universe as we observe it?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 07:28 PM

PS

It was a different joke second time

But just as feeble.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 07:49 PM



Of course not. And I am not able to assess all the evidence as my poor brain can't take it all in. But I've read what I can and I'm listening to the arguments proposed on the basis of evidence (some of which I get, some of which is beyond me). Whilst I'm still slightly agnostic about it, in general I do feel that it is the best explanation currently available. My agnosticism is predicated partly on the fact that no scientist is anything like certain of the nature of the origin of the universe but mostly on my inability to absorb some of the evidence. But all that's perfectly OK in my book. I do try and I do have to get on with life.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 07:54 PM

And when you say just as feeble, I do at least note your implied acknowledgement that it was a different horse joke. If you disagree, I'm sure you'll flick your widdicks in indignation and say "neigh, lad."

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 01:23 AM

Actually we are talking apples and oranges. Froggie actually asked a fair question...which would be great to get into!...but this whole BUSINESS of reducing "God" into a religious box is staggering on the amount of damage it has caused to peoples potential to view a lot larger reality!

Here, I gave you three distinctly 'diverse' people who all tapped into something unseen, and created wonders.....Beethoven, Jesus and Tesla...and they all had something in common.(There are a lot more..but I wasn't planning on writing another thesis on Mudcat!)
All stood the test of time, and all ahead of their time...and all tapped into the unseen. Beethoven called it 'God'..Jesus called it "My Father who sent Me", Tesla says 'God' as well.
Scientists and psychologists agree they don't know why music works, how it works, or where composers go to get their 'inspiration' or 'channeling'...some scientists point to the possibility of a parallel universe or dimension....but this thing the do know, that it activates more neurons in the brain than any other activity on the planet...at present..including sex...Good Lord, where Beethoven must have plugged into!
So I'll leave you this for now to whomever, and Froggie...Beethoven, Jesus and Tesla tapped into something free for all humanity to plug into and have the benefits from..and access is open....to those who..........(?)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 05:16 AM

Scientists and psychologists agree they don't know why music works, how it works, or where composers go to get their 'inspiration' or 'channeling'...some scientists point to the possibility of a parallel universe or dimension....but this thing the do know, that it activates more neurons in the brain than any other activity on the planet...at present..including sex...

Do investigate "weasel words" (wiki is quite good). It just might help you to avoid, in future, writing drivel like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 05:39 AM

""Beethoven, Jesus and Tesla tapped into something free for all humanity to plug into and have the benefits from..and access is open....to those who..........(?)""

What a sneaky example of false juxtaposition.

Take two people whose life history is well known and sandwich between them a man who (if he existed) was reported to have preached certain very compelling ideals, which any moralist would have found quite obvious, by men who did their reporting many years after his death.

Voila, evidence for God...........NOT!

Music is basically a mathematical construct, and like so many of that ilk, can exhibit great beauty when manipulated by one who has a particular feel for its relationships, hence Beethoven and many other great composers. Beethoven may have ascribed his success to God, but that was the limit of his knowledge showing through, since he was unaware of the mathematical aspect and composed by instinct.

It can also exhibit horrendous degrees of ugliness when mishandled. e.g. 1960s "Quarter ear music" consisting of the most horrid discords.

Tesla, I won't bother with, irrelevant or some such animal.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 05:45 AM

Beethoven may have ascribed his success to God

I should like to see Guffaw's evidence for this. Beethoven was given to rather high-flown language at times, but his feet were very much on the ground and he believed in helping yourself and grafting to achieve what you wanted.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 09:51 AM

Steve Shaw: "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..."

Steve Shaw: "Scientists and psychologists agree they don't know why music works, how it works, or where composers go to get their 'inspiration' or 'channeling'...some scientists point to the possibility of a parallel universe or dimension....but this thing the do know, that it activates more neurons in the brain than any other activity on the planet...at present..including sex...

Do investigate "weasel words" (wiki is quite good). It just might help you to avoid, in future, writing drivel like this."

I thought you weren't reading them...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 12:24 PM

I lied. I wanted you to think I was out of your way so that you could talk even bigger entertaining crap. My underhand ploy seems to be working.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 04:22 PM

an admission of dishonesty on steves part...??!
does he lie?--well the ref indicated he told the truth this time-ie he is telling the truth that he lied...
i shall not accuse him of dishonesty where he appears to say i reject natural selection,-and jack infers the same.maybe oversight rather than deliberate equivocation?
creationists are quite aware that there is information encoded in species that can give rise to variation and that mutational change may confer survival advantage in certain environments.there is for eg no quarrel that darwins finches adapted according to food source but such changes do not evidence bird to biologist evolution.
i have said this many times but just to reiterate-there is natural selection.i dont accept that develops one species beyond what is coded in it.do you know of any mutation that has added information?
oops-was that another tautology?!

thankyou lighter,that was very fair of you.
goulds admission is not the only one by evolutionists, and demands that i provide ref will only be met with -go look it up,like i,m often told!

shimrod -as you were quite civil,i will respond.
yes i do accept creation because the bible says so, but i think that in general science supports creation inasmuch that no thing comes into being without a sufficient cause and as i said before there is nothing scientific about saying that the absence of anything and everything can somehow arrive at a singularity that explodes...etc etc
you accept that on faith!
just because the bible is old does not mean it is unreliable.i take that as trustworthy on what i believe is a reasonable faith.
no -i dont expect to convert you but you never know!
and someone less entrenched may consider the arguments.

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

Pete: "an admission of dishonesty on steves part...??!
does he lie?-"

The worst lie is when we lie to ourselves..and close off 'life', and its intelligence and instincts.
Less information is available to you, because your delusion, blocks out the info you really need.

Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 07:18 PM

"".there is for eg no quarrel that darwins finches adapted according to food source but such changes do not evidence bird to biologist evolution""

Oh for fuck's sake Pete.

I come to your defence on the basis that your posts represent hionest beliefs, and you come up with utter crap like that.

I give up.

You are now truly on your own here.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 07:40 PM

but such changes do not evidence bird to biologist evolution.

Well, you put that incredibly clumsily, but yes they do.

have said this many times but just to reiterate-there is natural selection.i dont accept that develops one species beyond what is coded in it.do you know of any mutation that has added information?
oops-was that another tautology?!

Of course mutations "add information". I mean, as with everything you say, it was a completely shite way of putting it. Mutations occasionally result in novelties that give natural selection "more information" to work on. Your problem is that you regurgitate this stuff from God knows where else, and it comes out like the usual regurgitated stuff, namely, puke.

no thing comes into being without a sufficient cause and as i said before there is nothing scientific about saying that the absence of anything and everything can somehow arrive at a singularity that explodes...etc etc
you accept that on faith!

There is an abundance of evidence for the Big Bang. Sure, we don't know (yet) what happened in the first ten to the minus 15 of a second after the Big Bang, but that isn't too bad in a span of 13 billion years, and we're closing in. On the other hand there is not one scrap of evidence for your alternative. I mean, it's all right to invent a "sufficient cause" in the way you do, but, you see, we have evidence for our sufficient cause but you not only don't have evidence but you suggest a sufficient cause that breaks all the laws of physics. At least we don't have to resort to that desperate measure. It is scientific to present what evidence we have and to suggest the best possible conclusion from it. Don't worry, when any alternative evidence comes along (and, unlike you, we're looking hard) we might change our minds.

just because the bible is old does not mean it is unreliable.i take that as trustworthy on what i believe is a reasonable faith.
no -i dont expect to convert you but you never know!

But it isn't evidence. It's the sayings of long-dead men, few if any of whom even came within a hundred years of Jesus, and they might have been lying, and it's wide open to interpretation and duff translation. It is of interest but it is not evidence.

and someone less entrenched may consider the arguments.

You are one of the most entrenched, hands-joined, eyes-closed, one-track minded, insulting eejits it's been my displeasure to come across.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 11:30 PM

Subject: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: MtheGM - PM
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 02:28 AM

In one of his novels, Ben Elton makes a character say that he has been told, by one of those who didn't really know either, that this is a question that only stupid people ask.
.,,.
But till this question is answered, the BB is, so, another matter of faith. Never mind about the infinitessimal period right after that Steve refs so eloquently above: what about before? Tho I agree with his entire position re the predominance of evidential Science over 'faith', whatever that is, this question must be responded to before the thing is satisfactorily parcelled up. Though perhaps 'origins' is a separate question from this thread, and my old thread might be refreshed in parallel if anyone so inclined?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 11:50 PM

They're trying....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 04:12 AM

OK, I have enjoyed reading and sometimes participating in this thread but realised a while ago it was never going to get anywhere.

Starry Pete said above that he believes something on the basis that it is in the bible. So why bother trying to rationalise with him? He goes on to refer to science supporting creationism. A bit of a stretch of logic but to be fair to him, the only alternative would be chaos supporting evolution which is asking a lot of the word "chaos" from the established definition.

Where he falls down is smugly assuming his particular book of tales, most of which invoke discredited magic, holds the key to the answer.

Before you seek the answer, you should first phrase your question.

(I came out with all that without using words like superstition, imaginary friends, population control, clappy happy chuffs, dangerous people who should be kept away from kids, sanctimonious hypocrites, institutional bigots and irrelevant remains of society's past. I think I deserve a pint. Thanks, I'll get one or five tonight.)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 05:01 AM

Thank you for responding to my post, pete. Nevertheless, you have not addressed the issues I raised, namely:

"But when you post on here all that you seem to come up with are 'criticisms' of current scientific knowledge. But even if (big IF) you, and your creationist chums, have found genuine inconsistencies, they DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR CASE. First, you cannot look for holes in the scientific data and then just insert God into the holes. Second, the biblical description of creation cannot represent the sole resolution of any inconsistencies that you may find (or think you've found); there may be a plethora of other explanations.
So, by continuously posting criticisms of current scientific knowledge you are wasting your time - you will not convince anyone of anything ..."

You certainly will not convince me because the biblical explanation that you espouse makes no sense in the light of current knowledge (incomplete though that may be). And to put it as bluntly as I can, I do not trust the motives of religious fundamentalists - history (not to mention current events) suggests that such people are very dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 12:22 PM

steve-i accept that i may put things a bit awkwardly at times.
but if you would like to see [though i doubt it!] the case put by a scientist the lead article on CMI just by co-incidence [maybe!] covers what i said yesterday about mutation-and finches!it is called "speedy species surprise".
there is a comment box at the bottom so may be you can question there.
the tone of your posts however suggests that you are not interested in what the arguments are ,much less have an open mind.
i,at least am up front on my presuppositions.

shimrod-i did mean to add more but time and forgetfulness intervened.
i accept that the biblical testimony is insufficient for the unbeliever but admit that it is the guiding principle for the believer.having said that i know many christians try to manipulate the plain meaning of the text to accomodate the theories of the day.

absence of evidence is also evidence of absence and i have shown that even evolutionary believers have admitted the insufficiency of the theory.
into such absences the atheist posits yet unknown discoveries.
the creationist scientist however works on the basis of a creator and as someone said are "thinking Gods thoughts after him"
it was in a biblical worldview in time past that science made great strides.the notion that a creationist perpective hinders useful science is nonsence.darwin dogma has hindered science as i previously demonstrated.
i also think the "dangerous" assertion is a gross exageration when compared to the atheist record.but thats been done to death previously.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 02:15 PM

darwin dogma has hindered science as i previously demonstrated.

Well, I haven't got the time to address all the rest of the drivel in your post, but let's just take a look at this little gem. It contains three bare-faced lies, so well done! The first is that there is such a thing as "Darwin dogma". There is a theory of natural selection on which thousands of scientists have worked hard, using the scientific method, to add further corroborating evidence or to refute. That is not how dogma is arrived at. As you yourself are the king of blind dogma, I'm amazed you made that mistake. Second, that Darwin's work hindered science. In fact, Darwin's big idea revolutionised biology and is still doing so. The only thing that Darwin hindered was the continuing occupation of the place usurped by the God squad for their non-existent hero in the great scheme of things. Third, that you "demonstrated" that Darwin hindered science. That is such an incredibly ignorant and insulting remark, but I can't work up much annoyance because I'm so busy laughing at your crass stupidity.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 02:54 PM

" ... i have shown that even evolutionary believers have admitted the insufficiency of the theory ..."

You've shown nothing of the sort! You have highlighted, what you believe to be, gaps in the current model - and then you've shoved God into the gaps!

For the hundred, millionth, billionth time (haven't I told you never to exaggerate?) science is NOT an unchangeable, unassailable monolith like your religion. Scientific models can be subject to change with new evidence. But, having said that, most current scientific models are built on very firm foundations. Don't expect, any time soon, a scientist to say: "Oh no! We got it all completely wrong - it must have been God wot dun it!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 03:04 PM

Steve Shaw
The first [lie] is that there is such a thing as "Darwin dogma".

Previously from Steve Shaw
Read my lips, Pete old chap. Evolution is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 07:33 PM

""absence of evidence is also evidence of absence""

Here Pete you shoot yourself through both feet, even as you stuff the pair of them in your mouth.

For if you were correct, you just offered proof that there is NO God, the absence of evidence being evidence of HIS absence.


""it was in a biblical worldview in time past that science made great strides.""

Wrong again! It was in spite of a biblical worldview in time past that science made great strides. And it would have done so more quickly and more effectively without the stifling effect of that biblical world view.

The church wanted science to prove the biblical view correct, and when it didn't, people like Galileo were imprisoned or forced to recant.

The greatest scientific advances all took place after the church lost its complete control of the population.

2/10 for historical knowledge! Must do better!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 08:10 PM

Steve Shaw
The first [lie] is that there is such a thing as "Darwin dogma".

Previously from Steve Shaw
Read my lips, Pete old chap. Evolution is true.

OK, Slimetrail, I see you're going back to twathood. What a shame after your recent reasonable behaviour. Now evolution is indeed true in its main tenets. It will never be be overthrown in that regard, and you know it (well, unless you're a closet God-squadding creationist, something I have occasionally suspected about you, actually). We have long since gone past the point at which the general principle of natural selection can be questioned. Nuts and bolts, deliciously yes, and don't you just relish all the hard science still to come, but overall thrust, never. Why? because it's true. It isn't true because I say so (dogma) - it's true because the evidence and the corroboration from related fields of biology is so overwhelming that no-one with any credibility at all is ever going to try to deny it. Now you can swivel around all you like, agonising as to whether the word "true" should ever be used for anything (maybe the word scares you), but I'm using it here and now. Evolution in its main tenets is truer than true. And, slug-with-shell, do you know something? Richard Dawkins, a far greater evolutionary biologist than you or I could ever hope to be, a man who will tell you that he can't be certain that God doesn't exist, says that evolution is true. So why don't you just bugger off, stop being so stultifyingly annoying and go and look stuff up. I did.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 08:34 PM

..."no thing comes into being without a sufficient cause..."

Um...Pete... this true, but trivial. It is 'almost' a tautology and proves **nothing** about what kind of cause in this case. We who accept evolution do not KNOW what the "sufficient cause" (more narrowly, the "remote cause") was. We are interested in speculating about it, but we do not need an absolute answer.

Stating that "god did it" because the bible says so and god inspired the bible is simply circular... the 'proof' is included in the assumptions!

You know, all this is not really necessary... no one can fault you for 'believing' that some supreme Being set everything in motion, but we can and DO fault you for rejecting the hard evidence of science for WHEN it happened and how everything developed AFTER 'creation'.

It is simply, flatly, clearly impossible for all that IS on the Earth to be only a few thousand years old. It DID take hundreds of millions of years for many complex changes to bring about the things we see...and are.
Your 'faith'...which you have admitted was late in coming and as a result of listening to other men in a fundamentalist church... is impressive, but is very insular and leaves you in an awkward position.
If you are happy there... *shrug*.. fine. The reason so many of us debate you is that we worry about bad reasoning infecting others and affecting real studies and science.

take care....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 08:51 PM

no one can fault you for 'believing' that some supreme Being set everything in motion,

Well, that's very kind of you, Bill, but wide of the mark unfortunately. No-one could fault an indoctrinated child or someone who has been brainwashed into thinking that he will go to hell if he briefs against God, but your buddy pete is in neither category. He comes here and exposes himself deliberately to views that are at odds with his own strange and pig-ignorant prejudices, but he then chooses to not listen. Not to you, me or anyone else. Now any minute now he will be back here thanking you for your lovely, courteous reply, etc., as he has a hundred times before. But he will not have listened. He is the champion of champion piss-takers, and you are his numero uno sucker.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 04:18 AM

Well, Pete once more ducked my questions and avoided addressing anything head on, still fills his posts with remarkable contradictions and inaccuracies and is infuriatingly evasive. Thing is, I really don't think he knows what exactly he's defending.

Ha ha! Charade you are!

I've got science to do. Good luck the rest of you.

Bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 11:41 AM

Steve... I debate *ideas*, and try very hard not to get into speculation about the personalities of those I talk to.... not with Pete, not even with you.
I see the temptation to throw derogatory remarks at those who don't seem to have MY enlightened approach *wry smile*, but it never helps. I try to type as if I were sitting across from a person in real time. If they insult ME, I will simply leave and cease talking to them. This has happened once in my 16 years at Mudcat.... and Pete has not done that. I am sad & frustrated that he... who I am assured by two people who know him is a nice guy... fails to see certain points. I just will not insult him. I actually worry more about why YOU feel YOU must. You & I agree on the logic & science, but..... *shrug*
(You realize, Steve, that there are FAR worse ideas and attitudes than Pete's version of fundamental views to cope with in this world...)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 01:07 PM

Bill. Fundamentalist views of the kind that deny evolution and which take holy books literally have done a massive amount of damage to humanity and have kept millions of people not only ignorance but in a state of religious repression. The lie of creationism is no more than a blunt instrument of control of people's minds. "Nice guys" do not go about denying science and propagating intolerant and misguided mythology as truth. If pete had his way the human race would be thrown back into some kind of superstition-ridden dark age. There are enough elements of that pervading major organised religions already without pete and his ilk adding further layers of pig-ignorant denial of reality. Pete is severely misguided and deluded. You might be correct in thinking he isn't actually wicked in his intentions but I wouldn't be so sure. He has backing from some very nasty people. His refusal to listen or address any points of fact put to him make him sound just like somebody else's stooge. You indulge him with your softly-softly attitude and he plays gleefully on that by pretending to be all diffident and humble. Well bugger that. Tell it like it is, or he'll make an even bigger mug of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 02:52 PM

Steve Shaw: (to Pete).."OK, Slimetrail, I see you're going back to twathood. What a shame after your recent reasonable behaviour. Now evolution is indeed true in its main tenets. It will never be be overthrown in that regard, and you know it (well, unless you're a closet God-squadding creationist, something I have occasionally suspected about you, actually)."

Does this qualify as a rabid, frothing fundamentalist, or what?
There is NO reasoning with this kind of 'devotion' for an unprovable THEORY!

Such FAITH..it's amazing!!...AND, as far as I'm concerned on here, I haven't even promoted creationism!....but Steve, you are over the top with being a closed minded jerk-off!....which brings us back 'on topic':....."Alternative to Science??"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 03:28 PM

"..."Nice guys" do not go about denying science and propagating intolerant and misguided mythology as truth. "

Sure they do... some of them. I fight as hard as you do against those who try to take over institutions in the name of some religion... or who tell ME what I 'should' believe. Pete has not done that. I suppose he'd not object if many others believed as he does, but he is not involved (as far as I can tell) in any movement to harass ME.

Most people who think and live and worship as Pete does are very little threat... but woe be to those who seek to inflict their religious views on my society & state!

In the USA we have a constant struggle with those who try to get Creationism taught in schools as 'equal' to science. All I do when debating pete is sharpen my own ideas and read HIS...in order to know what to pay attention to.

I assure you... I am no stooge.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 04:48 PM

Steve Shaw
OK, Slimetrail, I see you're going back to twathood.

But all I did was quote a couple of things you said!

What a shame after your recent reasonable behaviour.

You're so kind. Still, it's nice to see you back on form. You're still not getting it though are you? It's nothing to do with whether or not evolution is true, it's about how science works and what makes it different from religion. You seem to think that the point is to accumulate such a vast pile of evidence that no-one can deny the truth of a theory. No, that's how religion works; wave a book around and declare it to be true. Science works by diligently searching for something that will DISPROVE the theory. As long as that quest fails, the theory stands. It is impossible to say that the quest will never succeed. Taking that approach to religion gets you burnt at the stake.

Bill D
The reason so many of us debate you [pete] is that we worry about bad reasoning infecting others and affecting real studies and science.

With pete (sic), What You See Is What You Get. He states his position very clearly and sticks to it. He has found a comfortable place which relieves him of the trouble of having to actually think about anything. He simply goes to his creationist websites and looks up the appropriate answer. You are never going to persuade him of anything. People can see exactly where he is coming from and judge accordingly.

Steve, on the other hand, declares himself to be a scientist. He clearly knows a great deal but understands very little. The target audience is not the petes of this world but the middle ranks who possibly have a rather uncommitted attitude to religion and a rather distorted idea of science gleaned from popularising programmes like that Turin Shroud nonsense. Steve's misrepresentation of science as a sort of alternative to religion and his eagerness to resort to playground abuse is hardly going to win them over. I think he does more harm than pete ever can.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 04:54 PM

bill- the assertion that it is impossible for the earth to only be thousands of years only is obviously not universally accepted even if darwinism is the ruling patadigm at this time.
i do know you dont advocate the numbers game so i can only conclude that it is your belief that that paradigm is true.after all,though much more informed than i am, you cannot know all areas of knowledge and presumably you are not accounting for the presuppositional/worldview influence that affects your interpretation of the data,or your acceptance of other scholars conclusions.
i am ,of course quite ready to admit that i trust the sources i quote [and just to reinforce their writings,quote the evolutioists that recognize the weaknesses of the GTE !]
It seems to me that you concur with steve that "evolution is true" but thankfully without the verbal gutrot that does no favours to his arguments
both you and shimrod say i insert God as explanation, but my contention is that evolutionists insert naturalism into the gaps trusting that later discoveries will validate their faith.
but present day science still only supports life from life and to say that evolution is true so it must have arisen from non life is surely circular reasoning!
jack exiting but saying i did not adress his points.what was that?
he did not address mine - that darwin dogma hindered useful science.
steve did but only by a rant
i also asked what creation belief has ever been a hindrance to useful science.
best wishes pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 05:24 PM

BillD: ". He has found a comfortable place which relieves him of the trouble of having to actually think about anything.

AMEN!!...Oh, is it OK to say 'Amen'??....or will it upset the resident mutant gnomes??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 06:08 PM

GfS... that was not me you quoted!

Pete-"you are not accounting for the presuppositional/worldview influence that affects your interpretation of the data,or your acceptance of other scholars conclusions"

I'm sorry Pete, but I am fully aware of what I bring to the discussion. I studied not only science, but the rules of logic and testing of evidence that determine what is relevant AS evidence.
I wish there were an easy way to explain to you the difference between your presuppositions and my 'attitude' about scientific studies.
When you say that my view "is obviously not universally accepted", you miss the point that many, many experts even MORE informed that you OR I have looked at all aspects of the problem and DO accept the basic data & conclusions that science leads to!
I am not sure what it feels like to know that 99% of those who seriously study evolution and Darwin's influence on it totally DISagree with you. You ...and those who tutored you... seem to think that just taking a deep breath and **accepting** the biblical accounts ..plus all the interpretations of biblical accounts by fallible men... is all that is required to 'know the truth'.
   It just doesn't work that way.... reality cannot be 'believed into submission.

Best wishes to you also... but do consider pondering these things from a different angle... and even discussing them with other religious leaders near you.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 06:29 PM

just been doing some shroud reading.i,m not committed either way but found it interesting that the nail marks exit at least through the wrist as consistent with supporting body weight but inconsistent [unless anyone can cite otherwise] with 14c art.

as regards other post still not addressing points raised - just kindly exhortations to rethink and more appeals to authority-and i did,nt think you played the numbers game bill!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 06:38 PM

What is "the numbers game"?

Do you mean just trusting the majority? That's not what I do. I do feel that when the majority reaches a conclusion after many many years, one ought to be concerned how they got there! I don't just blindly nod... I look at WHY they say what they do.

Do you not wonder why so relatively few accept creationism?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 07:42 PM

Pete, When the Romans crucified people, they would use a square piece of wood, in which they would drive the nails. This was done to support the body weight.

GfS

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

You seem to think that the point is to accumulate such a vast pile of evidence that no-one can deny the truth of a theory. No, that's how religion works

Christ on a bloody bike, what on earth is the matter with you! The point of science is to close in on those areas in which we lack knowledge. If so much knowledge accumulates that a particular theory can no longer be denied then we have found some truth. If you don't think that science is a quest for truth then there's no helping you. And that is not how religion works. What a crassly stupid thing to say. Religion does not seek evidence in any real sense of the word and you know it. Evidence is the enemy of religion. Why don't you think before you open your agenda-laden gob?

Science works by diligently searching for something that will DISPROVE the theory.

Science sets out to disprove nothing. I don't know how old you are, or how long your alleged science career has lasted, but there is something fundamentally wrong with your understanding of the process of scientific enquiry if you think that it sets out to prove or disprove anything at all.

The target audience is not the petes of this world but the middle ranks who possibly have a rather uncommitted attitude to religion and a rather distorted idea of science gleaned from popularising programmes like that Turin Shroud nonsense.

"Target audience", eh? You patronising twat!

Steve's misrepresentation of science as a sort of alternative to religion

Do demonstrate where I've ever done that. Why don't you do what snails do, which is, to put it politely and biologically, go and mate with yourself instead of coming on here with you insulting, stalking bad attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 08:13 PM

but woe be to those who seek to inflict their religious views on my society & state!

Cor, Bill, I'll bet they're all shivering in their boots in case you threaten them with a big warm understanding cuddle.

I assure you... I am no stooge.

I didn't say you were, or say that anyone else was, actually. Do try to read.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 08:15 PM

Ooo, ooo...800!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 08:19 PM

It seems to me that you concur with steve that "evolution is true" but thankfully without the verbal gutrot that does no favours to his arguments

I read what you say and respond directly to what you say. You not only deal in gutrot but you deal out gobshitery all the time to hard-working and honest scientists. Your latest effort is just more of the same. You don't listen and you are bereft of constructive thought. But for good ol' Bill you'd be belly-up here. You're a laughing stock as it is, or, rather, would be if your prejudices weren't so bloody wicked. What an incredibly dishonest man you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 12 - 09:56 PM

Steve, You keep talkin' 'bout 'religion'..fuck religion!
Maybe Jesus was the next missing link..upwards, that is.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Nov 12 - 04:26 AM

"both you and shimrod say i insert God as explanation, but my contention is that evolutionists insert naturalism into the gaps trusting that later discoveries will validate their faith."

No, pete! A scientists knows, and is quite happy to acknowledge, that there are gaps in the current model (although they may not be in the places you think they are). Further evidence may fill the gaps, or in certain cases, radically modify the model. That's because scientific models of reality are NOT monolithic, unassailable, unchangeable questions of 'faith' like your religion is (how many more times do I have to say that?).

Finally, there's no such thing as "evolutionism" ... or "naturalism" for that matter.

I have heard of 'naturism' - which, I believe, is running around with no clothes on!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: frogprince
Date: 30 Nov 12 - 08:46 AM

"There is NO reasoning with this kind of 'devotion' for an unprovable THEORY!"   Gfs

So the entire mass of science related to evolution is characterized as simple speculation, with a complete misuse of the word theory in this context; but a pop-culture video, loaded with pseudo-scientific
gobbledygook delivered with bubbling emotionalism, is a must-see that proves mind-blowing things. And yes, I waded through the video. That's too much of my life that I can't get back.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 12 - 08:49 AM

I have heard of 'naturism' - which, I believe, is running around with no clothes on!

Maybe all creationists should be forced to do that so that we can all see better what pricks they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Nov 12 - 01:09 PM

Froggers: "So the entire mass of science related to evolution is characterized as simple speculation, with a complete misuse of the word theory in this context;..."

You got it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: saulgoldie
Date: 30 Nov 12 - 01:10 PM

Alright then. THIS is why SCIENCE is important.


NASA & a Link To Health

What other process of investigation would return these results?? The Church of the FSM? The Church of the Sub-genius and its head figure Right Reverend J. R. "Bob" Dobbs? The (fill in some other)??

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: saulgoldie
Date: 30 Nov 12 - 02:07 PM

Should have been: "What process do these organizations provide that would get us to that end?"

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 01:30 PM

not sure what your point is saul.who is decrying useful science?
BTW the FSM is a mocking evolutionist idea.- a belief system that predicted vestigual organs and junk dna.

bill-no i dont wonder why evolutionism is so widely accepted.i strongly suspect that it is philosophically driven and therefore held as true despite even many of its believers admitting great deficiencies as an explanation of our existence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 01:41 PM

You've had five days to think that up and all you can come up with is an insulting pile of shite. You are a disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 01:53 PM

" ... i strongly suspect that it is philosophically driven ..."

Uuuuummmm??? What do you mean by that, pete?

And if the theory of evolution is 'deficient', creationism is just ludicrously stupid!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 05:47 PM

""not sure what your point is saul.who is decrying useful science?""

Well, I have to say that you are Pete, since evolution science includes the discovery and mapping of the human genome which has proved so infallible in criminology and genetics, and so useful in prediction of serious medical conditions.

You can't cherry pick between the ability to detect a genetically based propensity toward particular health risks, and the concomitant knowledge of how cell mutation, which is part of the process of evolution, works.

And I think even you would have to admit that you are not a good, nor even a credible, arbiter of good or bad science, especially since none of what you consider scientific actually is.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 10:38 PM

Maybe it's perception....in a conversation, the term 'force in nature' came up...and I thought of this thread, and the silly arguments over what might just be 'perception'.

"Force in nature"....some scientists focus in on 'in nature'..as in 'natural'..and cataloging the changes found therein.....others focus more on the 'force in'...and they look to the 'unseen'..or even 'above nature' or 'super-natural'. they are both valid studies, and the tempers rise when both sides can't see, that they have different properties...and sometimes even defy each other.

One can't happen without the other, which often is made manifest in the other!

I suppose it's who or what you feel akin to.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 04:29 AM

"some scientists focus in on 'in nature'..as in 'natural'..and cataloging the changes found therein.....others focus more on the 'force in'...and they look to the 'unseen'..or even 'above nature' or 'super-natural'. they are both valid studies, ..."

What ridiculous nonsense! Just give me ONE example of a 'study' of the supernatural which qualifies as valid science!! As I pointed out in the 'afterlife' thread, people who claim to study the supernatural always turn out to be cranks, charlatans or madmen. You can allow yourself to be fooled into believing in ghosts, fairies and boogeymen (and God?), and feel "akin" to such nonsense, if you want to, GfS, but don't confuse such rubbish with science!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 06:29 AM

Studying something that doesn't exist? Sounds rather silly till you look at the claims that the bible is the best seller of all time.

So statistically, study of fairy stories has a higher prevalence than study of what you can observe and deduce from it.

Mind you, I only say that in support of Goofus because as silly as his last post was, many people feel akin to comfort blankets and convenient rather than real answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 08:39 AM

Now that this thread has re-emerged and the self styled scientists are attempting to engage in rational debate with the irrational, I can reply to Steve's "You patronising twat! post.

Steve Shaw
Christ on a bloody bike, what on earth is the matter with you!

Do you think I am making this all up just to annoy you? This is Philosophy of Science 101. It's the sort of stuff you do as a first year undergraduate. Did you skip a few lectures or did you take your degree so long ago that you predated all the thinking of the mid-twentieth century?

The point of science is to close in on those areas in which we lack knowledge.

Er, no Steve, it is to close in on those areas in which we lack understanding. The point of science is to build a coherent set of theories/models/rules that explain, as far as possible, the world we see around us. Knowledge by itself is not science.

Science sets out to disprove nothing. I don't know how old you are, or how long your alleged science career has lasted, but there is something fundamentally wrong with your understanding of the process of scientific enquiry if you think that it sets out to prove or disprove anything at all.

You are quite right to say that science does not set out to prove anything. That is why statements like "If so much knowledge accumulates that a particular theory can no longer be denied then we have found some truth." don't fit in with science. Discovering a new variety of the Barnsley Fern may advance our knowledge but doesn't advance our understanding without asking what makes it different and why it is different. I am reminded of Lord Kelvin's quip "Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting.". Unfair, but a good line. You and pete could look at the same pile of evidence; he would see God and you would see Evolution. It is what you do with that evidence that differentiates Science and Religion.

there is something fundamentally wrong with your understanding of the process of scientific enquiry

I've studied it as a subject. You seem to have no understanding at all if you think it's just evidence, evidence and more evidence. Try this http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html. The odd hiccup but not bad. It's directed at teachers so you shouldn't find it too demanding.

Target audience", eh? You patronising twat!

I'm not sure quite what your problem is here (apart from your recurring Tourette's Syndrome). The vast majority of people are not religious fundamentalists nor are they thoroughly educated in science. They do (in some countries anyway) have the vote. They are the people we need to win over in the fight for reason over superstition. Arguing with pete is futile. Even if you make him see the error of his ways, so what? The people we need to reach are the uncommitted majority. Kelvin had another good quote "An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid.". If you just stand at the bar and shout "Evolution is TRUE you £$%!"$%$ stupid %$^£$%£$." in her face, she'll go off and serve another customer (who might be pete).

Me: Steve's misrepresentation of science as a sort of alternative to religion

Steve: Do demonstrate where I've ever done that.

Every time you say something like "Evolution is true". Every time you engage with pete in a way which suggests there is some equivalence between his arguments and yours. Every time you fail to produce a coherent argument against anyone who disagrees with you and think that cursing and swearing will win the day.

In an earlier post you said -
Richard Dawkins, a far greater evolutionary biologist than you or I could ever hope to be, a man who will tell you that he can't be certain that God doesn't exist, says that evolution is true.

Indeed he does. Worrying. Just because he's greater than you or I doesn't mean he's greater than other evolutionary biologists. It's hard to tell if he has done any actual science since he found himself a nice little earner as an atheist tele-evangelist. He rarely seems to appear on platforms with other scientists. Here's one occasion when he did - Dawkins vs. Tyson.

You said "So why don't you just bugger off, stop being so stultifyingly annoying and go and look stuff up. I did.. Did you? Have you looked up Karl Popper? Falsifiability? The scientific method? Give it a try, you might find it interesting.

Bryan Creer BSc. Hons. (Sussex), BSc (OU), MSc (Soton)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 08:49 AM

Now that this thread has re-emerged and the self styled scientists are attempting to engage in rational debate with the irrational, I can reply to Steve's "You patronising twat! post.

Well, you got off to a bad start there, didn't you. You could have replied any time you liked, not simply because the thread has been dug up. As for the rest of your dyspeptic post, once again it's full of misrepresentations as well as your morbid fear of "truth". Anyway, I hope you feel better for relieving yourself of it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 09:01 AM

Advantage: Snail.

Next Round: Some philosophers of science claim that Popper's doctrine of falsifiability is untenable and self-contradictory.

Comment.

Meanwhile, I'm getting another Coke and a bucket of popcorn!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 10:06 AM

Steve Shaw
once again it's full of misrepresentations

Would you care to elaborate?

From this website - http://old.richarddawkins.net/discussions/553940-karl-popper-on-tolerating-the-intolerant

Most people are aware of Karl Popper as the father of the modern scientific method, and especially as the creator of the logic known as 'Popper falsifiability'.

Clearly , "Most people" doesn't include Steve.

Lighter
Some philosophers of science claim that Popper's doctrine of falsifiability is untenable and self-contradictory.

Of course some philosophers of science took issue with Popper (although I think falsifiability is fairly well accepted) and Steve could use their work to argue against me, maybe even prove me wrong, but that isn't how he does things.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 10:42 AM

I like the "philosophers of science" bit Lighter. I suppose that once you have proven by observation, successful prediction and consistency that something is a fact rather than a hypothesis, you are no longer philosophising, just stating...

I don't agree about popcorn though, I eat it too quickly and this thread cannot end. (Mather's Law.)

Thinking about it, having a PhD in the physics behind certain aspects of engineering, (mechanical vibration) I stand accused of philosophising by default, as by proving (as far as you can) certain conditions always yield certain results, it is seen in academic circles as a philosophy. So if anyone wishes to disagree with my findings, I shall have to have a philosophical debate with you, rather than my first instinct to give you a good spanking and say that a coal feeder delivers 950 t/h not because of my calfrustrations but because of the little baby Jesus / will of Allah whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 05:03 PM

The plot thickens!


Numbrod: "What ridiculous nonsense! Just give me ONE example of a 'study' of the supernatural which qualifies as valid science!!.."

Sorry...how foolish of me...it is talked about in the video...so don't watch it, and think small...like your buddy Steve.

Musket, being as you seem to understand physics(?)...you should also have checked it out..and comment on that part.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 06:16 PM

shimrod-i have previously quoted an evolutionist admitting that there is no such thing as a dispassionate,impartial scientist and i could dig out the lewontin quote about "..not allowing a divine foot in the door".it all takes time that i dont have this time of night but suffice it to say ,i am not quoting creationists here.

here is something else to discuss-
if you evolved and presumably are in the path of continuing evolution,then your brain is only chemical reactions that will also change   
if you say that all of our minds are
shuffle chance of chemical change
why should anyone trust anything your saying
yer brain just might need a re-arrange!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 06:32 PM

More Taurean excrement!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 07:57 PM

Would you care to elaborate?

Christ, you're such a bore, but here goes.

The point of science is to close in on those areas in which we lack knowledge.

Er, no Steve, it is to close in on those areas in which we lack understanding. The point of science is to build a coherent set of theories/models/rules that explain, as far as possible, the world we see around us. Knowledge by itself is not science.

"Er no Steve" my fat arse. Without knowledge there is no understanding. You can't do maths if you don't know your tables. Science is the endeavour to understand the world around us and it is predicated on a vast body of knowledge. If you want to see what happens when you try to gain understanding without an evidence-based body of knowledge, look no further than the creationist idiot who posts here. He knows nothing yet thinks he understands everything. The fact is that he understands nothing because he knows nothing.

You are quite right to say that science does not set out to prove anything.

Well I'm glad you admit it. That isn't what you said before.

That is why statements like "If so much knowledge accumulates that a particular theory can no longer be denied then we have found some truth." don't fit in with science.

Of course it does. You are not a robot nor Mr Spock. You are a human being. If your scientific endeavour does not contain at least a little yearning to get at the truth, you are neither a scientist nor a human being. The physics may be intractable at times but the human being teasing it out needs a bit of, er, romance in his/her soul. It's inevitable. It's an intrinsic part of enquiry. I can't think what you think you're doing as a scientist if you're scared of the fact that there's truth out there. Maybe you think that truth is exclusively God's domain. I am suspicious of you in that regard, as I've said before.   

Discovering a new variety of the Barnsley Fern may advance our knowledge but doesn't advance our understanding without asking what makes it different and why it is different.

You are rambling. Meaningless gibberish.

I am reminded of Lord Kelvin's quip "Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting.". Unfair, but a good line.

Not only unfair but a load of absolute bollocks. Sorry if I'm offending one of your gods.

You and pete could look at the same pile of evidence; he would see God and you would see Evolution. It is what you do with that evidence that differentiates Science and Religion.

Pete wouldn't know what evidence was if it reared up and bit him on his fundamentalist bollocks. And you were telling me a minute ago that I was wrong to claim that science is a quest for knowledge (aka evidence). So the above statement is utterly inconsistent with what you said before. Not only that, it is equally inaccurate. "What you do with evidence" is what science does, not religion. Religion hates evidence. Religion loves hearsay, witness, edicts from popes, dodgy stories in ancient texts and scaremongering.   

I've studied it as a subject. You seem to have no understanding at all if you think it's just evidence, evidence and more evidence.

Well good for you. The only thing is, I don't think science is that at all and you have no grounds for saying it.

Target audience", eh? You patronising twat!

The vast majority of people are not religious fundamentalists nor are they thoroughly educated in science. They do (in some countries anyway) have the vote. They are the people we need to win over in the fight for reason over superstition.

Well there you go. OK, I'll revise. You patronising, evangelical twat.

Steve's misrepresentation of science as a sort of alternative to religion

Do demonstrate where I've ever done that.

Every time you say something like "Evolution is true". Every time you engage with pete in a way which suggests there is some equivalence between his arguments and yours.

I do not "engage" with pete, do I. If you think what I've been doing in recent weeks is in any way indulging or engaging with that brainless twerp, well just wait 'til I get really cross. I've bent over backwards more than anyone else here to show up the eejit's utterly vacuous and ignorant nonsense. "Equivalence" my arse. Wrong man, old chum.   

   
In an earlier post you said -
Richard Dawkins, a far greater evolutionary biologist than you or I could ever hope to be, a man who will tell you that he can't be certain that God doesn't exist, says that evolution is true.

Indeed he does. Worrying. Just because he's greater than you or I doesn't mean he's greater than other evolutionary biologists. It's hard to tell if he has done any actual science since he found himself a nice little earner as an atheist tele-evangelist. He rarely seems to appear on platforms with other scientists. Here's one occasion when he did - Dawkins vs. Tyson.

Sour grapes, old bean. I said he was greater than you and me. You want to extrapolate in a splenetic outburst against him, go ahead. I'm not with you.

Finally, I note your characterisation of me and unspecified others as "self-styled scientists." It is very touching to see a man totally without any sense of irony do that -- then type out in full all his "qualifications". Nice touch!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 12:38 AM

Pete, Think nothing of it...Steve is bonkers with hate and resentment, from some bad experiences with a 'religion'. he can't differentiate between what you are talking about, (or I), without trying to discredit it, according to his biased, and rather limited point of view. He is not looking at it from his own 'studies', but rather stuff he's heard about that is a convenient refuge, from looking at the whole, in its entirety.
He tried the entropy rap, which got shot down to pieces, because entropy denotes 'decay'..and either we are evolving into 'decay', OR we are 'decaying' from a higher state.
So that doesn't work.....
As far as 'evolution'..he doesn't see that death in this mortal state, that we are in, is open to a possible link upward..because he confuses it with 'religion'...and will not study it any further...
so his 'evolution' rap doesn't work either.
That being said, nothing is evolving into 'decay'....
Nope, that doesn't work either....
Creation??..You mean it's over????..or is it evolving???
...or does it really matter???
Unless anyone really knows...their guessing!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 05:04 AM

"shimrod-i have previously quoted an evolutionist admitting that there is no such thing as a dispassionate,impartial scientist ..."

I wouldn't quarrel with that statement - but then the system for exploring reality which is science is a collective enterprise and is much greater than the sum of its parts.

Oh yes, and it's unlikely that you quoted a person who described himself as an "evolutionist" - he would have been a biologist who viewed/views evidence in the light of evolutionary theory.

Keep repeating to yourself: "Science is NOT an unchangeable, unassailable, faith-driven monolith like my religion".

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 05:19 AM

GfS, 'frogprince' did sit through your stupid video (what a hero!) and here's what he said:

" ... a pop-culture video, loaded with pseudo-scientific
gobbledygook delivered with bubbling emotionalism, is a must-see that proves mind-blowing things. And yes, I waded through the video. That's too much of my life that I can't get back."

fp's analysis of the whole thing does not surprise me (having endured the first part myself) - so, give me ONE example of a 'study' of the supernatural which qualifies as valid science!!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 05:22 AM

Very amusing, Guffers. Might I suggest you now take a small break from posting in order to spend a little time investigating what "entropy" means?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 05:49 AM

I too wasted time that could have been better spent by watching that pile of over excited, evangelical tripe Shim, and can understand how it would appeal to Goofus.

One has only to look at the tone and quality of his input into this site to know he would be a sucker for that kind of high and mighty appeal to the terminally confused.

More to be pitied than blamed.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 06:15 AM

Thank you, Don. I completely agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 08:09 AM

*Yawn* Need more coffee....

> there is no such thing as a dispassionate,impartial scientist

To be precise, there is no such thing as a perfectly dispassionate, impartial human being.

That includes creationists.

The real issue, however, is whose research and evaluation are, systematically, the *most* impartial, dispassionate, and therefore reliable.

Obviously scientists need not be "dispassionate" (in the sense of "unconcerned") when turning from their research to educate people about facts like AIDS and global warming, dangers like nuclear winter, or pervasive threats to education. The latter include all claims that creationism is a science and evolution is just a theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 11:59 AM

It's the little things that count. Like Goofus, having been stripped of what credibility he ever had, slipping in a question mark as to whether I understand physics.

let me help you here.

I don't.

However, I have published a PhD thesis on a small matter that uses known and demonstrably accepted classical physics calculations in order to prove my point.

if there were an alternative to science (this thread used to be about that, remember?) then I wouldn't have to had to explain why Newton's bucket could still be relevant in a relativity aware world. No, I'd just have to say the little baby Jesus makes vibrator motors produce 4 g of force on the system and God decreed that this, at an acceptable angle of incidence, is enough to transport bulk solids within an range of density.

Here's the rub. God might have decreed it. After all, there is no alternative answer as to why. But as I was dabbling in the world of science, I have no right to make such a conclusion. Not that I am shallow enough ever to do so, but that's another matter.

And (don't you hate people who start a sentence with "and"?) for that matter, if I can't ascribe science to God, starry pete can't ascribe God to science.

The only alternative to science is to watch Beckham bend the ball into the top corner of the net. Not through trajectory calculations but through instinct / magic.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 02:07 PM

You are mellowing, Steve. A much reduced incidence of swear words although still the same string of ad hominem attacks and complete failure to make a coherent response to any of the points I raised.

Not much point in responding to any of it but there is one thing to clarify. I have never said that science sets out to prove anything. If you think I have, produce your evidence.

Finally, I note your characterisation of me and unspecified others as "self-styled scientists."
That was wrong of me. I apologise unreservedly. I promise in future to present my arguments to the same high standard of fairness and courtesy exemplified by your good self.

It is very touching to see a man totally without any sense of irony do that -- then type out in full all his "qualifications". Nice touch!

One of your favourite debating techniques (after abuse) is to question the qualifications of your opponents. For some reason this doesn't stop you trying to reason with pete, who gets his science from creationist websites, and Guest from Sanity, who gets his science from the Discovery Channel. Where Chongo gets his science from we may never know.

Of me you said - "I don't know how old you are, or how long your alleged science career has lasted, but there is something fundamentally wrong with your understanding of the process of scientific enquiry". If you are going to imply that you are better qualified than I am, I felt it was reasonable to spell out my qualifications. In particular, I have studied the scientific method at undergraduate level and Philosophy of Science at postgraduate level. Your response to that was "Well good for you. The only thing is, I don't think science is that at all and you have no grounds for saying it.". So what do you think science is and how have you arrived at that conclusion? You don't seem to have heard of Popper or falsifiability. Nothing you have said has shown any sort of understanding of the scientific method. Is your view of science entirely of your own making? I have given you links to helpful websites, quoted material on other threads and suggested topics for you to Google. You have ignored them all. You seem to be proud of your ignorance and determined to preserve it while still, somehow, claiming your own superiority.

Bryan Creer RYA Inshore Yachtmaster (theory), RSMAB Grade 3 oboe, MCP

P.S. Saying that Dawkins is a greater evolutionary biologist that you or I isn't setting the bar particularly high.

P.P.S. You'd really like Barnsley's Fern.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 04:00 PM

Now how on earth do you know that I don't know about Popper or don't look up your links?! That is ludicrously pompous and arrogant. Actually, had Popper still been around I think he'd be mortally embarrassed at the certainty of ideas you endow him with. His falsifiability notion, much-vaunted by you ad nauseam, came in for so much criticism that he had to acknowledge his own reservations about it, especially with regard to evolution theory. And, from the exchanges of recent weeks, you must be utterly cuckoo if you think that I've been "reasoning" with Guffers and Brainless Pete. If anything I've demonstrated that they are, in turns, no more than entertaining and completely stupid. And I do not doubt your esteemed qualifications, though I do wonder why you see the need to parade yours while I can happily keep mine to myself (and I do have some, and could probably give you chapter and verse on a damn sight more ferns than yer Barnsley one, if pushed). You may not like my somewhat abrupt manner with those I consider to be incorrigibly foolish, but I dislike your misrepresentation of me even more (possibly, though I lack the evidence).

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 04:02 PM

And he even forgot to put in the bloody sporangia.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 04:21 PM

Now everybody's getting into the act:

http://news.yahoo.com/science-vs-god-does-progress-trump-faith-202019706.html

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 04:27 PM

For the more curious:

http://www.livescience.com/11316-top-10-intelligent-designs-creation-myths.html

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 10:15 PM

Steve: "And, from the exchanges of recent weeks, you must be utterly cuckoo if you think that I've been "reasoning" with Guffers and Brainless Pete."

Don't worry,.....I don't think we ever thought THAT!!!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 03:18 AM

Ferns? My favourite subject! Let's talk about ferns instead! Mmmmm! Sporangia, sori, gametophytes, pinnules, stipes and rachises ...

Sorry! Got a bit carried away there ...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 06:00 AM

I'm still waiting for Snail to enlarge on that seemingly irrelevant intrusion into his post, to be honest. "I know something clever so I think I'll stick it into a post whether it's germane or not."

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 06:03 AM

Let's talk about ferns instead! Mmmmm!

You make them sound so delicious. Always found 'em a bit on the chewy side except for that Wilson's Filmy on Rough Tor...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 06:05 AM

Steve Shaw
Now how on earth do you know that I don't know about Popper or don't look up your links?! That is ludicrously pompous and arrogant.
I said "You don't SEEM to have heard of Popper or falsifiability." I don't know whether you have or not or whether you look up my links. Let's just say that there is very little evidence that you do. I have done a search through this thread and a previous one where Popper was first mentioned (not by me). Before yesterday you had never mentioned Popper in one of your postings and falsifiability only once (and got it wrong).

Actually, had Popper still been around I think he'd be mortally embarrassed at the certainty of ideas you endow him with.

Now how on earth do you know what Popper would have thought? That is ludicrously pompous and arrogant.

His falsifiability notion, much-vaunted by you ad nauseam, came in for so much criticism that he had to acknowledge his own reservations about it, especially with regard to evolution theory.

Funny that you've never mentioned this before, preferring to demonstrate the depth of your research and grasp of the subject with lines like "OK, Slimetrail, I see you're going back to twathood.". Could you give me a reference to him acknowledging his own reservations about falsifiability? I can't find anything that says that. He didn't have any problem with evolution but he did, initially, dismiss natural selection (which is not the same thing) as non-scientific by his criteria. It's a problem that is still discussed. "Survival of the fittest" is tautological because the only measure of fitness is survival. He listened to wiser counsel and changed his mind although I must admit that I find the reasons why a trifle vague.

And, from the exchanges of recent weeks, you must be utterly cuckoo if you think that I've been "reasoning" with Guffers and Brainless Pete. If anything I've demonstrated that they are, in turns, no more than entertaining and completely stupid.

You are quite right of course; you never actually "reason" with anybody but you have put considerable time and energy into hurling abuse at them.

And I do not doubt your esteemed qualifications, though I do wonder why you see the need to parade yours while I can happily keep mine to myself (and I do have some, and could probably give you chapter and verse on a damn sight more ferns than yer Barnsley one, if pushed).

But you have cast doubt on my qualifications several times Steve. It is one of your favourite ways of avoiding actually addressing the arguments put up against you. For instance in the Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... thread you said of a passage about falsifiability I had quoted - "If I thought for one minute that Snail understood a word of this, I'd take him up on it." which I think is code for "I don't understand it so I'll just brush it aside.". yes, Steve, I did understand it because I have studied the subject at University. You continued with one of your usual diatribes in which you excelled yourself with expressions like "utterly risible" "a load of pretentious old bollocks" "crock of shite" and ended with " I challenge Snail to pick out and précis the aforementioned words of wisdom in plain English.". I did so shortly afterwards. You ignored me. So, yes, you make it necessary for me to spell out my credentials.

You may not like my somewhat abrupt manner with those I consider to be incorrigibly foolish, but I dislike your misrepresentation of me even more (possibly, though I lack the evidence).

You do not have an "abrupt manner" Steve. You are gratuitously abusive. The people you "consider to be incorrigibly foolish" are anybody who disagrees with you ranging from the intelligent and educated such as TIA and Bill D to the hapless pete. You treat us all the same.

In my previous post I asked "So what do you think science is and how have you arrived at that conclusion?". Any chance of an answer?

P.S. I defer to your superior knowledge of ferns.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 06:08 AM

Steve Shaw

I'm still waiting for Snail to enlarge on that seemingly irrelevant intrusion into his post, to be honest.

It's called Taking The Piss.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 08:56 AM

I don't know whether you have or not or whether you look up my links. Let's just say that there is very little evidence that you do. I have done a search through this thread and a previous one where Popper was first mentioned (not by me). Before yesterday you had never mentioned Popper in one of your postings

The only accurate thing here is that you say "you don't know." You think that, just because I don't rattle on and on about someone or something, I don't know anything about it. Old chap, it's bad enough round here without you and I going off on one about the philosophy of science (wake up at the back there!) There is "very little evidence" because I haven't given you any. I haven't given you any evidence of my degree, university or subject either. I suggest that if you want people to obediently click on your links (and how many of us have done that with unsupported links to find that yet another little chunk of life has ebbed away...) you précis the contents or at least give some relevant quotes from it.

As for this:
His falsifiability notion, much-vaunted by you ad nauseam, came in for so much criticism that he had to acknowledge his own reservations about it, especially with regard to evolution theory.
Funny that you've never mentioned this before, preferring to demonstrate the depth of your research and grasp of the subject with lines like "OK, Slimetrail, I see you're going back to twathood.". Could you give me a reference to him acknowledging his own reservations about falsifiability? I can't find anything that says that. He didn't have any problem with evolution but he did, initially, dismiss natural selection (which is not the same thing) as non-scientific by his criteria. It's a problem that is still discussed. "Survival of the fittest" is tautological because the only measure of fitness is survival. He listened to wiser counsel and changed his mind although I must admit that I find the reasons why a trifle vague.

Huh? All you've done is confirm what I said.

And finally, one of your routine misrepresentations in all its naked glory:

You getting all hoity-toity:

Now how on earth do you know what Popper would have thought? That is ludicrously pompous and arrogant.

But what I actually said:

Actually, had Popper still been around I think he'd be mortally embarrassed at the certainty of ideas you endow him with.

When I'm inclined towards something but am not sure, the non-existence of God for example, I say "I think". If I feel reasonably certain about something, the truth of the general thrust of evolution for example, I say "I know." You're not really worth taking seriously if you can't represent properly what I so clearly and simply say, are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 10:30 AM

Steve Shaw
I suggest that if you want people to obediently click on your links ...

I just thought that, as a scientist, you might be interested. Are you now saying you don't read them?

Huh? All you've done is confirm what I said.

You said - "that [Popper] had to acknowledge his own reservations about [falsifiability]"

As far as I am aware, he did not. He did acknowledge that his own reservations about natural selection, which he had initially thought was a non-science, were wrong and that it did pass his falsifiability test.

Steve: Now how on earth do you know that I don't know about Popper or don't look up your links?! That is ludicrously pompous and arrogant.
I had said "You don't seem...".

Me: Now how on earth do you know what Popper would have thought? That is ludicrously pompous and arrogant.
You had said "I think..."

Just to complete the symmetry - You're not really worth taking seriously if you can't represent properly what I so clearly and simply say, are you?

More in hope than expectation - a few posts ago I asked "So what do you think science is and how have you arrived at that conclusion?". Any chance of an answer?

P.S. If you don't want me to state my qualifications, stop attacking my competence and address my arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 11:52 AM

P.S. If you don't want me to state my qualifications, stop attacking my competence and address my arguments

Blimey, give me any more information and I'll be able to address your Christmas cards. Incidentally, I don't give a monkey's mickey whether you state your qualifications or not. Maybe you'll start a trend. Kick us off, Guffers...? (Lemme guess: fourth prize for best stand-up, Goole Pier talent contest 1969...)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 12:16 PM

With fading hope and diminishing expectation - a few posts ago I asked "So what do you think science is and how have you arrived at that conclusion?". Any chance of an answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 01:40 PM

Snail: "With fading hope and diminishing expectation - a few posts ago I asked "So what do you think science is and how have you arrived at that conclusion?". Any chance of an answer?"


You already answered that one Snail!

Steve Shaw: "And, from the exchanges of recent weeks, you must be utterly cuckoo if you think that I've been "reasoning" with Guffers and Brainless Pete. If anything I've demonstrated that they are, in turns, no more than entertaining and completely stupid.

Snail: "You are quite right of course; you never actually "reason" with anybody but you have put considerable time and energy into hurling abuse at them."

Snail: "Any chance of an answer?"


Steve doesn't know squat about what he is talking about, but does, in fact throw insults at people THINKING his insults are going to 'prove' his 'theories' are absolute.

Snail, you already have him pinned when you posted, "I just thought that, as a scientist, you might be interested. Are you now saying you don't read them?"

I posted a couple of links, that he went ballistic denouncing...and that he admittedly NEVER looked at them!!

This is a moron, unwilling to even look at, review, or research any topic brought up, that he feels might threaten his preconceptions!!...and that my dear friends is the exact definition of, " BS: Alternative to Science??".....especially the "BS" part!

He can't 'reason' with anyone, and he doesn't....nor even discuss the topic or related data.
In short, as I said before, he is a 'big mouth blowhard'.

First ya' get pegged...then you get pinned!!

Amos said it VERY well, but to Steve's buddy, 'Numb-rod' when he posted, Amos: "Have it your way--all thought is biomechanical, intentionality is just a deterministic accident, and all spiritual awareness is illusory, a simple happenstance of brain oxygen levels or some such.
Merry Christmas, and a long and happy life to you anyway."



Have a pleasant day, Snail!
Regards to You!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 02:09 PM

Heheh. Well, Snailie, at least you know who yer friends are. :-)

You are such an amusing fellow, Guffers (assuming that you're not a lady - apologies if you are). Never more so than when you are being ironic, totally unbeknowns to yourself, thus:

Steve doesn't know squat about what he is talking about, but does, in fact throw insults at people...
...This is a moron...
...as I said before, he is a 'big mouth blowhard'
...Steve's buddy, 'Numb-rod'...

And, Gastropodus incorrigibilis, you really should have learned by now that I choose, like you do, what I respond to, and the more you hassle the less likely it is you'll obtain satisfaction. One knows one's little game, one should be aware.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 02:47 PM

I thought you posted that you didn't read my posts anymore...could it be that even you don't know what you're talking about..even to yourself?????

Holy Smokes!!!!

GfS

P.S. Maybe you should try re-reading this part of my last post, that just describes this kind of character, "This is a moron, unwilling to even look at, review, or research any topic brought up, that he feels might threaten his preconceptions!!...and that my dear friends is the exact definition of, " BS: Alternative to Science??".....especially the "BS" part!"

Is that describing you?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 04:32 PM

"Have it your way--all thought is biomechanical, intentionality is just a deterministic accident, and all spiritual awareness is illusory, a simple happenstance of brain oxygen levels ..."

Well, I'm glad that you and Amos now agree with me, GfS!

Oh! I gedditt! Amos was being ironic!

He was probably right though: All thought is (probably) biomechanical, intentionality is (probably) just a deterministic accident, and all spiritual awareness is (probably) illusory, (it's probably)a simple happenstance of brain oxygen levels ..."

There's no evidence for anything else ... apart, that is, from dubious anecdotal 'evidence' ludicrously over-extended and elaborated by cranks, charlatans and madmen.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 08:07 PM

Hey Rod-Brain,.....take two of these and really get plenty of rest...really.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 04:54 AM

There you go. Steve Shaw has his Alternative to Science but he's not going to tell us what it is.

I shall leave him to the arguments with pete and Guest from Sanity that he seems to enjoy so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 09:13 AM

Im confused now.

I dont live too far from Goole. Am I missing something here? where is the pier?

I know what. I shall rename The Waterways Museum The Waterways Pier. Science would have us searching for the pier. Superstition would allow me to rename the museum.

Crude but there again so are the majority of posters. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 11:25 AM

I made up Goole Pier. And why not, I thought. After all, by making fantasy stuff up all I'm doing is joining the ranks of Guffers and pete and Snailieboy.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 12:46 PM

I really did mean to leave this behind.

Obviously Steve Shaw will refuse to read this on principle but I thought others might be interested -
Dawkins on falsifiability

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 01:44 PM

Good idea. Might give the place a focus, or even a reason to exist... Wigan has one so why not? Goole may be inland like Wigan but it does have a port...

Goofus doesn't make things up, to be fair to him. He genuinely seems to have faith in what he says, the silly bugger. Snail is winding you up, but I can't decide whether you play along or try to reason with him. pete has his friend he can call on, and as his friend presumably has all the answers, infallible logic and thunderbolts, pestilence and famine available to beat you in discussion, I'm surprised pete doesn't win all the debates.

Why is that? Why doesn't pete's mate turn us into a pillar of salt? After all, he has a track record of being vain, arrogant and not suffering rivals....

Perhaps Heisenberg was right on another level. if we observe him, we affect him, so he can only exist in terms of probability? A bit of a bugger then if we have to turn to science in order to decide if millions of lemmings can't be wrong.....

Got it! God is a cat. He must be in that box....

So, what was all that waffle about there being an alternative to science then?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 04:29 PM

I've had the book for years, Snailie old mollusc. Muskers, you make me feel like I feel I ought to feel. One continues to post here with these characters only at the risk of having to seriously question one's own sanity. And you can shut up, Guffers. I didn't mean you.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 10:53 PM

Steve: "...I made up Goole Pier. And why not, I thought. After all, by making fantasy stuff up all I'm doing..."

Yeah, an alternative to science....We've read your posts..there is a lot of made up stuff!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 05:52 AM

Well bugger me sideways, I didn't make it up after all. There really is a Goole Pier. Bwahahaha!

http://www.geolocation.ws/v/W/File:Brass%20band%20at%20Victoria%20Pier,%20Goole%20-%20geograph.org.uk%20-%201417771.jpg/-/en

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 06:28 AM

Steve Shaw

I've had the book for years, Snailie old mollusc.

I just wondered if you had any thoughts on what Dawkins has to say about falsifiability. The key semtence, in case you missed it is "Evolution, in other words, is a falsifiable, and therefore scientific, theory."

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 09:59 AM

Never fear. When I want to give you my thoughts, you'll get 'em. And one day you will learn that hectoring me in that manner, as is your wont, simply doesn't work.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 11:49 AM

OK, sports fans. The contenders are using the word "falsifiable" in the sense of "disprovable by conceivable evidence that might in theory be discovered."

Karl Popper believed that a scientific theory had to be potentially disprovable. Any claim expressed in a way that could never be disproved by reason wasn't scientific. Like, "The jet-propelled unicorn I see is there, but your inferior brain just won't let you see her." Try and prove that wrong.

Despite what some of you are thinking, "falsifiable" doesn't mean scientists can fake it if they want to.

Back to the action.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 06:49 PM

Lighter: "Despite what some of you are thinking, "falsifiable" doesn't mean scientists can fake it if they want to."

Sure, that's where homosexuality was figured out as being 'genetic'..... did that stop the 'left' of discounting that bit of 'science'(?)!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 06:58 PM

Whoa! GfS opens himself up to a crushing blow from the science team!

But can they deliver? Or will the audacity of a double-barrelled non sequitur leave 'em too bleary-eyed to continue?

Wotta brawl, folks! Wotta brawl!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 07:12 PM

An interesting gambit, GfS! I'm not sure that I'm familiar with that particular piece of (alleged) 'falsification'. Please feel free to supply us with more details.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: frogprince
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 10:58 PM

Shimeod, you may have opened the floodgates again to something that has run on endlessly on at least a couple of threads before. Gfs, as the most intelligent and spiritually attuned person here, "knows" that homosexuality is a voluntary choice, gnerally resulting from emotional damage from parenting, that it can be cured by therapy, and that all alleged evidence for any genetic or biological reason for homosexuality is trumped up by defensive homosexuals or those who have caved to pressure from the homosexual agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 04:59 AM

Well Frogs, you sorta got part of it...but not all the way..and your analysts, is a bit colored....but you are correct, in the fact that the behavior is NOT genetic. It is the receptors and how/and/why they got 'set up' the way they did.

..and yes, that development can,(and often is) be set up as early in the womb...much the way receptors 'crave' to be 'satisfied'...for an example(and don't go crazy..it's just an example), some babies are born with a chemical dependance, if the mother was 'using' during her pregnancy.

Being as the fetus is 'attached' to the mother, during the formation of the child's receptors in the nervous system, are also 'influenced' in their development. the mother and child are as one, sharing the same nutrients and system's energy.
Though homosexuality is not exactly a chemical dependency, the nervous system, in it's set up, creates certain behavioral patterns...some, have an emotional 'impact and influence', that has nothing to do with the desire for one gender over another.


..........unless you believe that the mother and child are not, 'as one'...but an independent life.....then the double standard has to explain away abortion not being murder.....
...so it's either the same..or not.....and what the mother is going through in her pregnancy, directly affects the fetus.

You've heard of people playing music to their babies during pregnancy, and the child is born with an appreciation for music...to maybe being 'gifted'......same principle.

I really hope you don't want to 'argue' this point...but rather research it...with an open(or at least not programmed) mind.

Anyway, nice talkin' to ya'...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 05:12 AM

But Guffers, all that aside (where it belongs), is it OK to be gay?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 04:09 PM

You are asking me for a 'value judgement'....and when embarking on learning something OBJECTIVELY, such 'judgements' can, and will impair the learning process.
.......(shhhh).....and VERY unscientific, too.

GfS

P.S. Maybe that's a reason why you're stuck where you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 04:17 PM

But is it OK to be gay, Guffers?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 04:21 PM

Can't you read???...or do you have ADD?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 05:53 PM

"Though homosexuality is not exactly a chemical dependency, the nervous system, in it's set up, creates certain behavioral patterns...some, have an emotional 'impact and influence', that has nothing to do with the desire for one gender over another."

Is there any evidence available to support that assertion, GfS, or is it just another one of your 'theories'?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 07:01 PM

But Guffers, if a man or lady is homosexual, and acts homosexual, is that OK? Off the fence, my man!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 07:11 PM

<" I'd suggest imagination and poetry and song and dreaming and creativity.">

Scientists can possess all of these attributes. E=MC2 is imagination. The hydrologic cycle or ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is a kind of poetry. Newton's "Apple" and Einstein's discoveries were dreams and creativity.

There has been too much of a dichotomy between science and art.

The Germanic use of the word science means a comprehensive study of any subject
whether music, art, math, biology or physics.

The scientist is a kind of artist.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 08:16 PM

Steve, I gave you my answer..which is consistent with my position..and I ain't sittin' on 'your fence'.
I know what it is and i know what it isn't!

It's NOT a political position!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 08:23 PM

So would you refer to yourself as a homophobe, Guffers??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 09:23 PM

Steve Shaw missed the non sequiturs, but he keeps hammering on an ad hominem irrelevancy! Oh no! GfS is down! He won't say a simple yes or no! *Is this fight over???*

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 11:42 PM

So now Gfs refuses to make a "value judgement" as to homosexuality/being gay. If a myriad of statements that he has made on the subject don't plainly indicate what judgement he holds in mind, I don't see how anything he says about it can mean anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 03:49 AM

"Though homosexuality is not exactly a chemical dependency, the nervous system, in it's set up, creates certain behavioral patterns...some, have an emotional 'impact and influence', that has nothing to do with the desire for one gender over another."

So,GfS, you've got no eveidence for that assertion and it's just another one of your 'theories' (?)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 08:06 AM

> You've heard of people playing music to their babies during pregnancy, and the child is born with an appreciation for music...to maybe being 'gifted'......

There's no reason to assume this is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 01:18 PM

There is NO fight...you have facts, and you have a political position manufactured from bad science....unless YOU can prove otherwise!...nor am I 'down'...that is a really bad ASS-umption.....

...there is NO 'homosexual gene'...or they would have found it, by now!

..and yes, there is substantial evidence that music played during pregnancy to the fetus DOES produce effects to the child...look it up!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: saulgoldie
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 04:47 PM

Seeing no alternative process stated and explained here...science it is. By default.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 05:07 PM

What??? You just pulled that out of thin air!..It's not that science hasn't been 'discussed' here...it's that certain wannabe 'debaters', have yet to come up with a scientific rebuttal, and post only according to their biases!

Big alternative..isn't it?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 05:28 PM

"......there is NO 'homosexual gene'...or they would have found it, by now!

Talk about pulling something out of thin air!

They HAVE found genes that affect hormonal balance and sexual orientation. Google it... carefully

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 07:56 PM

Science team.

TKO in the umpteenth.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 09:17 PM

Ad hominem me arse!! I asked a simple question of a man who claims to have abundant evidence of the nature of homosexuality, but he declines to answer! Guffers, dear: say I'm gay, OK? Say I meet you in a bar and make a pass at you, having thought you were leading me on. Whaddya think? Is that OK? Same as when a boodiful woman does the same thing? Is being gay but showing similar behaviour to non-gays OK in your book? Wassup? Is that too hard a question? Can't your knowledge of genetics resolve this?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 01:27 AM

Bill D.: "They HAVE found genes that affect hormonal balance and sexual orientation..."

Yes, now find one that goes a little further than the report saying, "suggests"..or..."some evidence"....or..."tends"....or one that says, "we found it"...

Until then....I stand pat!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 02:45 AM

Goofus. There is no evidence for music being played to foetus resulting in appreciation of music.

There is however evidence to suggest that being brought up with a musical appreciation might in some cases lead to thinking you like music.

It started after the birth not before. Silly.

Your observation is as good as saying if you have sex outside the offspring will appreciate a sunset on the beach or want to hang around fire escapes behind night clubs.

Statistically possible..

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from, Sanity
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 03:28 AM

The fetus can sense music from inside the womb..or at least the sensation.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 04:54 AM

Yes, they can also feel the sensation of the car, knickers being put on / taken off, walking around and the belly swaying as they go, the gurgling noise the gut makes as it digests fish finger and chocolate sandwiches, (I have been known to make them for her at 3.00am...) and the noise from the Dirty Harry movie on the telly, (or Bridget Bloody Jones more likely...)

What does an unborn child make of those distractions? Uncanny how they can be blanked out but the conscious musical preferences of their parents have an effect on them?

Hah Ha Ha!!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 06:08 AM

Hey Guest from Sanity, here's a line you might find useful -

Never fear. When I want to give you my thoughts, you'll get 'em. And one day you will learn that hectoring me in that manner, as is your wont, simply doesn't work.
(c) Steve Shaw

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 05:56 PM

You'd think he'd get the clue...but he is a bit emotionally immature!
thanks Snail..

Regards to You!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 08:28 PM

But Snail and Guffster darlings! I hector not! I simply couch a very apposite question in a variety of ways following Guffers's minithesis on the nature of homosexuality! Why can't he answer such a simple question, you have to question! And Snail! Fancy throwing your lot in with the Guffer! And here's me thinking you'd rather throw your rather po-faced lot in with real science! Dearie me! Hey Guffo! You know who your friends are, eh, you lucky owld sod! And Snail, you know who your friends are, you unfortunate bastard! Now I'm just trying to work out which of you two, in your splendid double act, is the comedian and which one's the straight man (oops...). While I'm working that out, perhaps Guffalo would like to apprise me as to whether it's OK to be gay. Whaddya think, big boy? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 03:01 AM

My my...inquisitive minds want to know.....hmmm...do I know the nature of my position on homosexuality.....well, as I said before, I know what it is,...so I don't have to be bullshitted by anyone's political agenda telling me something that isn't....and I know what it's not......so I don't have to be bullshitted by anyone's political agenda telling me something that isn't......and then I have another opinion....but alas, it's supported by science.
You wouldn't be interested.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 04:07 AM

One of your positions supported by science, GfS?

Aaaaahhh!!!







Sorry! Just fell off my chair!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 05:13 AM

More than 'one', so don't hurt yourself....maybe you should stay on the floor, crawl around..play with some toys.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 05:54 AM

Hi Steve.

I just wondered if you had any thoughts on what Dawkins has to say about falsifiability. The key semtence, in case you missed it is "Evolution, in other words, is a falsifiable, and therefore scientific, theory."

Not hectoring, just couching a very apposite question.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 10:09 AM

No, GfS, I think I'll leave the toys on the floor - there's far more entertainment to be had up here!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 12:55 PM

""The scientist is a kind of artist.""

So are you Guffish. We're just trying to decide what kind.

Now let's see, P*ss?, or T*ss? or just plain Con?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 03:18 PM

Con????...I'm not trying to get anything from you, to 'con' you out of anything.....but it would be to YOUR benefit, to have an open mind...beyond the 'party line of bullshit'...after all, WE are the artists(?)...it would behoove you to rise about repeating the same ol' crap over and over....and give your 'art affectionados' something more to think about...or you could always sing 'Kumbaya' and 'Michael Rowed the Boat Ashore'...and strum it boringly, and give them NOTHING to think about....

Hey..maybe you could 'inspire' them to join a political party..either one...that way all they have to do is nod their heads, while others do their 'thinking' for them, and tell them what to think...just about anything!
Welcome to the 'Center of Nothing'!
Wanna' roast a marshmallow?....maybe someone else can sing 'Kumbaya' FOR you!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 07:41 PM

Hi Steve.

I just wondered if you had any thoughts on what Dawkins has to say about falsifiability. The key semtence, in case you missed it is "Evolution, in other words, is a falsifiable, and therefore scientific, theory."

Not hectoring, just couching a very apposite question.

Your problem is, oh slime-traily one, that you think I'm somehow opposed to Popper and his falsifiability. The fact of the matter is that you are are trying to show how clever you are by raising it. So, let me ask you, hectoring-free, why it is that you suspect, apparently, and so misguidedly (your trademark, actually), why you think I don't adhere to yer man? Because (just like Popper - why don't you check?) that I consider that science is capable of yielding truths? Or, heaven forfend, that you think I've never heard of Popper because I've never mentioned him or that you think, heaven forfend ever more, I've never heard of him? Ooooh, darling, you crawl on such dangerous ground!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 07:54 PM

My my...inquisitive minds want to know.....hmmm...do I know the nature of my position on homosexuality.....well, as I said before, I know what it is,...so I don't have to be bullshitted by anyone's political agenda telling me something that isn't....and I know what it's not......so I don't have to be bullshitted by anyone's political agenda telling me something that isn't......and then I have another opinion....but alas, it's supported by science.
You wouldn't be interested.

Oh but I am interested! I'd simply love to know what your homosexuality position is, darling Guffster! Especially if supported by science (call me Mr Kinky)! Now melover (as we say here in Kernow), do apprise us as to whether you personally, science aside and all that, think that it's OK to be gay. I'm an innocent in all this, Guffo! I have no agenda! I'm open to everything! (hey, but slow down, fella!). As they say on the Beeb every Saturday at 2pm, any answers? (Cor, and isn't that Jonathan Dimbleby just gorgeous!)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 08:32 PM

Gosh, went a bit mad with the never heard of stuff there, Helix! Amazing how a few hours on the M6 can addle the brain. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 11:30 PM

Steve Shaw: "I have no agenda! I'm open to everything!"

I'm calling your bluff....
Do you mean what you say?.....or just speak from what's in you?

Enjoy!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 06:01 AM

Heheh. Talk about evasive. He resurrects his tired old shroud videos and hopes I won't notice the diversion. Hey, Guffers! Give me a 400-word summary of yer video! I have tunes to learn! And, when you've done, do tell me whether you think it's OK to be gay. I'm increasingly coming to think that you don't. That it's immoral. Should be illegal. That you think gay people are just dirty buggers. Should be banned. Demonstrate to us how you're not a homophobe, old chap!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 12:41 PM

Well, Steve, passing over your senior moment on the M6,we have a bit of you usual schoolboy style abuse, an ad hominem attack and a few questions of your own but absolutely no attempt to answer my question. (Heheh. Talk about evasive.)

Nevertheless...

you think I'm somehow opposed to Popper and his falsifiability.
... why it is that you suspect, .... why you think I don't adhere to yer man?

For a start, there is your recently unsupported claim that Popper "had to acknowledge his own reservations about it. That makes it a bit strange that, 12 years after Popper's death, Dawkins was emphasising the importance of falsifiability to justify the scientific status of evolution.
On a previous thread when I quoted a website on falsifiability you responded "utterly risible" "a load of pretentious old bollocks" "crock of shite". Doesn't sound like a very positve response.

Because (just like Popper - why don't you check?) that I consider that science is capable of yielding truths?

Nobody is denying that science can yield truths and Popper described science as the pursuit of truth with the proviso that certainty could never be achieved. That doesn't mean you can describe a theory as true. Perhaps you could provide me with some supporting references.
While looking for evidence, I did find some good Popper quotes -

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.

The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game.

I have no way of knowing whether you had heard of hin before this and I doubt if you are going to tell us. There are two possibilities; either you haven't heard of him in which case you have a learning opportunity or you have and you reject what he has to say.
So who do we trust? Professor Sir Karl Popper, CH FRS FBA who has been decribed by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy thus - Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. or Steve Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 01:22 PM

Well you don't trust Dawkins but I wouldn't accuse you of not having heard of him, etc. (and I don't not trust Popper, before you start). The rest of your post is self-justifying waffle. Here, have a read about truth from Wednesday's Grauniad. If it's true, it's true, and there's nowt you can do about it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2012/dec/12/don-t-believe-in-quantum-physics

The difference between science and both politics and religion is that it doesn't require followers or believers. If it's true then it's true, even if no one believes it's true. If it's false, then all the believers in the world won't make it true. So far as believing in quantum physics, it doesn't matter at all, as long as you aren't a science teacher or a designer of integrated circuits, because quantum physics operates at the subatomic level. But your computer wouldn't work if quantum physics wasn't true, just as your satnav wouldn't work if Einstein's theory of special relativity was wrong.

And finally:

Nobody is denying that science can yield truths

You are! Scientific study has demonstrated the truth, in its main tenets, of evolution. Not of evolution theory, of evolution. If you know of anything truer than evolution that science has ever elucidated for us, then let's be having it. The trouble with you, apart from your extremely thin skin, is that you seem to think that we must reserve the word truth only for Goddish things (see how you defend pete, the man with by far the most malign views in this thread). You don't trust Dawkins either. Hmm. Fits.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: saulgoldie
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 02:14 PM

You don't believe in science? Science doesn't care. Science believes in you, anyway.

Don't believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun? It does, whether you "believe" or the Catholic Church "believed" it when Galileo first said otherwise 500 years ago.

Don't believe in gravity? Gravity does not care. It still sucks.

You don't "believe in" evolution? Well, evolution doesn't particularly givashit whether you do. Most species of living things have evolved, although some might argue that *some* beings in the shape of humans somehow, um, missed the boat.

Don't "believe" in medical science? Well when was the last time you opted to not avail yourself of modern medicine because you don't "believe" it exists?

But I grow weary of your silliness. I just check in from time to time to see if there is any "intelligence" from the non-"believers." So far, there isn't.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 06:47 PM

far as i can see ,saul,you just check in from time to time to keep repeating the same thing-albeit in alternate takes-and not acknowledging others that expressed the mis-apprehension of your claim that there is in fact no faith and science conflict ,-certainly not in the realm of useful science.
what has darwinism contributed to practical science that is not already within the creation model.
i can remind you again of where it has hindered scientific advance!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 03:15 AM

Perhaps because Darwin never tried writing an alternative to your precious bible.

Prior to Biblical times nobody had heard of the Bible. Prior to Darwin evolution existed and didn't alter its entropatic course as a result of its inclusion in human knowledge.

Whereas your Bible and other scriptures only existed once they had been written. Before some bloke with a vivid imagination wrote Genesis, it didn't exist. Along with your time frame for creationism. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 04:04 AM

"what has darwinism contributed to practical science that is not already within the creation model."

Whoooaaa! Where the hell do you start with a question like that? Like relativity and quantum mechanics, Darwin's theory of evolution has given us profound insights into the world around us and an explanation for how aspects of it work.

Creationism, on the other hand, is based on an obsolete and discredited guess confined within the pages of an old book. A small group of fanatics, mainly driven by by an irrational force called "faith", insist on clinging to this guess. They have contributed nothing whatsoever to "practical science" but would destroy it if they could because it threatens their "faith".

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 05:47 AM

I wouldn't even bother starting with a question like that. It's the wrong question and it was put by an ignorant troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:48 AM

Thanks for the link to the Guardian Notes & Queries column Steve. The reader contribution you quoted was from someone calling himself Robbothedoc. Quite what his academic status is we can't tell but he appears to be from the Scientific-theory-as-a-belief-system school of thought.

Well you don't trust Dawkins
Who said? I am sure he is a very capable and knowledgeable man; I just find some of his pronouncements a bit puzzling. He invokes falsifiability to justify the claim that evolution is scientific yet declares it to be true. How can he have it both ways?
Here's a video of him in action. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIkZ42cmiTA

And finally:

Nobody is denying that science can yield truths

You are!

No I'm not, I'm saying that scientific theories can't be described as true.

Scientific study has demonstrated the truth, in its main tenets, of evolution. Not of evolution theory, of evolution.

Not really getting anywhere am I? Since you have frequently used evolution and the theory of evolution interchangeably (sometimes in the same sentence), it's difficult to be sure what you mean. You once referred to evolution as a concept. Could you give a straightforward definition of what you mean by evolution ( as opposed to the theory)? It helps if we agree on what we are talking about.
Perhaps this would help from the New Scientist

Evolution has several facets. The first is the theory that all living species are the modified descendents of earlier species, and that we all share a common ancestor in the distant past. All species are therefore related via a vast tree of life. The second is that this evolution is driven by a process of natural selection or the - "survival of the fittest".

That seems to imply that the term "evolution" is a composite of two theories.
I notice that in the quote from Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution he calls evolution a theory.

If you know of anything truer than evolution that science has ever elucidated for us, then let's be having it.
The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 metres per second.

Since you are very good at brushing aside quotes from the great and good, how about this one?
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong" Albert Einstein

Thank you for laying off the childish abuse. If you could drop the ad hominem attacks as well it would do no end of good for your credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:26 PM

If you know of anything truer than evolution that science has ever elucidated for us, then let's be having it.
The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 metres per second.

Evolution is abundantly demonstrable to such a degree that, in its major tenets, it cannot be overturned. The speed of light in a vacuum (by which I assume you mean a perfect vacuum) has never been demonstrated, as a perfect vacuum has never been detected nor has ever been produced.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you're right that your speed of light example is true. But the evidence for it is indirect. It involves an extrapolation. The evidence for evolution, on the other hand, is very direct. So I don't know how you can possibly say it's truer than evolution.

As for this, which you say is from New Scientist:

Evolution has several facets. The first is the theory that all living species are the modified descendents [sic] of earlier species, and that we [sic] all share a common ancestor in the distant past. All species are therefore related via a vast tree of life. The second is that this evolution is driven by a process of natural selection or the - "survival of the fittest".

This is a very poor representation of evolution theory, written in sloppy (and, in one case, misspelled) English. Very Daily Express. The final sentence in particular makes me squirm. I can't begin to imagine what your point in reproducing it might be. Still, we all have our off days, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:35 PM

Well, a quick read of your New Scientist article proved to be quite entertaining. I suppose you spotted the misspelling of "resources" and had a good laugh at the rubbishy section on sexual selection. Had Darwin been alive today he'd be turning in his grave.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:10 PM

You mean, "*Were* Darwin alive today, he'd be turning...."

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:54 AM

Steve Shaw: "Steve Shaw: "I have no agenda! I'm open to everything!"

Well i posted the video again, not that you'd look at it, but to demonstrate once,and for all to see, that you are so full of shit..you don't stand behind what you say, and you are in fact just a troll-like blowhard!
This time YOU got to prove it..i just merely gave you the opportunity...and you fell in it!

As for what I personally think about homosexuals...what's it to you?? your opinion, as your words, mean absolutely nothing!...remember, "Steve Shaw: "I have no agenda! I'm open to everything!"

What a crock!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:35 AM

Hang on Goofus. .

Am I reading you correctly? You say your precious ruddy video that you put forward as a panacea to answering this sticky issue.. needs watching prior to being able to dismiss it?

Two things here. If it supports previously discredited bullshit then no, it doesn't need watching to dismiss.   Your own earlier commentary is adequate.

Secondly, to observe is to affect. (Ok at the Heisenberg quantum level but hey, the word science is in the title) and surely you don't really want people to watch it? It would affect what credibility you even afford yourself, surely?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:46 AM

Yes, Lighter, I did tussle with that one before posting it. But it was late and I was feeling tense (geddit?).

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:47 AM

troll-like

Ah good. I'm making progress. I'm not a troll after all. I'm only like one.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 09:41 AM

I've been following this thread since its inception and have followed the various strands with some amusement. For the record, as an unimportant onlooker, I feel that Snail has defeated Steve Shaw hands down. It's interesting to note that Steve Shaw has finally got his potty mouth under control, presumably in an attempt to give himself some credibility. Good move but doesn't change the outcome - he still comes across as evasive and a bit slippery.

I do not understand why anyone is responding to pfss and GfS. The former is clearly determined not to think, with a mind more closed than a closed thing and the latter appears to be completely irrational. It seems to me that both are trolls and should be ignored - neither has anything to contribute. There again, I suppose you could say that neither have I.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:37 PM

You are the troll, oh "Guest". You choose to post under the kind of anonymity that brings this website into occasional disrepute, and, while you're at it, you choose to bad-mouth people who, unlike you, put a fair bit of time and effort into their posts, whether you agree with them or not. I suggest that you either identify yourself forthwith or crawl back into the foetid swamp where you belong.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 10:51 PM

YEAH!!..Steve is right on this one....(mark your calenders, declare an international day of 'wonderment'!)!!!
Besides, he likes posting silly posts and getting slapped for it...it gives him something to break his boredom!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 08:12 AM

looks like a measure of agreement on this one!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 06:49 PM

I would appreciate it if you two eejits would not throw your weight behind anything I say. I don't bother to protect my reputation but I will make an exception for you two mental cripples who misrepresent yourselves so well on this board. Even the faintest association with either of you in the matter of your ludicrous opinions tends to do my brain in. Instead, I should like to invite "Guest" to come back and enlarge on his statements, though, as I have this irrational suspicion that he may actually be Snail's uncle, I won't be holding my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 01:01 AM

Stevie: "I don't bother to protect my reputation but ...."

Don't bother..we've already got you clocked......oh, and speaking of clocks and your last post.....even a broken clock is right..twice a day!

(I was going to have fun shredding the last post...and it would have been fun....but never mind, I think anyone could fill in the blanks).

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 03:09 AM

It is very nearly impossible... to become an educated person in a country so distrustful of the independent mind.
James A. Baldwin


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 04:01 AM

Yeah Goofus. We have special hospitals set up for those who have an independent mind.....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 06:37 AM

steve can be quite amusing when not vulgar especially when confessing to another "irrational suspicion".
musket-as we say in the UK -shooting his mouth off!
i seem to remember the communist regimes had a habit of putting dissenters in institutions too.
merry christmas   pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 06:46 AM

Extreme right-wing religious nut-jobs with misguided evangelical ideas (ring any bells, pete?) have also managed to torture and slaughter millions, so you can drop that stupid clap-trap here and now.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 06:53 AM

""oh, and speaking of clocks and your last post.....even a broken clock is right..twice a day!""

What a wonderfully original and amusing comment Goofie.

Pity you expressed it so much less elegantly than I did when applying it to you just a few days ago.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,BrendanB lost cookie
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 08:36 AM

First of all, an apology for not identifying myself in my last post of 16 December, I forgot that I have been rendered cookieless by the powers that ordain these things on this forum. Yes Steve Shaw, I am that evil troll.
I was however interested in SS's reply. Apart from the invective which is inseperable from any posting bearing his name his disapproval appeared to be focused mainly on the fact that my posting was anonymous, which led me to wonder whether using a moniker such as 'Guest from Sanity' or 'pete from seven stars link' isn't just as anonymous. Neither label gives any clue as to the identity of the poster. Even using one's own name,( as I do when I remember! ) gives little indication of who I am. This is underlined when a poster is challenged to present his/her credentials to support claims they have made and refuses to do so, as one frequent contributor to this thread has done.
Regarding my previous post I stand by every word. I do not know Snail (who has identified himself very clearly) from Adam, but I am persuaded by his arguments and by the way he presents them. I find Steve Shaw's strident ad hominem approach to debate repellent and unconvincing.
I suspect that Snail will pay little attention to this posting while SS will work on a scathing, rebarbative response designed to underline his intellectual, moral and personal superiority, I look forward to it gleefully. (Poking the tiger with a stick? Who? Me?)
My remarks regarding GfS and pfss are surely a reflection of views voiced by several posters, not least Steve Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:52 AM

Dissenters. That's a nice word for describing those with enduring mental health issues, personality disorder, acute depression and schizophrenia.

I bet most can't wait for the hospital chaplain to come and tell them that they must have angered Jesus in order to have such an illness.

Communists (?) put people away in the pretext of mental illness because it is a convenient description for a predetermined decision. We protect them and others from themselves, whilst attempting curative or palliative care. A bit of a difference or...

An excellent example of science versus alternatives. Or the theological versus the scientific approach. Not surprised our evangelical weirdo in residence call people with mental illness dissenters...

zzzzz


Mind you, he seems to have acknowledged my presence for once. So, as I go away to nurse my semi ........

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:56 AM

As with the offending guest post (where have you been all this time?) you make no substantive contribution. You simply tell us whose side you're on. Your conclusion is hardly surprising, as Snail is a suspect closet man of God and you are a definite God-squadder and I am a stinkin' atheist with whom you have traded vitriol before. Now, about these arguments of Snail's that so convince you. Well you've now apprised us of that twice, but have yet to expand and tell us which bits have particularly impressed you. I rub my sweaty hands with glee at the very prospect of your telling us, in so doing your entering the debate properly instead of sitting at the ringside shouting in like a groupie. Or shouldn't I be holding my breath?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 06:37 PM

I think we have to face the fact that Steve has passed beyond the reach of rational debate. A pity because I had been doing more research.

A couple of things I don't want to let go to waste -
"The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 metres per second." isn't an experimental measurement. It is true because the metre is defined as the distance travelled by light in 1/299,792,458 of a second.

I stumbled on this gem -
Did you know that thanks to a common little snail you can find in your garden, in the park or under a hedge, you can see evolution in your own back yard? (http://www.evolutionmegalab.org/)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 07:35 PM

Dammit! My Grand Exit ruined by a wandering cookie.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 08:05 PM

Gosh, if that really was your grand exit I shall rejoice at the thought that the world's balance has tipped just a fraction more towards rationality. As for the speed of light in a vacuum, well there is truth there somewhere, but let's remember that seconds and metres are our own constructs and that the obstinate fact remains that the speed of light in a pure vacuum has never been observed and can be assumed by extrapolation only. Perfectly reasonably in my view, so much so that I'm prepared to accept the arrived-at value as truth. I like truth. Truth is there for us to find, but only via science, never by religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 08:26 PM

One also ought to point out that seeing banded snails with different shell patterns in your garden is no more an example of evolution in action than is the much-vaunted but equally misquoted example of the poor old peppered moth. As with the moth, the varieties are all there to begin with. Selection may well favour some varieties over others at a given time, but a change in the environment can reverse any changes in the balance of numbers of each variety. A little more is required before one can say that evolution is taking place. Over to you, Snail.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 10:57 PM

DonT: "Pity you expressed it so much less elegantly than I did when applying it to you just a few days ago."

I missed your prior post, other wise I would have said something like, "We can forgive those who bore us...we can never forgive those who we bore!"

Listening?...even though you've been also known to be right, twice a day, as well!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 02:07 AM

ooops...they were 'wrong' for 2 million years??...or did they just figure wrong?

Just goes to show ya'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 06:20 AM

"They were 'wrong' for two million years", eh? Who was wrong? Homo erectus? Homo habilis? Why, I never knew that either had declared that whale to be extinct! What ancient scrolls did you find containing this information?

You come on here with your alleged knowledge of mathematics, claim to be a practitioner in a medical discipline and you pontificate to scientists, yet you can cheerfully type that twaddle and even turn it into a link. Dear boy, the whale had been assumed to have become extinct two million years ago. We were not wrong about it for two million years. We've probably only known about it for a couple of hundred or less. So, we will not be eating humble pie over it at all. Instead, we celebrate the discovery as an increase in our knowledge. You really don't get this science lark, do you? You certainly don't get the need to express yourself with any degree of accuracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 07:03 AM

Just saw a U.S. Congressman (Republican) on TV asserting forcefully that "everything I was taught in high school and college about evolution and embryology is a lie straight from the pit of hell."

Note the inclusion of embryology.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 07:06 AM

Actually, Snailie, your link to the Evolution Megalab is quite good. I took it from your "gem" remark that you saw something wrong with it. Not at all. I like it. Admittedly, it takes a bit more than counting snails to see evolution in action. But you do see the potential for the non-random survival of heritable traits. There's truth in there. Can't be bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 07:14 AM

Lighter, you should also have mentioned that Mr Broun included the Big Bang in his rant, that he believes the world was created in six days, that he is a doctor (how did that happpen!) and that he is a member of the House Science Committee, of which Todd Akin is also a member. The Todd Atkin who said last month that women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape" because their bodies have "ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 11:01 AM

""Listening?...even though you've been also known to be right, twice a day, as well!""

Thank you for that admission Goofie, but if you had been paying attention, my comment was "I have a broken watch at home that is right more often than you!"

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 11:31 AM

hey steve you almost sounded like you were singing from the creationist hymnbook in acknowledging that the natural selection involved in snail shell variation is no evidence of evolution.creationists have talked about this before darwins origins .perhaps you would like to explain how natural selection became macro evolution-except of course you wont!

lighter-may be he meant embrionic recapitulation-another evolutionary story

hello brendan-i thought i recognized your style

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 02:04 PM

hey steve you almost sounded like you were singing from the creationist hymnbook in acknowledging that the natural selection involved in snail shell variation is no evidence of evolution

I acknowledged no such thing. To add to all your other severe shortcomings you now display misunderstanding of plain English. The variety of shell colours seen in snails in your garden is evidence that natural selection has taken place and is evidence that the material for more natural selection is present. However, the variety of shell colours also represents natural variation in a sexually reproducing species of snail. A bit like in people. Some are tall, like me, and some are stupid, like you. You don't go into a pub and see tall and stupid people all mixed up and shout "Hooray! Look! Evolution in action!" You might, however, observe that the variation you see is evidence that evolution has occurred and that the potential for further evolution is present. Evolution doesn't just mean the numbers of each variant swinging to and fro. Other stuff has to happen, such as some variants being lost altogether or new variants thrown up by mutation getting into the mix. And so on. Dynamic stuff, evolution, Exciting too. And, best of all, it definitely happens. It's true. And, unlike your "truth", there's a ton of evidence for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 03:23 PM

Don T: "...but if you had been paying attention, my comment was "I have a broken watch at home that is right more often than you!"...

For what it's worth...the 'broken clock being right twice a day', I've used for years..and have posted it on here for a while...however, I like the 'watch' one pretty well, as well.

..now go out and buy a new watch!...on the way, stop by and see the shrink, and explain to him that all your watches keep stopping and not telling the right time.....maybe they're soaking up the energy..and you wanna make sure.....


Stevie, your blathering and not saying much, except venting how you 'FEEL'........yeah, I'd be bored, too!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 03:45 PM

Stevie, your blathering and not saying much, except venting how you 'FEEL'........yeah, I'd be bored, too!

But what I am saying is that you screwed up big time over that whale and the two million years. Would you care to address that, preferably by acknowledging your stupid blunder?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 05:02 PM

The 'blunder, Stevie, was not my 'blunder'..it was the scientists who believe the whale had been extinct for 2 million years...and they were 'scientists'....dealing in some of the same bad information that you've been spouting about!...but, of course, it was just a minor inconsistency.
Look, I haven't promoted 'creation' over 'evolution' as you have assumed...so you don't have to lump me together with those you resent and can't convince.....If people think that the earth was 'created' in 7 days(depending on how long those same people figure that the length of those 'days' were), I don't find that a threat to reality nor my identity in it....to make things worse, I tend to agree with Janis Joplin on this one, though not scientifically 'established...."It's all one big day!"

..and so it is...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 06:31 PM

The 'blunder, Stevie, was not my 'blunder'..it was the scientists who believe the whale had been extinct for 2 million years...and they were 'scientists'....dealing in some of the same bad information that you've been spouting about!...but, of course, it was just a minor inconsistency.

Oh yes it was your blunder. You said that we'd been wrong "for two million years" about the bloody whale, remember? And 'twas you who made the thing into a clicky, not the scientists, and you were wishing to cash in on the pete-notion that all scientists are a bunch of know-nothing pisspots. You'll be telling us next that you got your PhD in the Department Of Worldly Wisdom at the University Of Common Sense (I knew an alcoholic once who claimed that). Stop wriggling for once. As for "minor inconsistency", well you're the bloke who's supposed to be endowed with mathematical accuracy, precise English (screenplays - yeah?) and the delicacy of speech required of a man who is dealing with vulnerable patients with mental issues. You're sussed, mate. You're a charlatan and a bloody liar to boot.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 09:48 PM

Oh, quit riding in on Don's bandwagon...I'm neither a 'charlatan' or 'liar'...that's just your convenient 'out' because most everything else you've tried backfired.
Take a red.

GfS

P.S. The 'whale story' was on Yahoo news when my internet came on..I just thought it was appropriate, because once again, 'science' was wrong....but unlike you, they admitted it.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 04:57 AM

It could be said that my academic research years ago made me, by some definitions, a scientist.

At the time, just as now, I assert that Sheffield Wednesday are the greatest football team ever and I refuse to be swayed by any argument to the contrary, even if you have the nerve to bring facts into the discussion.

My point being that some, especially Goofus and starry pete, assert that if a single "scientist" is less than perfect in what they say the whole of science seems to be in question...

I love Goofus's last post. Science was wrong and they admitted it? How come I was never invited to the building where "science" makes its pronouncements? I can't have been much of a "scientist" eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 05:36 AM

""The 'whale story' was on Yahoo news when my internet came on..I just thought it was appropriate, because once again, 'science' was wrong....but unlike you, they admitted it.""

That's what we've been trying to get into your near impervious head mate.

When new evidence comes up and necessitates a change, scientists accept, adapt and adopt.

Unlike you aerie faerie types who fall for some pie in the sky nonsense and will fight to the death without benefit of either evidence or sense.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 06:04 AM

I assert that Sheffield Wednesday are the greatest football team ever and I refuse to be swayed by any argument to the contrary

Until you can bring yourself to insert Liverpool FC into that sentence in place of Sh*ffi*ld W*dn*sd*y, I'm going to have to continue to struggle to resist bracketing you in some weird and inchoate way with pete 'n' Goofus. Now if that isn't reason enough to ditch, once and for all, your thoroughly misguided allegiance... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 07:30 AM

"Admittedly, it takes a bit more than counting snails to see evolution in action"

You're not counting just snails, you're counting their polymorphs which are caused by mutation in the alleles that control colour variation in the snail's shells, each combination of bands and colours being known as polymorph. As these snails have a high reproductive rate by repeatedly observing them we can see how the polymorphs vary within populations over time. We know that the various polymorphs of Capaea sp. are more prevalent in certain areas, and part of this variation is due to the local climate and so as the climate alters we see the polymorphs change too.

This change is due to evolution; we are seeing natural selection as it happens so in fact, you're wrong. Counting Capaea sp. is an easy, testable and perfect way to see evolution in action.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 02:56 PM

If the price of the truth as revealed in 1867 and spread by the prophets Don Megson, Jim McCalliog, Tommy Craig, Trevor Francis, Chris Waddle, Mel Sterland and David Hirst, under the ministry of Len Ashurst, Derek Dooley, Jack Charlton, Ron Atkinson, Trevor Francis and far too bloody many others...

Is to be lumped with Goofus and Mr Tambourine Man then so be it.

Science and football statistics have no place in my real world don't you know?

Hey Goofus! Fancy a pint?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 04:43 PM

Don(Wyziwyg)T"When new evidence comes up and necessitates a change, scientists accept, adapt and adopt."


You forgot: ..."When new evidence comes up and necessitates a change, scientists accept, adapt and adopt....and when it's findings point in the direction of energies and powers, unseen, that have influence over the world we see, it can't in anyway be interpreted as real...and those who realize it must be wrong, no matter the cost of science."

"Don(Wyziwyg)T: "That's what we've been trying to get into your near impervious head mate."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 04:55 PM

Jack, evolution is a process and you do not see it "in action" in a snapshot. I remind you that I did say that observing the shell colour variants in Cepaea provides evidence that natural selection has occurred and provides evidence that there is the potential for further non-random survival of heritable traits. I also referred to the potential for variants to become extinct and for new variants to arise. Counting snails in your garden is a snapshot, useful and essential, but still a snapshot. You have to work a bit harder than that over a longer period of time to see evolution in action, as it were. Genetic variation and evolution are not the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 01:36 AM

Don(Wyziwyg)T: "When new evidence comes up and necessitates a change, scientists accept, adapt and adopt."

One more thing....while the topic is come to this 'revelation'...One thing that I liked about that video, is that scientists DID make a new scientific discovery....and as the scientist DID say.."This is where science and the spiritual come together in a most profound way.."
I guess if you don't think that is what the scientist found, because of your particular bone-hardheadedness, I guess you just don't believe science...and use the outdated science to stand on!

Now is that fucking stupid, or what?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 06:16 AM

Hey, Guffo. How many times do we have to tell you. No-one believes science. Science isn't a thing you can believe or not believe. Keep calm and carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 06:40 AM

""You forgot: ..."When new evidence comes up and necessitates a change, scientists accept, adapt and adopt....and when it's findings point in the direction of energies and powers, unseen, that have influence over the world we see, it can't in anyway be interpreted as real...and those who realize it must be wrong, no matter the cost of science.""

And for those of us whose first language is English.................?

Don T.

P.S. Gibberish!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 06:48 AM

""I guess if you don't think that is what the scientist found, because of your particular bone-hardheadedness, I guess you just don't believe science...and use the outdated science to stand on!""

You've misunderstood mate!

I have no argument with what he thinks he found, none at all. He is entitled to his own hallucinations.

What I object to is his being described as a scientist. Whatever his scientific qualifications might be, he did nothing whatever in a scientific way.

He drew solid conclusions from absolutely NO scientifically derived or testable evidence, and claimed as a result a breakthrough which fails on so many levels that it would be dimissed by the majority of imbeciles, let alone rational thinking human beings.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 01:18 PM

Don(Wyziwyg)T: "


(Responding to my post: ""I guess if you don't think that is what the scientist found, because of your particular bone-hardheadedness, I guess you just don't believe science...and use the outdated science to stand on!""

You've misunderstood mate!
I have no argument with what he thinks he found, none at all. He is entitled to his own hallucinations."

...and of course it conflicts with YOUR studies(?)????

You haven't studied it, or you wouldn't have said such an obnoxiously stupid thing!
..Oh, and neither has Stevie...
...Regardless of what I thought beforehand, I found the physics talked about, and the scientific studies and experiments spoken of in the video, was rather enlightening...even opened up a new field of science...but you(plural) are not interested in stuff like that...in the discourse of science..you just want to spout your biases, based on unproven theory and not leave your(plural) comfort zone of ignorance(as in the the word 'ignore')...and make no mistake, to IGNORE is IGNORance!...ESPECIALLY in science!!!
The 'physics' of and in the 'unseen' isn't worth studying???....or even looking into??????

..and then they want to lecture us about science!....just call it what it is....idiotic!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 01:51 PM

Steve Shaw: "Hey, Guffo. How many times do we have to tell you. No-one believes science. Science isn't a thing you can believe or not believe."

So, if YOU don't believe science, what are you basing your believes in?...unproven theories?????
You seemed to have based your 'rap' on science...that you don't believe in.......
Now you've taken BOTH sides of your own 'argument'...make up your mind..you must be dizzy by now!

I hope others are paying attention....they might just open up their closed-off minds....

..there really is more to 'reality' than meets the eye...OR..there is more to reality, THAN WE ARE AWARE OF!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 01:56 PM

Typo in an earlier post.....

Steve Shaw: "Hey, Guffo. How many times do we have to tell you. No-one believes science. Science isn't a thing you can believe or not believe."

So, if YOU don't believe science, what are you basing your beliefs in?...unproven theories?????
You seemed to have based your 'rap' on science...that you don't believe in.......
Now you've taken BOTH sides of your own 'argument'...make up your mind..you must be dizzy by now!

I hope others are paying attention....they might just open up their closed-off minds....

..there really is more to 'reality' than meets the eye...OR..there is more to reality, THAN WE ARE AWARE OF!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 02:18 PM

i believe the chair i am sitting on holds my weight.
it has been experimentally proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a valid belief.
darwinists believe in the GTE FOR WHICH THERE IS NOT experimental evidence that can not be otherwise accounted for.i remind you again of evolutionists who have admitted the failure of the theory as an adequate explanation.maybe time to start quoting again.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 04:03 PM

""When will you half brained twerps open your minds and understand what is being explained to you.

Steve is correct!

Science is nothing more than a process by which you can gather and examine evidence, conduct experiments and finally draw conclusions which, if you have used the process correctly, may tell you whether or not you can believe the theory upon which you have been working.

So, Pete, science will enable you show that you can safely sit on that chair without it collapsing, but it isn't science you believe. It is the results you obtain by its use.

As for you Goofus, there is no point in trying to educate you. You wantonly and deliberately refuse to open your mind to what science is, let alone to the fact that your man in the video isn't conducting any scientific process and hasn't even a viable hypothesis, let alone a breakthrough.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 08:30 PM

i believe the chair i am sitting on holds my weight.
it has been experimentally proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a valid belief.
darwinists believe in the GTE FOR WHICH THERE IS NOT experimental evidence that can not be otherwise accounted for.i remind you again of evolutionists who have admitted the failure of the theory as an adequate explanation.maybe time to start quoting again.

The chair doesn't hold your weight. Your weight is a function of the Earth's gravity acting on your mass. The chair "supports" you because it is strong enough to do so. It can provide sufficient upward force to more than balance the downward force of gravity. No more, no less. I don't expect a muppet such as yourself to understand that, but hey ho.

There are no evolutionary biologists who have admitted the failure of the theory, for the simple reason that the theory does not fail. Incidentally, scientific truth does not necessarily rely on experimentation. Much has been learned just by observation alone. Neither does experimentation ever prove or disprove anything. You don't understand the science process but you continue, in your arrant pig-ignorance, to comment on it as though you do. I've met many Christians in my time who embrace and acknowledge science, who lack your unhealthy and dispeptic attitude to it. In my mind, that makes you a rotten and corrupt, piss-poor example of Christianity. In fact, you bring Christianity into total disrepute. Time you examined your conscience, though I wouldn't like to go there if I were in your shoes.

Start respecting hard-working scientists and the scientific process, quit the trolling, and I'll lay off you. But not before. Your attitude to science stinks, and if your God actually existed he'd be thoroughly pissed off with you for not using that brain he took all that trouble to endow you with.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 02:43 AM

Stevie: "There are no evolutionary biologists who have admitted the failure of the theory, for the simple reason that the theory does not fail. Incidentally, scientific truth does not necessarily rely on experimentation."

Would it be beyond your imagination to think that scientists would ever want to 'test' those same theories, before they would rule it as fact?
So, I don't think anyone else should, either....that sounds like how those, (Stevie): ... many Christians in my time who embrace and acknowledge science, who lack your unhealthy and dispeptic attitude to it".....except you do the same, when science has, in fact, stumbled upon evidence that shows that there IS another 'realm' (if you will), that is running right along, that is unseen, that has direct effects, into the 'physical' world, which traditional science and physics can and do measure...and that revelation, has opened up a whole 'new' level and area in science.
Now, I don't think you'd dispute that, would you?
At one point, or another, these two 'realms (if you will), are going to 'intersect'...and when they do, they don't cancel each other out... but that 'intersection' is the door, to higher understanding, of things in the land of 'cause and effect'..OR...manifestations of one realm into the other...........and THAT is worth 'studying'..wouldn't you say? Perhaps, with the understanding how that works, would open a huge door into mankind 'evolving' higher, than the condition that it is now in......Fair enough?

If a 'Light' shines onto a reflective surface, and the surface begins to think that what IT IS reflecting IS actually itself, and not the 'light', then God only knows what else it(we) will invent...maybe even religion and politics!! ....and NEITHER are really serving mankind, at present, (nor in the past)..are they? When I think about it, both of those have been used for one group of people controlling another,(usually larger), group of people...wouldn't you say?
...and I'm NOT talking about 'religion or politics', as being inspired by, or involved at all, and being in sympathetic resonance and harmony, with the source of the 'Light' from where it all came from...do you?..How can they be??..they (you, plural)think of themselves as separate, and they MUST convince their 'followers' that it is THEY from which all 'goodies' flow, to control and exploit their 'subjects'...not from the 'Light', which actually is the source of their existence!......
My!...what we would have access to if our eyes weren't deliberately closed, either for us, or by us.

Now for those who claim 'gibberish', as subterfuge..to they 'can't/don't understand all the above, read it again..maybe even verbally...I assure you it makes complete sense, IS the reality in which we live, move and have our being in.....or maybe Amos will explain it for you..........
I don't have a need to 'convince' or 'convert' anyone.....just get ya' thinkin'...........(Pssst.....it will also help your music!)!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 07:52 PM

Well, I must say you're a bloody comedian. I've not read such tosh in a long time. Be assured that nothing you can say will help my music. That can look after itself quite nicely without some egotistical lunatic's assistance, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 11:13 PM

Steve Shaw: "... Be assured that nothing you can say will help my music".

That is more than likely true....so in that case, make sure when you blow, you do it in a protected cage, that stops flying objects from hitting you!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 11:15 PM

.....besides, what else are you going to say??..you've run out of steam quite a while back...now it's just back to the feeble attempts at discrediting, name calling, and pouting.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 12:28 PM

"we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its construsts,in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagent promises to health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,because we have a prior commitment ,a commitment to materialism.
it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenominal world,but,on the contrary,that we are forced by our a-priori adherance to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations,no matter how counter-intuitive,no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated,moreover that materialism is an absolute,for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door"
biologist richard lewontin
billions and billions of demons
new york review 9/1/97

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 12:33 PM

You put quotes round all that. That implies you are quoting verbatim, which you are clearly not as it's impossible to believe that the author could write with such terrible spelling and grammar. You have no credibility whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 01:36 PM

Steve Shaw: "You put quotes round all that. That implies you are quoting verbatim, which you are clearly not as it's impossible to believe that the author could write with such terrible spelling and grammar. You have no credibility whatsoever."

I agree that the quotation marks would have been helpful...but then you come off with your last sentence, which has nothing to do with anything..other than YOU think he has 'no credibility'....as compared to what?...YOURS???????!!!??

So your interjection was just another 'throw away item'.

Steve, a suggestion.....Try sticking to offering evidence to your position...or at least clarify the reason you have a phobia, against any notion that nothing else can possibly exist outside your limited understanding....at least talk about the topic.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 02:39 PM

Billions and Billions of Demons RICHARD LEWONTIN

Half way down page 7.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 02:52 PM

""Try sticking to offering evidence to your position...or at least clarify the reason you have a phobia, against any notion that nothing else can possibly exist outside your limited understanding....at least talk about the topic.""

Says the brain dead certifiable fruit loop who claimed, without evidence, on the Gay marriage thread, that HIV/AIDS was developed in US government labs and injected into Gays along with vaccination shots.

Just so everybody knows how credible his pronouncements are likely to be.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 05:45 PM

We take the side of science despite

Not much point in reading any further.

If science has a side there is something out there called science that is different to the word science as humans know it.

Hey Mr tambourine man! Brainwashed any kids lately? Any idea what your perverse adherence to discredited superstition is doing to vulnerable people?

After all, Goofus is the cleverest person he knows and he seems to defend such bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 06:16 PM

Musket sans cookie: "We take the side of science despite..."

The how come you can't prove your positions scientifically, and resort to unproven theories to cling to???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 08:44 PM

Half way down page 7.

Well, I'm a massive admirer of Carl Sagan, but I think this bloke would have embarrassed him. I think he's writing unfocussed bollocks. But my family are all here, it's Christmas and I can't be arsed to address this nonsense in detail now. You never know, I might get back. You do have a habit of posting links without adding your personal perspective. That could mean you're lazy or that you find yourself incapable of making your own argument. Whatever, it's not a good way of proceeding if you wish to engage other people in your conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 09:23 PM

"...because we have a prior commitment ,a commitment to materialism."

Pete... that is simply incorrect for almost ALL true scientists. It is a claim which should better be applied to those who "believe" in a religious story!

Those who practice genuine 'science' do so out of a desire to KNOW how the universe works, no matter where continuing study leads. They are continuously updating and rewriting the details.

Contrast this with the viewpoint of: "I don't know exactly how it works, but the Bible says 'God did it', and that's good enough for me!"
People who have a fundamentalist "prior commitment" to the Bible as final authority get trapped into a hobby of nit-picking of scientific data and analysis and using science's own never-ending process against it! This INCLUDES taking words out of context and asserting that because 'some' supposed scientists (usually those who belong to a fundamentalist church) express doubts, that it somehow casts doubt on what 99% of other scientists think!
Cripes, Pete! You could find a few musicians who think *I* am a good musician! Or that Martin Carthy is a bad one!

Remember, Pete... YOU stated way back there that YOU began as more or less an atheist, but were convinced BY fundamentalists to think otherwise. I sure wonder what they 'showed' you as proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Dec 12 - 01:48 AM

Bill D: "I sure wonder what they 'showed' you as proof."

.....or how to get to the door, which when opened, you might have seen what you may have seen...and experienced something 'new' or 'fuller'.

If you post anything about it, you might draw criticism...but not from me...I'm up for listening...curious....but don't feel compelled.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Dec 12 - 05:10 PM

.steve formerly asserts that no evolutionary scientist will admit the failure of theory,so i thought that quote was ideal.
of course,-shown to be wrong-resort to insults [as usual]

bill- you can always accuse creationists of quote mining and i,m sure you are right.there is a quite extensive seam to dig from
heres another-
"research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritavely accepted...what remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this has happened"
hubert yockey. information theorist.
journal of theoretical biology 67:377-378 1987

you mistake me if you think i lump all scientists together.i have previously said that operational science is not the same as origins research.the latter contains what i would describe as fundamentalist darwinians - as per the above quote.i dont accept that such do follow the evidence wherever it leads and the behaviour of some posters demonstates such intransigence,dont you think!?.
no "proof" was shown me but i became convinced that God did exist as i explained back then."proof" as you know is beyond us - either way!
true i am not the academic you are but many who have changed their mind are,eg antony flew ,on consideration of the complexity of dna

happy christmas to all posters    pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Dec 12 - 06:25 PM

Well... it is one thing to "be convinced" and have confidence that God exists, and quite another to accept one specific interpretation of the Christian Bible about WHEN the Earth might have been created and when & how man was created... or evolved.

If you say "I just believe God started it all.", other may disagree, but they can't prove otherwise... but the time factor is another matter. We know how to measure that.


and best holiday wishes...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Dec 12 - 07:33 PM

and GfS... I know the idea about 'open doors' and 'fuller experiences'. I have been told about many things that if I 'opened my self' to new ideas and ummmm... certain interesting concepts, it might ... well... broaden my horizons....or something like that. (The more explicit form was "one has to believe in order to know!" Over the years, my translation of that became "don't doubt or question...just accept, no matter what truth MAY be")

I have 'opened myself' all thru my life to various ways of thinking. I even began as a simple, ordinary, believing Methodist. No one twisted my arm to do anything else. I just read everything I could find on how one thinks and decides about thinking. The more I read, the more I had to come to terms with information & ideas in many areas that didn't seem to make sense if I asked penetrating questions. (My mother told me when I was about 12 that 'tornados come from the southwest. She couldn't explain why, and I couldn't imagine why wind would do that... so I waited until I saw the scientific reason it is often true.)

I hear many anecdotes about supposed experiences others have had ... both historical and personally... and it makes me curious.... but 10 or 25.. or 1000 anecdotes do not constitute any truth except that some people seem to have had 'experiences' (assuming they all are telling the truth). I can't experience THEIR experiences... I can only shrug.
I am 94.287% convinced that most others simply LIKE certain explanations as more 'interesting' or 'comforting'... and I can certainly understand the temptation!
Why not me? ummm... I just take little comfort in staking my own ideas other's maybes. There are SO many fascinating, wonderful, amazing, mind-blowing facts and replicable things to explore that I don't need vague 'maybes'.... except as a phenomenon in itself. Why DO people believe in ghosts, Tarot cards, elves... and other things?

I have been told there are ummm... unpleasant consequences.. for my reluctance. So be it.... we shall see... or not see.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 03:39 AM

Bill D, I'd say, in light of your post, rather than to stretch, to turn a position of 'faith' into a complete new 'reality'...when it comes to something you don't know...even to who or what 'God' is....just send the request 'up' to have 'it' revealed. I can't tell you, or anyone how it comes to you, or what to 'believe' about it....those things take a deeply personal 'contact point'....then, it seems, that it unfolds itself personally to you....then what you have is your personal interactions...and those things, I don't find are constrained by the concepts, that either science, politics or religion, has their finger on the pulse!!

As so far as creation versus evolution....actually, it's a 'non-issue' except for 'allegorists' and 'legalists'!...Like I quoted before, "It's all just one big day!"....and the rest is just up for 'interpretations'.

The fact remains, we can, and do 'plug into' something higher....when it happens, however it happens, and you know that's what happened...listen up and pay attention...Fair enough?

Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 10:17 AM

.steve formerly asserts

Meaningless drivel, fully to be expected from this source.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 12:48 PM

"The fact remains, we can, and do 'plug into' something higher."

Gee... you managed to get 3½ things I question into one short sentence.

1)"fact"--- The only fact I recognize is that we DO 'have experiences'.
2)"can & do"--- sounds like WE control the experience(s).
3)"something higher" that's linguistic subjectivity --what if it's just 'sideways'?..like our subconcious.
½) 'plug into'-- well, that is just an alternate term for 'experience', as far as I can see.

You see, GfS... you have this way of approaching these topics in an oblique dance (best I can do as a description). I suspect that you have specific personal 'beliefs' that you hold, but you only hint at them in your remarks, preferring to avoid direct confrontations about details and instead proffering subtle 'suggestions' about ways of approaching the possibility of metaphysical 'stuff'.

I end up being more curious about exactly what YOU are getting at than actually 'plugging into' any myself.

"...just send the request 'up' to have 'it' revealed. " *sigh*.. in a dozen paragraphs I might outline how that idea strikes me, but my earlier remark about "one has to believe in order to know!" would be featured, I'm sure.
I WILL say that 10-12 years of discussions here at Mudcat have sure given me lots of things to contemplate and practice in refining my own approaches.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 01:42 PM

i agree bill,that there is room for some interpretation in the bible but i would start with the premise that it means what it says.that is not to say that there is,nt symbolism,poetic expression and other literary devise contained therein,but the christian faith is grounded in an historical setting.it gives some dating points and contains chrono-genealogies stretching right back to adam.
if gen 1/2 be considered poetry,where does historical narrative actually begin since the "begats" list begins with adam.
liberals pick and choose what to believe in it -if anthing!
even evangelicals often bow to evolutionary theory but as even dawkins has pointed out ,this is an inconsistent position.

the claim that we know how to measure time back millenia is obviously disputed by some scientists who point out no one other than God was there and the methods are working on suppositions about the past and the dating is frequently adjusted when new discoveries neccesitate it.
i suppose it is a case of who you trust for the layman.
pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 03:54 PM

Interpreting fiction appears to be being put forward as an alternative to science.

Mmmm

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 03:55 PM

"... disputed by **some** scientists.." (my emphasis)

But not many...

"...who point out no one other than God was there.."

In so far as they assert a 'god', they are not acting AS scientists.

"...the christian faith is grounded in an historical setting.it gives some dating points and contains chrono-genealogies stretching right back to adam."

No, it is grounded in belief about SOME historical facts. We know the geography of the basic biblical area, and we know of certain individuals mentioned...Pontius Pilate for example, but the 'chrono-genealogies' are 99% just names. NO ONE can tell us who might have kept all those records of names, and how the various lines and relationships were sorted out. It is just a list.... and anyone could invent a list. Are you claiming that God handed some scribe a long list like that? On
what? Those names appear on a few rolls of parchment- all dating to the same basic era.

If you start... as you do... with an unbending acceptance in the Bible as assembled by King James appointed scholars... then you beg out of showing HOW all those records were kept.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 06:23 AM

""If you start... as you do... with an unbending acceptance in the Bible as assembled by King James appointed scholars... then you beg out of showing HOW all those records were kept.""

And what agenda those scholars may have had, and how that may have coloured their interpretation of the more nebulous sections of the original,which of course had already been subjected to many earlier interpretations.

If the King James version were an exact translation of the very first writings, it would indeed be a miracle.

Much more likely is a final publication which is the end result of a fifteen hundred year game of Chinese Whispers.

It is impossible for anybody to claim with any credibility that he knows which.

Faith is fine, but please desist from claims that it is in any way equal to, or even related to scientific progress.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 06:26 AM

DAMN! I meant "scientific process!

DT

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 03:13 PM

BillD: "I WILL say that 10-12 years of discussions here at Mudcat have sure given me lots of things to contemplate and practice in refining my own approaches."

EXCELLENT!!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 03:22 PM

excellent, huh? That line only? No response to my analysis of YOUR approach? Hmmmmm??


nawww... I s'pose not.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 04:28 PM

bill-i presume that the great scientists like newton were ,in your view, not thinking scientifically in presupposing a Creator who is able to bring all into existence, and orderly in bringing into being what became known as laws by which his creation could be investigated.
i rather,would say that those presupposing no creator are unscientific ,hoping somehow that an explanation can be found that denies the obvious ie that anything that comes into existence must have a sufficient cause.

the bible is not the result of only a "few" ms but many.the differences between them are mostly minor.jewish scribes were i understand,very careful.
many other ancient works have less and later copies but are considered reliable history - probably because they have no supernatural element.
this is known as presuppositional bias ,i think

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 06:20 PM

1000!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 07:41 PM

Well done GfS! The first post by you since you started to post gibberish that is one hundred percent aaccurate and provable.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 09:45 PM

Pete... yes, Newton presupposing a creator WAS acting unscientifically. The same can be said about Descartes, who did presuppose one in order try to construct a logical proof.

And yes.. presupposing NO creator is also an error of sorts, but of a different type. It is a logical error, since one cannot prove a negative. Any good scientist merely shrugs and says "I see no compelling evidence for a sentient creator."

"...the obvious ie that anything that comes into existence must have a sufficient cause."

Umm... at the point of the consideration of an absolute, ultimate '1st cause', that 'obvious' point gets a bit shaky. What you get is a logical "infinite regress" as the idea of causes of causes of causes gets to be a blur. Simply stating that "God WAS the first" doesn't solve it. That answer may 'satisfy' some people, but IF the rule about sufficient cause is correct, then even a god must have a cause. In a pure absence of anything, why would there BE a god?
   We simply can't reasonably make claims about it all. Even physicists and astronomers are merely guessing as they try to imagine a scientific way to approach the "beginning".

And, sure... Jewish scribes were mostly pretty careful... *smile*... at copying what they were told. Not only that, but those differences were NOT all "mostly minor". There are errors in translation that cast doubt on even what the original written accounts TRIED to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 09:51 PM

Well, blind bible-basher pete, Newton was one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, but he went to his grave still nurturing a lifelong belief in alchemy. Would you care to use that as justification for your "case" as well? Huh? Or is this just another example of your ignorant cherry-picking?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 10:08 PM

...and I'm sure with your infinite wisdom, and knowledge, you have deemed him, by judgement, to be, one of the greatest scientists ever...., as if you, with your infinite wisdom, and knowledge, were capable of that judgement....or did you read it somewhere?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:16 AM

Yeah, The News of The World editors were careful too...

The bible contains magic reported as fact.

Not a good basis with which to question reality now, is it?

A comfort blanket maybe, but as an alternative to science in the same way a priest is an alternative to a baby sitter.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:47 AM

Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived. His monograph Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published in 1687, laid the foundations for most of classical mechanics. In this work, Newton described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, which dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries. Newton showed that the motion of objects on Earth and that of celestial bodies is governed by the same set of natural laws: by demonstrating the consistency between Kepler's laws of planetary motion and his theory of gravitation he removed the last doubts about heliocentrism and advanced the scientific revolution. The Principia is generally considered to be one of the most important scientific books ever written, both due to the specific physical laws the work successfully described, and for its style, which assisted in setting standards for scientific publication down to the present time.
Newton built the first practical reflecting telescope and developed a theory of colour based on the observation that a prism decomposes white light into the many colours that form the visible spectrum. He also formulated an empirical law of cooling and studied the speed of sound. In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of differential and integral calculus. He generalised the binomial theorem to non-integer exponents, developed Newton's method for approximating the roots of a function, and contributed to the study of power series.

I don't normally see much need to respond to your posts, Goofus, as you're such a cock, but in this instance I thought I'd (admittedly idly: one's time can so easily evaporate, arguing in the presence of such intransigent and capricious eejits as your good self) just paste this opening section of the wiki entry on Newton. Now if you see anything there that diminishes the almost-undisputed (except, apparently, by "Guffo-the-Cock") reputation of Newton as one of the most important and pivotal figures in the history of science, then let's be having it, old chum.

As it appears to be your wont to contradict everything I say, let me put this to you in an effort to tempt you into continuing the practice: "Guffo is not a prize cock".

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:15 AM

Of course, bringing The Principia into the equation can be interesting to the real debate this thread was supposed to promote..

Newton's conclusions, laws and rationale worked for a long time, and if the observable universe were our only reference, still would. However, despite this work being every bit as important to human history as the bible, it has one small difference...

It is OK to refine it, dispute it, debate it or even dismiss it. (I came close in my PhD viva, my subject being mechanical vibration. The look on the face of one prof. made me back track slightly though. Perhaps there is something holy about the rudy thing after all?)

No, really. it is ok. There is nothing revered in it, nothing that Newton, despite his alleged pomposity, would have objected to. In fact, the preface by Halley invites just that.

The upshot being that once it became obvious that the quantum level put physics on a different footing and all bets were off, observable physics became known as Newtonian or classic physics.

Biblical teachings however suggest that only the observable exists, otherwise it would have reference to the building blocks of life rather than jealous gods and brimstone. As nobody who wrote the various bits had seen much further than The Roman Empire, that tends to make it at best an unreliable witness. Where is the information on quarks? Why do we have to name Higgs Boson after two c20 scientists if the bible could have come up with a name for it? After all, it is the one thing that could even begin to make Genesis any more than fantasy?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 11:18 AM

OK..you answered it...you read it.

Another parrot.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 01:57 PM

"That answer may 'satisfy' some people, but IF the rule about sufficient cause is correct, then even a god must have a cause. In a pure absence of anything, why would there BE a god?"

I think we've been here before. pete, the brainwashed fundamentalist, wriggles out of that one by telling us that such a question is "meaningless". Slimy, dishonest, pious tosh, of course; it's the massive flaw in his flimsy edifice!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 02:18 PM

One for Mr Spaceman ... sorry, GfS!

"The fact remains, we can, and do 'plug into' something higher....when it happens, however it happens, and you know that's what happened...listen up and pay attention...Fair enough?"

Right, GfS, I think it's high time that you revealed, in detail, the sorts of insights/experiences/orgasms that you've had when you've 'plugged in' to la la land!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 03:36 PM

bill-as shimrod says,we have been here before and as a former methodist [assuming you got some theology] will know that God does not live in our time/space /matter parameters but is eternal,spiritual,supernatural and to ask who created Him is an illogical question akin to asking "to whom is the batchelor married?"
everything that HAS A BEGINNING must have a sufficient cause.moreover that cause cannot be part of the creation or we would be talking of an infinite regression . the theist position does give an explanation that is at least logical.compare that to the atheist position that ultimately amounts to something arising from nothing,no matter how you dress it up.
perhaps you could elucidate as to what these "not minor" translations are that cast doubt on the accuracy of the many mss in establishing a good reading of the original autographs?.i do know that the nt at least is plentifully attested by many and early ms and that parts of th ot were essentially valdated for authenticity by qumran discoveries.pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 04:17 PM

I'd LOVE to.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 05:40 PM

"God does not live in our time/space /matter parameters but is eternal,spiritual,supernatural ..."

OK, pete, where in the Bible does it say that?

And GfS, just f***ing get on with it! Convince me with specific examples, from your own experience, of contact with the f***ing numinous.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:02 PM

If Goofus told me it was raining I'd look out the window before agreeing.

The only poster to this forum ever to achieve negative credibility.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:21 PM

Ah, pete... I "got some theology" from many sources, including a college course on comparative religion. I have attended services in High Episcopalian church, Southern Baptist "Holy Roller" congregations, and Catholic Mass. I have driven cross-country with 7 Presbyterian ministers, discussing all sorts of religious ideas. This in addition to all those courses in logic & Philosophy where we dissected most ideas about theology as well as within theology.

What I have learned is that you must be careful how you state claims about religious concepts. You assert something about "God" that internally assumes what you wish to claim.."God does not live in our time/space /matter parameters but is eternal,spiritual,supernatural..., etc... is what is in question! You don't prove it by asserting it. (and it is not in the same logical category as clever conundrums about 'married bachelors'.)

As to errors in translation in older MS (and even outright intentionally alterations) one only need search Google for biblical translation errors. There are various sites...some by serious scholars who are actually Christians who want to know exactly what the basic MS said... and whether they disagree... as they sometimes do.

One random example http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm (Do note their explanation below about why 'forgeries' meant something entirely different in the centuries just after the Christian era began)

So, Pete...there is SO much to consider when trying to evaluate the myriad of ideas about creation and God/gods, and because there are dozens, if not hundreds, of variations thru human history, MY explorations in theology have led me to just be skeptical of all of them.
I can't prove them wrong... but the rule is, if proof is needed, it is the place of those who make the claim to provide the proof.....and... since certain things cannot be proved, they are just reduced to choosing one and belief in it. Then... *sigh*.. the debate turns to whether YOUR belief conflicts with HIS belief... and how to keep both--or all 637 sides-- from fighting about it.

It's all kinda complicated, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:24 PM

But... for a few specific examples of translation errors, just make the point: from this page More detail there.

"In the original Hebrew, the 10th Commandment prohibits taking, not coveting. The biblical Jubilee year is named for an animal's horn and has nothing to do with jubilation. The pregnant woman in Isaiah 7:14 is never called a virgin. Psalm 23 opens with an image of God's might and power, not shepherding. And the romantic Song of Solomon offers a surprisingly modern message."

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 04:53 AM

Translation errors, same as borrowing other religions' fantasies, are all well and good and fascinating in their own right, especially in context of how much civilisations have risen and fell under the banner of interpretation of God.

However, no matter what was originally written, the point still remains that ascribing supernatural powers to people and claiming an invisible sentient being is orchestrating the moves of humans, on the basis of us being "in his image" is still fantasy and has no foundation other than heritage of believing it so.

Which doesn't, cannot and will not make it an alternative to seeking to know what makes a clock tick, or science as it is known.

Out of interest, I have no issue with indulging people and using a word to describe what science hasn't got to the bottom of yet, and if we call that word "God" then it has the convenience of a universally accepted word, and for those steeped in reality, it has the novel effect of shrinking and describing less with time. In the same way as proclaimed faith is shrinking at about the same rate.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 10:45 AM

Wait a minute.

If there's no God, then there's no paradisal reward for good people who think like me, and no punishment for bad people of the sort I hate.

Everybody will just be dead.

How fair is that?

(Theoretically there could be a fabulous afterlife for everybody even without a God, but that belief, as unfounded as any other, isn't very popular - not even among Buddhists.)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 11:05 AM

The worst thing, for skeptics like me, is that IF we are right about doubting an afterlife, WE don't get to say "I told you so!".

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 11:12 AM

As for married batchelors, well I'm one (BSc in Electrical Engineering if you must know), so the answer to where they live is here. Hey, you say, you changed the meaning of "batchelor" from the one in the question... no I didn't- ******* (or more likely the writer of the book ******* cribbed it from) had a particular meaning for the word in mind when the question was posed, which wasn't stated. In the case of the bookwriter, probably deliberately and dishonestly, in *******'s case through simplicity (as in sancta simplicitas).

And likewise with the transcendent God- the easy slip between the as-yet-unknown flaw in quantum symmetry that (?) caused the big bang being decribed metaphorically as "creator" and the equation of the same with Big Beardie In The Sky Who Doesn't Want You To Poke Your Whatsit Up Other Folks' Wheresits.

Which rather brings us back to the original topic of the thread, back when the world was young. There is an alternative to science- stop thinking, shut up and believe what the minister tells you.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 06:46 PM

Do mice, cod, blackbirds and aphids go on to an 'afterlife' after they die?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 07:27 PM

naaawww... they don't have 'souls', because I suppose, they can't comprehend a 'god' and appreciate how to worship....though I had a cat once who knew how to BE worshiped.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 04:22 AM

Yes, Bill, I suppose you're right. God gave us 'dominion' over the rest of nature and, no doubt, our rape and destruction of it is all part of His purpose.

By the way, GfS, you've gone very quiet (unusual for you); are you still trying to think of occasions when you've been influenced by 'unseen forces'? When can I expect some sort of response to the challenges I set you recently? Convince me, GfS!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 04:36 AM

everything that HAS A BEGINNING must have a sufficient cause

Aquinus, I believe?

There are a few hundred years of treaties to work through arguing that that ain't necessarily so...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: bobad
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 09:35 AM

Read on the web this AM:

Science: Accurately predicted hurricane Sandy, saving lives and property.

Religion: Blamed it on the gays.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 10:47 AM

Aquinus? Maybe he did formulate one use of the term... but the primary source of our basic way of defining causality was from Aristotle.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Aristotelian

I sat thru some LONG classes on the various conceptual types of causes many years ago. They were logically quite complete when discussing events within existing reality, but nothing about the system quite copes with **ultimate** causality.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 11:28 AM

You are right of course, Bill. But as you will know Aquinus' form has specific relevance to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Jack Sporcket
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 02:15 PM

But has it really got over 1000 posts without someone pointing out that his name was "Aquinas"? And nobody picked me up on "batchelor" either. Spelling is serious: otherwise, how can we distinguish between satan and Santa? God and Dog? Solomon and Sodomy?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 03:08 PM

mea culpa...mea culpa... mea MAXIMA culpa!

Going too fast and reading for content while neglecting spelling is way too easy here...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 03:09 PM

shimrod-never thought you would ask me to quote the bible!
i only wish i could take that as a query rather than a challenge.
isaiah 57 v 15 "for thus saith the high and lofty one that inhabiteth eternity,whose name is holy;i dwell in the high and holy..."
the text goes on to say that he also dwells with those of a contrite heart.sadly i dont think there is any danger of that for you at present.
john 4 v 24 "God is spirit,and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth"
isaih 55 v 9 "for as the heavens are high above the earth,so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts"

bill-your post will take longer to process....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 03:27 PM

Yes, I admit I spelled Aquinas incorrectly. For some reason I usually do. And his is one of the easier names for a philosopher!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 04:25 PM

Thank you, pete. Although I note that your quoted verses say nothing about "married batchelors", do they? And, no, there's no danger of me having a "contrite heart". If by that phrase you mean someone who meekly accepts pious 'piffle-paffle' as some sort of absolute, unassailable truth, there's absolutely no danger of that at all!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 06:55 PM

the text goes on to say that he also dwells with those of a contrite heart.sadly i dont think there is any danger of that for you at present.

How do you know? You're not supposed to judge, remember? Typical bloody fundamentalist hypocrite. Cherry-pick the bits that suit you and sod the rest. Until that suits you as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 11:37 AM

nd a happy new year to you too..!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 11:46 AM

Yes Pete, no hurry... if I assume you meant the post about Biblical errors, etc.... there WAS a lot in it- but it is a complex topic.
Just PLEASE don't rely on some argument claiming that any 'errors' were simply human misunderstandings of God's inspiration-- that would be another circular argument assuming that the original MS were divinely inspired! THAT is what is being questioned and debated.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 12:08 PM

How come the supposedly infallible Genesis offers not one but two rather inconsistent accounts of Creation?

And what of last month's question as to whether we were given the power of reason so as to trick us into thinking science is better? Still no takers?

Does God really make bets with the devil as he does concerning Job? And when Job begs to know why he's being tortured and his family's been killed, shouldn't God have just told him the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 06:47 PM

i did read both links and perhaps it will surprise you that i already knew about some of the passages that there is some doubt about authenticity.i,m surprised they did not throw in 1 john 5v7 kjv for good measure.such passages may be questionable but hardly affect the broad teaching of the bible.
last i read the wellhausen hypothesis is old hat that has lost credibility for some time.there will of course still be its supporters but i suspect more conservative scholars would give them a run for their money.
i,ve only done a very basic nt gk course and no heb.i do know however that heb words can have a range of meaning.the writer on huff may well be right on the word for jubilee but the passages concerned detail the specifics of the celebration.
some of the comments following the article also provided sometime scholarly perspective on the authors points.
some of the first articles complaints were a difference of interpretation ,some ,i suspect from trying to find ways to make it pc.
the teaching of biblical inerrancy only extends to the original autographs which though we dont have now ,we do have a lot to establish a good degree of accuracy.
i think we are drifting off topic but if you want to talk specifics lets do it one point at a time.
if i cant give an answer i will admit to it
circular reasoning to use the bible to validate the bible?
if we were talking koran or book of mormon your case would be stronger but the bible is a collection of books whose writers affirm each others writings.
that admittedly is not proof.it is presupposition - just like the atheists presuppositions of the GTE - a faith position!
wishing you a great new year at 23:45 31-12-12.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 07:48 PM

> the teaching of biblical inerrancy only extends to the original autographs which though we dont have now

Fine. But if we don't have them, we don't know what they said or which (if either) version of Creation is correct or, if error has been allowed to creep in, what really is inerrant and what isn't. (It also would be interesting to know why God would have allowed errors and contradictions to creep into Holy Writ since they confuse everything and everybody.)

Just as it would be interesting to know why God-given reason should be abandoned when it methodically and consistently reaches the stage of science which questions the existence of God. Or why God allegedly made a bet with the devil at Job's expense. Or why His answer to Job is merely to contrast, angrily, His Own infinite power with Job's abjectness and dependence.

Unlike religion, it is the nature of science to be consistent.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: John P
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 10:14 AM

There are things that are knowable and things that aren't. The cause of the beginning of the universe is one of the things that isn't. No one has any evidence about anything having to do with it, nor is it possible for them to have any.

If we're going to make guesses, I rather like the idea that there was no beginning and no cause. Everything always was (is). It makes as much sense as any other explanation and has grandeur and mystery to boot.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 11:00 AM

The question "Why should there be something rather than nothing?" is no more profound than "Why would there be nothing rather than something?"

After all, there *is* something rather than nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 12:43 PM

The cause of the beginning of the universe as can be observed cannot be known at present, and the odds are never shall be.

However, cause aside, the timing and events afterwards can be demonstrated with increasing accuracy.

The snag is, they just seem to demonstrate that those who wrote ancient scriptures weren't describing the interference in life of an imagined deity after all. If they were, they would have got things a bit more accurate. Especially the bit about us being in his image. Belly button aside, evolution and our knowledge of it settled that score to the point where creationists do religions no favours as religions get embroiled in the ridicule that causes people to laugh at young earth creationists and their absurd excuses for their ridiculous stance.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 12:48 PM

Heidegger didn't call that question more 'profound', he just said that it was 'philosophically prior'.

"...writers affirm each other's positions"... So.. you already see the problem with that...

But, you can't win an argument by accusing your opponents of using the same flawed techniques that YOU use...

It's even worse when you try to equate the arguments that 'careful' atheists make with the awkward ways some biblical 'scholars' pick & choose their supposed data.

and... by the way, I took some time to read about Wellhausen. It seems that what is now questioned is the specific details he claimed about various authors and timelines... NOT that there were many authors and rewritten & retranslated parts!

And Pete....one more thing: your shortcut abbreviations make following your discussion a bit tedious. Not everyone immediately gets what GTE and gk & ms refer to.... and even MORE so 'heb', by which I assume you mean *Hebrew*. That borders on an insult.
   Why not spell things out and use capitals and the various accurate punctuation marks>? I know you CAN use the shift key.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 08:29 PM

I know it's a mistake to disturb old bones but this programe on BBC R4 was quite interesting -
Head to Head - Scientific Progress

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 10:24 PM

will listen tomorrow

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Feb 13 - 12:09 AM

...cannot be known at present, and the odds are never shall be...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Feb 13 - 03:34 PM

""By the way, GfS, you've gone very quiet (unusual for you); are you still trying to think of occasions when you've been influenced by 'unseen forces'? When can I expect some sort of response to the challenges I set you recently? Convince me, GfS!""

Be careful what you wish for Shim.

Here he is again, taking a break from Gay bashing to revert to the great non sequitur, with nothing of any relevance to say.

Don T.