 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,SJL Date: 08 Aug 13 - 02:53 AM Steve, earlier in this thread you complained of another poster, "his views are a threat to the advance of civilization. Four in ten Americans not believing in evolution, so please don't tell me I'm overstating the case! " Ok, so you wrote it once, but you stressed it so emphatically that I thought I read it more than once. "Advance of civilization" I interpret to mean progress, social progress to be precise. You certainly gave the impression that you believe that the four in ten Americans who don't believe in evolution are threatening this advance. I don't think I took your words out of context and I think it's a valid question. Exactly how is non-belief in evolution "a threat to the advance of civilization"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Aug 13 - 02:32 AM Steve: "What's this incoherent mess supposed to be about?" Look, you don't have to play 'stupid'..........just be yourself, that will do! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Aug 13 - 06:41 PM Machines don't breed? Yes we do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Richard Bridge Date: 07 Aug 13 - 06:24 PM Twat. Machines don't breed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Aug 13 - 06:22 PM pete from seven stars link: "he will deny it but I suspect he's struggling with something, or maybe SOMEONE!" I've pointed that out to him on several occasions, something in his youth and his hangover from being Catholic. It screams out louder than his obsession about creation vs evolution. That being said, he'd be the first to deny, that if/when humans 'evolve' higher, that the first to make it through to the next evolutionary stage was false, too! Go figure. BTW, anyone come to mind? GfS What's this incoherent mess supposed to be about? Guffers, sober up (or go cold turkey) and try again tomorrow! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Aug 13 - 06:17 PM Steve, you keep saying that challenges to the Theory of Evolution are holding back progress. What progress do you mean? "Keep saying it"? I don't recall having said this at all! I love challenges to the theory of evolution as it happens. But those challenges need to be based on evidence before I'll listen. Not based on the insertion of a fellow for whom there is no evidence and who needs infinitely more explaining than the stuff he's supposed to explain. Simple! Earlier we seemed to be in agreement that Darwinism should not be misapplied to social affairs. Why not? If it's good for nature, why isn't it good for man? Methodological naturalism as social "science," why not? What's the ethical quandary there? Is there one? Whether Darwin intended it is irrelevant. Darwin was a scientist who confined the conclusions of his research to the natural world. You have no right to extrapolate beyond his expressed intentions. That's what the Nazis did, remember? Do you for a single second think that Darwin would have shackled himself to the Nazi cause? By saying "if it's good for nature, why isn't it good for man?" you are displaying, I'm sorry to say, pig ignorance of what evolution by natural selection is. Go thou and read Darwin's fabulous book. Take your time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Aug 13 - 06:04 PM pete from seven stars link: "he will deny it but I suspect he's struggling with something, or maybe SOMEONE!" I've pointed that out to him on several occasions, something in his youth and his hangover from being Catholic. It screams out louder than his obsession about creation vs evolution. That being said, he'd be the first to deny, that if/when humans 'evolve' higher, that the first to make it through to the next evolutionary stage was false, too! Go figure. BTW, anyone come to mind? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: TheSnail Date: 07 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM GUEST,Musket missing something Dozy sod. You lookin' at me?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket missing something Date: 07 Aug 13 - 05:46 PM Dozy sod. Setting a trajectory that is parabolic due to gravity takes time and distance into account. The relative position between three objects and allowance for movement through time is pure three dimensional. Complicated yes, but can be demonstrated without moving outside of The Principia. Einstein's special theory isn't in the frame. Relativity tells us time would be a variable with regard to velocity. Whilst a spaceship is fast, it would not need correction as the increase in mass (not within measurable bounds) would retard the velocity to correct the time dilation. But none of this is measurable beyond theoretical models. Other than beagles, such things don't get lost..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Aug 13 - 05:41 PM Kevin, it was the bicycle thread.thread.cfm?threadid=151274&messages=401 05 Jul 13 - 03:00 AM 01 Jul 13 - 11:05 AM 04 Jul 13 - 07:58 AM 04 Jul 13 - 08:06 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 07 Aug 13 - 05:27 PM I have been on holiday and while away all his has blown up. so this is my FIRST post here,...so thankyou steve for raising the question of creation again! has anyone else noticed how he just cant leave it alone? he will deny it but I suspect he's struggling with something, or maybe SOMEONE! Then there are his repeated charges that I diss honest,hardworking scientists, yet it never seems to occur to him that it is he that disses hardworking,honest scientists that hold opposing views to his. of course , he will claim that those views are unscientific .....but I believe that is known as begging the question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Aug 13 - 05:24 PM The term "progress" involves a metaphor. It envisages change as forward movement, getting somewhere, having a direction. It doesn't really fit too well with recognising evolution as change which does not include any notion of "progress". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,SJL Date: 07 Aug 13 - 04:42 PM Steve, you keep saying that challenges to the Theory of Evolution are holding back progress. What progress do you mean? Do you mean the social progress that imagine would occur if people gave up thoughts of God and religion and confined their thoughts of reality to the material world? It seems so. Earlier we seemed to be in agreement that Darwinism should not be misapplied to social affairs. Why not? If it's good for nature, why isn't it good for man? Methodological naturalism as social "science," why not? What's the ethical quandary there? Is there one? Whether Darwin intended it is irrelevant. Bobert, while science informs technology, they are not the same thing. Technology is DESIGN. Things that miraculous as you described just don't assemble themselves and start working. Man himself becomes the analogy. This is why machines came first. At the time, man's conception of himself according to science was mechanistic a la Descartes. After DNA, you get computers. It's not that the mechanistic aspect is not still there, it's just that it's likely to be a combination of both and much lighter on the hardware. They started out clunky and they got smaller and smaller and smaller. I'm typing on an iphone. It's a phone, a texting device, a calculator, a camera, a music player, a notebook, a datebook, an address book, a time piece, an alarm clock, a compass, an internet browser, an NSA tracking device... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Aug 13 - 03:24 PM "The laws of nature look after everything..." Very god of them. That was a typo, but perhaps I'll leave it. ......... I'm mildly curious what Keith and Don are on about, with all this Furious Posting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Aug 13 - 02:31 PM And you have access to the records of every magistrates court in the UK? They are all searchable, as is local reporting. You stated that the fine was for Furious Riding. Are you changing that? Furious Riding only applies when a pedestrian is injured. You did not mention an injury. The whole ludicrous story is made up. Your claim to personally know five people whose cars have been damaged in collisions caused by but not involving cyclists is also unconvincing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: TheSnail Date: 07 Aug 13 - 01:34 PM Bobert Oh geeze, Snail... Not once ounce of science in the Mars Rover??? Not what I said. You spoke of the journey, not the contents of the Rover and the critical word is proved. Newtonian mechanics is good enough to get to Mars; "disproved" doesn't mean "doesn't work". Sorry Dr Mather but it might not work quite so well for Mercury and if your sat nav didn't take relativity into consideration you might find yourself getting quite lost. I have no inetention of confusing it with quantum mechanics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Aug 13 - 11:21 AM ""You were caught out inventing an incident that never happened, just to help you make your case in the cycling thread."" And you have access to the records of every magistrates court in the UK? And you also know the ins and outs of the CPS, including the changes they may make to a particular charge prior to trial? Of course you don't! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Aug 13 - 11:10 AM ""Smooth bore? No. Well honed with a decent helix. Like peering up James Bond's arse."" If true, you are not a musket and I shall henceforth refer to you as "RIFLE". Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 07 Aug 13 - 10:07 AM Oh geeze, Snail... Not once ounce of science in the Mars Rover??? So much for "rocket science"... Get real, dude (or dude-ess)... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Aug 13 - 09:44 AM The idea that evolution involving natural selection is the way divine purposes are achieved is pretty well the standard teaching in mainstream Christian churches. Whether that counts as "intelligent design" is an interesting question. It simply doesn't work. You can't attach God in any way whatsoever to evolution. Evolution and design are mutually totally exclusive. The biggest intellectual copout is to say God started it all off. A couple of things. There is no need for a God. The laws of nature look after everything to do with evolution. Even right at the beginning of life (possibly even before). There isn't a single aspect of natural selection that can't be explained by the laws of nature. God, in terms of kick-starting or running evolution, is totally redundant. And the other thing is that evolution has no goals. No end-products. It is not striving for perfection or ever-increasing complexity. "The idea that evolution involving natural selection is the way divine purposes are achieved..." But evolution has no purposes, divine or otherwise. There is nothing to achieve. If you think otherwise, you simply don't understand evolution at all. This woeful attempt at accommodation with science by religion is valiant (an effort to keep its more science-minded adherents on board, that's all), but ultimately misguided. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket on his subject Date: 07 Aug 13 - 09:35 AM Newtonian science was not superseded by Einstein. The workings of The Principia can be shown to calculate the trajectory, escape velocity required and every other force calculation required for the Mars landings. You could put in the numbers straight to my copy in my study, in the original Latin, unedited. What relativity did was to remove the "absolute" state that Newton put forward to give a baseline, an anchor to what he saw but couldn't totally comprehend, later defined under relativity. It was the rationale not the laws that changed. Don't confuse it with quantum mechanics, which have no bearing on physical force calculations as the quantum world has its own set of physics, which we are beginning to map out. Quantum mechanics have no place for thermodynamics as we comprehend for the world we can observe. Newton explained relativity without realising it when he showed every body to have mass and a gravitational pull on all other mass centres. He just thought there was absolute time and position, which Einstein showed to be unnecessary. Out of interest, my PhD thesis on mechanical vibration took the Newtonian f= ma and introduced the relativity aspect of vibration of an otherwise inert body. As in vibrating relative to what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: TheSnail Date: 07 Aug 13 - 09:05 AM GUEST,SJL Hey Steve, if you want to start a thread about evolution vs. intelligent design, I'll join you. Snail can come along too. It might take him a while to get there... No thanks. SJL. Intelligent design is a massive piece of intellectual dishonesty. Even its proponents don't really believe in it. It was a cynical ploy to try and smuggle creationism into the US education system where it is illegal to teach religion in public schools. Did you read that article I linked to? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: TheSnail Date: 07 Aug 13 - 08:44 AM Bobert Enough science has been proved to allow the Mars Rover to have traveled millions of miles and landed on a rock way the heck a long way off... Actually, Bobert, the Mars Rover got there using Newton's theories which have been disproved, superseded by Einstein's relativity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: TheSnail Date: 07 Aug 13 - 08:25 AM Steve Shaw If I'm wrong I'm wrong. That was a brain fart. But, I mean, what made me think you'd pounce on it? Do try to move on. Good Grief! I give you credit for acknowledging you own mistake and you complain. There's no satisfying some people. As for falsifiability, very interesting. Not relevant to this chit-chat, but do continue. As I said, take it up with Professor Coyne but in every court case I have looked at where they have tried to keep creationism and intelligent design out of US schools, the fact that intelligent design was not subject to falsification has been a significant part of the evidence given by the scientific expert witnesses. By constantly raising heady philosophical points in front of creationist idiots you're simply encouraging them. They'll end up thinking they're on your level. So you want me to come down to their level and throw away the core of what makes science different? I much prefer to tell 'em what I really think. And I think you think the same as me really, don't you? :-) As far as I can make out, you think that the sheer weight of evidence makes Evolution and Darwin's Theory of Evolution TRUE. According to this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design, intelligent design is presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Spot the difference. If the best you can do is bang your little fist on the table and scream "Evolution is true. Evolution is true. It's true. It's true. It's true." I don't think you're going to achieve very much. No Steve, I don't think the same as you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Aug 13 - 02:12 AM Also sprach the right-wing master of denial and revisionism. That is not plain speaking Steve. Is it aimed at me and is it an accusation of lying and of being right-wing? I think it a good example of the behavior in question. Unfounded personal attack in lieu of debate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:43 PM Steve Pshaw: "I'm talking about science as a process for explaining the universe. SJL, there can be no such thread. There is no intelligent design. You can't seem to get your head round the fact that billions of years of evolution are more than long enough for evolution by natural selection to accumulate all the attributes of living things that make the world so wonderfully diverse. Open your eyes. Every aspect of evolution by natural selection can be explained by the laws of nature that we know. There is no need, no space for an "explanation" that is anything but, something that will take infinitely more explaining than the stuff he's supposedly here to explain." "SHAW'S LAW: The first time anyone in a thread asks for or claims proof or disproof of the existence of God, or who says they can prove or disprove any scientific theory, the thread will immediately dissolve into raucous belly-laughter...." Well...come to think of it some of your posts have been rather hilarious!... ...but then 'beauty', as well as 'ugly', is in the eye of the beholder! Some people see all those trees, and think they are just lost in the forest! Enjoy your hike GfS P.S. The irony of it all!...Then he wonders why people can't take him seriously! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don Firth Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:00 PM They aren't really. Except in some peoples' minds. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 06 Aug 13 - 09:41 PM Religion and science don't have to be enemies... Believe me... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Larry The Radio Guy Date: 06 Aug 13 - 09:28 PM chuch "To have God in everything you do" -- Snoop I'm gonna holla at one of these fine hunnies. chuch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Larry The Radio Guy Date: 06 Aug 13 - 09:18 PM "The idea that evolution involving natural selection is the way divine purposes are achieved is pretty well the standard teaching in mainstream Christian churches". That's the Christian chuch's attempt to find a 'respectful boundary' between some Christian beliefs and evolution. (wasn't that a clever segue back to the thread topic?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Aug 13 - 08:46 PM Actually some varieties of "intelligent design" not involving God crop up quite frequently in Science Fiction narratives. For example, 2001 - A Space Odyssey. The idea that evolution involving natural selection is the way divine purposes are achieved is pretty well the standard teaching in mainstream Christian churches. Whether that counts as "intelligent design" is an interesting question. It's not got much to do with notions of a "Young Earth" or "Creationism". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don Firth Date: 06 Aug 13 - 08:27 PM Actually, natural selection does explain it all. "Intelligent Design" is another way of saying, "God did it." And if that's true, that raises a serious question about whether or not God is really perfect (the assumption being that God IS perfect because, after all, He's God). As environmental conditions changed over the eons, there were dead ends with a number of species, species that died out because they couldn't adapt, or their adaptation to new circumstances didn't work. If "designed," then not really all that "intelligent." More in the nature of experimentation to see if some adaptation works or not. And—POOF!!—there goes "omniscience!" But be of good cheer. This does not necessarily imply that God does not exist. It could mean that God knew that evolution was the way to do it. He started the process, then let it work without having to mess with it. Let me be clear: I am not asserting here that God either does or does not exist, I am just showing that, considering the number of species that died out because they could not adapt to new environmental conditions, "Intelligent Design" isn't really all that Intelligent, and it has the further flaw of calling God's omniscience into question. Have a care, lest you shoot yourself in the foot. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 06 Aug 13 - 08:26 PM Some a lot bigger than others... I don't give a rat's ass about mine... Hey, I'd rather be on the correct side of issues, truth and reality than the wrong side... No brag, just fact... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Janie Date: 06 Aug 13 - 08:06 PM Egos. Everybody has one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Aug 13 - 07:39 PM Well, Richard, God is beyond not only science but mathematics too. His adherents have formulated him so. There may well be proofs in mathematics, but applying those proofs to the real world and to the universe is a whole nother issue. We don't usually know enough. It's a delicious problem though, much relished by honest scientists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Aug 13 - 07:33 PM Or perhaps he wanted a drink, Richard? My impression is that often are quite pleased to be scorned by people they scorn. Consider the case of readers of the Sub or Daily Mail. Criticism from the left confirms their attudes. In the same way, if the Sun declared support for something I supported I would worry that I'd perhaps got it wrong. The same applies I imagine in relation to some people posting here, for most of us. Of course we wouldn't all be thinking of the same people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 Aug 13 - 07:07 PM People seem to have overlooked that mathematical proofs are absolute. And that the experience of general revulsion may tend to encourage those with loathsome views to hide them. Why, only tonight a man dared to call himself a Thatcherite in the pub. But then he went to the bar to avoid my condemnation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Aug 13 - 06:21 PM Steve, I do not understand your comment. I tend to speak plainly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Aug 13 - 06:17 PM Well guffo, I do like think I have comedic qualities. Bobert, that is the appliance of science. I'm talking about science as a process for explaining the universe. SJL, there can be no such thread. There is no intelligent design. You can't seem to get your head round the fact that billions of years of evolution are more than long enough for evolution by natural selection to accumulate all the attributes of living things that make the world so wonderfully diverse. Open your eyes. Every aspect of evolution by natural selection can be explained by the laws of nature that we know. There is no need, no space for an "explanation" that is anything but, something that will take infinitely more explaining than the stuff he's supposedly here to explain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Aug 13 - 06:09 PM Steve, I do not understand your comment. Is it an accusation? Please be specific because I repeat, I do not lie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:44 PM Enough science has been proved to allow the Mars Rover to have traveled millions of miles and landed on a rock way the heck a long way off... Just food for thought... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:26 PM "SHAW'S LAW: The first time anyone in a thread asks for or claims proof or disproof of the existence of God, or who says they can prove or disprove any scientific theory, the thread will immediately dissolve into raucous belly-laughter...." Well...come to think of it some of your posts have been rather hilarious!... ...but then 'beauty', as well as 'ugly', is in the eye of the beholder! Some people see all those trees, and think they are just lost in the forest! Enjoy your hike. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,SJL Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:01 PM I didn't say natural selection was bunk. I said it doesn't explain all. To me, natural selection is incorporated in design. Living things adapt. i don't think anyone would dispute that. But scientific method is limited. Did you ever hear of this guy? http://erraticwisdom.com/files/exp_s1_n1.pdf Hey Steve, if you want to start a thread about evolution vs. intelligent design, I'll join you. Snail can come along too. It might take him a while to get there... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Aug 13 - 04:58 PM I have never knowingly posted anything untrue. Also sprach the right-wing master of denial and revisionism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Aug 13 - 04:48 PM Don T. Acording to you who have been known to be terminologically inexact on numerous occasions, I have never knowingly posted anything untrue. You were caught out inventing an incident that never happened, just to help you make your case in the cycling thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Aug 13 - 04:42 PM Incidentally, I think that as soon as the word "prove" comes into any discussion of science or religion we should be able to invoke a law at least as powerful as Godwin's. I've got a bit of ego in me, so I'll formulate it here and now: SHAW'S LAW: The first time anyone in a thread asks for or claims proof or disproof of the existence of God, or who says they can prove or disprove any scientific theory, the thread will immediately dissolve into raucous belly-laughter at the poster's self-inflicted descent into twatdom." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Aug 13 - 04:31 PM It's perfectly simple. I'm literate. I'm not homophobic and I don't brag about someone dying in my arms. Etcetera! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Aug 13 - 04:15 PM Larry the Radio Guy: "So here we have Guest from Shaw (or is it Steve from Sanity?)" Steve from Sanity?..You have reached a disconnected number, try again, later. GfS! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly Date: 06 Aug 13 - 03:32 PM Of course we can prove Steve Shaw and Goofus aren't the same person. 1. My dog only gets interested in those who talk bollocks in remembrance of his own. 2. Steve is my co Messiah (see atheist thread that at long last has evolved into something good. A new religion without any of that embarrassing God stuff.) I woul definitely know if I had entered into a trinity with Goofus. I choose my harmonica players and gnomes seriously. ) We can also prove that this thread just goes to show that bigotry and creationism will raise their silly little heads regardless of the given debate. Maybe a good idea not to have a pop at reactions but find the cause? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Aug 13 - 03:02 PM "And I think you think the same as me "... |
