 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Cosmos
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: Jeri Date: 23 Mar 14 - 10:14 AM BrendanB, you put it very well. I don't think it would be bad to get rid of the BS section (for now, a least) and let those who come here only to fight find some other forum to infest. Although, we might end up with a bunch of flame war threads in the music section that have to be removed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: Jack the Sailor Date: 23 Mar 14 - 03:16 PM The most powerful nerd in the Universe? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: akenaton Date: 23 Mar 14 - 04:45 PM Delicious piece from Brendan.......Mr Mcgrath will have to look to his Laurels in the irony department. :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 23 Mar 14 - 05:47 PM jack blandiver thinks that creationists are retarded. methinks he is in serious denial. there are a good number of scientists and well qualified that don't buy into the evolutionist story. don't sound very unprejudiced to me, and wasn't it a "retarded" who cracked the enigma code, if I recall correctly? even the mentally challenged are entitled to a pov, but creation believing scientists are far from mentally deficient. funny how the militant atheists here dismiss us as not worth taking seriously, and then spend time deriding us. perhaps they know that there is a danger that joe public might see the poverty of Darwinist arguments if exposed to creation reasoning. if their assertions were not philosophically driven, atheists might try presenting evidence that might support their belief instead of hurling insults......I wont hold my breath! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: Jeri Date: 23 Mar 14 - 08:44 PM He wasn't "a retarded" (the word is an adjective, BTW, not a noun), he was a mathematician, and he was likely brilliant. And gay. As an atheist, I can present evidence: I don't believe in god(s). Anybody, feel free to ask me, and I'm sure I'll say the same thing. It's an irrefutable fact. It's as idiotic to try to have a reasoned discussion about science with a Christian creationist as it would be to have one with someone who believes the any of the other creation myths. Nobody's going to convince anybody who believes in the myth they're wrong, and the believers will never get non-believers to join them in their certainty. They don't know everything, they just want other people believe they do. You can't fix "stupid", but I suppose trying offers an alternative to other obsessive and hopeless endeavors. I have no problem with people having beliefs. It's annoying to have them think those beliefs should be considered to be given the same status as knowledge. Now, THAT'S stupid. Arguing about it is nearly as stupid, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: Stilly River Sage Date: 23 Mar 14 - 09:32 PM there are a good number of scientists and well qualified that don't buy into the evolutionist story. "a good number" is meaningless, Pete. Absolutely meaningless. How meaningless? The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[19][20][21][22][23] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists . . . (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists). . . give credence to creation-science".[24] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[25] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[26][27] Those little numbers are things called citations, meaning they are the source of the information compiled in this article. Go to that page, scroll down to the subhead "Scientific support" and mouse over each number and a dialog box will appear with the source. You can click on those and go read them yourself. 700 out of 480,000. 00.14 or a small fraction of 1 percent of the scientists identified as such believe in creationism. Compared with the whole this is not, in my estimation, "a good number." Of course your mileage may vary. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: Stilly River Sage Date: 23 Mar 14 - 11:54 PM P.S. I left in the remark about the Gallup poll because it was a bit newer, but Gallup uses a very small sample and extrapolates, and we don't know what the question was that they asked their small sample. Their credibility is equally small. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 24 Mar 14 - 05:03 AM Sadly, SRS, you can be pretty certain that pete won't follow up on your references. He doesn't actually want to know about evolutionary theory - because it contradicts the Bible. He is wilfully ignorant about science and logic too. If he knew anything about the latter he would also know if all of those 480,000 scientists simultaneously slapped their foreheads and shouted: "damn, we got it all wrong" that wouldn't mean that the biblical account of creation is automatically true! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: Jack Blandiver Date: 24 Mar 14 - 05:29 AM funny how the militant atheists here dismiss us as not worth taking seriously, and then spend time deriding us. Pete, I take it very seriously because of the right-wing reactive political basis of the creationist world-view. Fundamentalism is maybe the greatest evil there is - that people believe this ineffable twaddle is one thing, that they are part of other extremes is quite another. Creationism is symptomatic of so much else - it is a reactive cultural intransigence that assumes righteousness. I can't think of anything more retarded - or dangerous - than that. Militant Atheism doesn't exist by the way, it's just the normal default position of collective humanity when viewed as a totality, which is what we are. There are thousands of creation myths (and two quite contradictory ones in Genesis!) each part of thousands of different storytelling traditions. Not a single one of these is any way TRUE, though we might pause to ponder when one chimes in with known scientific data, like ancient Hindu cosmology as touched upon in the particularly mind-scrambling episode of Carl Sagan's Cosmos I watched last night... Carl Sagan on Hindu Cosmology |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: GUEST,Ed Date: 24 Mar 14 - 06:34 AM Slight thread drift, but may I correct something regarding cracking the enigma code? I assume that both Pete and Jeri are referring to Alan Turing? Whilst he made a huge impact in improving the efficiency of such decryptions, and many other contributions to wartime code breaking, he wasn't the first to crack enigma. Mind you, he did a few other things too* No, the unsung Polish guy who cracked Enigma in 1932 was Marian Rejewski "A retarded"? You really have no idea at all, do you Pete? *Inventing Computer Science comes to mind... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: GUEST Date: 24 Mar 14 - 07:12 AM Found this on yt searching for current cosmos. Might interest some here. - Itzhak Bentov ~ From Atom To Cosmos - or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: Stu Date: 24 Mar 14 - 08:18 AM "and wasn't it a "retarded" who cracked the enigma code, if I recall correctly?" An ultra-right wing religious extremist is invoking the memory of the great Alan Turing (w man he would presumably have stoned for being gay) as an argument defending creationism? Fuck me, that's beyond satire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: Donuel Date: 24 Mar 14 - 09:37 PM Neil even made an appearance on the show after Colbert called Midnight. He's too cool to be a nerd, although I'm sure he needed lots of media training. As for the retarded and retard references, bear in mind there are people here with IQ's of 82 who don't think "you're' too smart either. The type of person whom you wished to refer to are called savants. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: Musket Date: 25 Mar 14 - 04:59 AM Hi BrendanB. You wonder why I give myself hostages to fortune? A combination of dangling worms and spreading ground bait. The only way to get them to bite. Far more interesting reading their irrational bollocks here. If you want facts, stick to the BBC news website. This is a haven for weird people to explore the harmless and harmful aspects of their weirdness. Look at me for instance, typing this when there is paint to watch drying and the real world awaiting my inclusion. The people you refer to can't be shouted down anyway. They would have to understand why they are being shouted down first. One has no manners and the other no shame. You try, buggered if I can. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: GUEST,Stringsinger Date: 25 Mar 14 - 11:56 AM What Jack Blandiver said, I second the motion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: Amos Date: 25 Mar 14 - 05:12 PM I thought the first show of the new Cosmos was just smashing. Terrific graphics and good historical material to boot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: Jack the Sailor Date: 26 Mar 14 - 02:28 PM I agree Amos |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: Rob Naylor Date: 27 Mar 14 - 12:27 AM Pete: funny how the militant atheists here dismiss us as not worth taking seriously, and then spend time deriding us. The people pushing the falsehoods, half-truths and general misunderstandings of creationism are well-funded and put out absolute shed-loads of misinformation which, if not challenged, may well "stick" amongst some people who are not very scientifically literate. Many of the points made are so unworthy of serious discussion that derision is a natural reaction. A TINY percentage of scientists disagree with the theory of evolution, and almost all who do are disagreeing in areas well outside their working expertise. Those who disagree are mainly those who've been brought up in, or converted to, fundamentalist young-earth creationism and are jumping through hoops to preserve their biblical literalism against reality. They (and you?) seem to HAVE to do this because any *objective* reasoning they did would result in them having to accept the allegorical, as opposed to literal, interpretation of parts of the bible and as their entire world-view is based on literalism, this would destroy their religious belief completely. I know there's no point arguing with you, Pete, as you always look only to creationist literature for your information. I've time and again here gone into the actual evidence against several of your assertions, whether it be "carbon dating" of diamonds or "soft tissues in dinosaurs" but all you do is say that the articles or papers I've pointed you at are "too difficult as I'm not a scientist" and fall back on your creationist websites to provide "answers" that you can quote without actually doing any real thinking. I've pointed out on several occasions where prominent creationists (eg Gish, Snelling, Woodmorappe, Hovind etc) have been caught out using arguments that they *knew* to be wrong at the time they used them (called "lying" anywhere else) and you simply won't look at the evidence for that "because they aren't here on the site to defend themselves"!!! I even pointed you at articles in Christian papers showing that the general claims made by RATE and other creationists re their tests on diamonds and zircons contradicted RATE's own conclusions in their actual analysis....ie saying one thing in their internal literature but letting the general public believe they've said something else (again, called "lying" by most reasonable people). But you ignore all this. You like to portray yourself as reasonable and tolerant, but in fact you're quite clever in the way you can be snidey and slippery in the way you use or ignore arguments. I was particularly annoyed last time I went to the Crayside session when you sang your "Mungo Man" song which is a farrago of misinformation and untruths about age determination of bones found in Australia...but I sat there and politely clapped instead of standing up at the end and explaining what a lot of bollocks it was...I really wish I had now! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: BrendanB Date: 27 Mar 14 - 05:02 PM 'This is the shittiest post on this thread by a long chalk' If I am correct, and using Steve Shaw's own posts as a guide, he deems that posts are only acceptable if they contain puerile invective, name calling and fatuous attempts to offend. As I have already said, A lot of his posts tell us a great deal more about him than just the words he uses. What a sad man. Bye, bye Stevie. I'll leave you to fester in your bitterness and frustrated need for recognition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: Jeri Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:02 PM I don't think I'm militant anything, but stupid is stupid, and when someone stands up for the right of stupid to be taken seriously, I think it's good to ignore them. As for the unpleasantness, no one comes to Mudcat BS threads thinking much of any quality of discourse is going to happen. Sometimes, you can get lucky, but not very often. People come here to fight. They troll or they "do" the trolls, and sometimes both. I think they're the sort of person who'd go to a bar to get into a fight, but at Mudcat, they don't get physically hurt or killed, their real life reputation doesn't suffer, and they can go on indefinitely in thread after thread after thread. Every troll on the internet can come here and be sure they'll find a bunch of eager troll groupies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: BrendanB Date: 27 Mar 14 - 07:03 PM Fair enough Jeri, I am duly chastened. I did not intend to act like a troll but in the eyes of some that is apparently what I am. Definitely time to leave. (Not however to go to bar to get into a fight, the very idea!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Mar 14 - 08:53 PM Just piss off then and stop posting. You're just indulging your sorry self now. Bye! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: Jack Blandiver Date: 28 Mar 14 - 03:48 PM Carl Sagan Quotes to Inspire Us All And for further inspiration... 33 Unbelievable Places To Visit Before You Die. I Can't Believe These Actually Exist On Earth... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: frogprince Date: 28 Mar 14 - 07:22 PM Cosmic Miracle ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 29 Mar 14 - 05:35 PM Amazing pics, jack. Mostly formerly unknown to me. Frogprince, Was that the best thing since sliced bread!? |
