Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-22-2008, 10:16 AM   #26
Chiteng
Supporter
 
Chiteng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,240
Originally Posted by Beal View Post
Actually it theoretically started out as energy.
Who knows. No one knows what goes on in a singularity.
No one knows what the rules are.
We could all be inside a black hole contracting at just under the speed of light.
What we think is red-shift simply means we are contracting faster than what we can see.
__________________
It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest
Chiteng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 10:22 AM   #27
Gurglespit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 1,707
Send a message via Yahoo to Gurglespit
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
That's the thing. It isn't a religious discussion. That's what's so funny about everyone here. They're afraid of looking beyond their holy goddamn book of Darwin and question what's what.

Newton's theories don't hold up anymore. Why should Darwins, and why are we afraid to look into it? Why are people being silenced for mere mentions of ID in the academic and scientific realms? Why are they being fired and denied tenure? That's what this movie explores.

And everyone here is reacting just like the closed-minded Richard Dawkins.

Good job y'all! You might as well go thump a bible. You're just as backward as the most died in the wool rattlesnake kissing speaking in tongues ultra conservative Christians you pretend to be better than!
Most of the people who believe in evolution would be more than happy to open our minds to a soundly scientific theory to the creation and further adaptation of life on Earth. However the invisible-man-in-the-sky story has no basis in anything scientific. If you found a 2000 year old book that said fairies pushed the moon around the earth and the sparkles of fairy dust that trailed off of them creates the starts we see every night.. I think you'd laugh just as hard as I do when you say your invisible man (who's reference comes from a similar 2000 year old book) or space aliens, a secret race of lizardmen or whatever other super advanced intelligent species or being you think did it... created everything that exists.

Come up with a valid scientific theory and we evolutionists will be happy to open it up to study and discussion.
__________________
___________________________________________
This space for rent!
Gurglespit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 10:34 AM   #28
Hormadrune
Sociopathic bully?
 
Hormadrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 11,895
Originally Posted by Wildane View Post
Well, that's good. Where are your company's dollars invested?
Our R&D dollars lean heavily (~75%) toward cardiovascular, oncology, neurosciences, and infectious diseases. Any good publicly-traded R&D organization will invest those dollars in areas that will maximize investor returns while also serving the mission of the company, which for pharma/biotech usually boils down to helping patients live longer, healthier lives. While the "maximizing investor returns" part sounds coldly capitalistic, that most typically translates into addressing pressing, unmet medical needs. Lifestyle products aren't the mainstay of any large R&D organization. There's far more money to be made in oncology, heart disease, or pain management, for example, than there is in ED/hairloss.
__________________
WoW-Ghostlands-US: Prae | sp | Prolonix | Horm | Ulfhednar | l
EQ: Hormadrune <Retired> <OFS> <CoI> <Affy> <CE>
Hormadrune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 10:58 AM   #29
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by Wildane View Post
There's a downside to giving a hungry man a meal?Well, I don't know about you, but I never said that was where it should end. What about shelters that also taught people a trade and had some kind of job placement program? If you didn't participate in the trade program, you couldn't stay. This way you help those that help themselves. Or, shelters that provide food, a bed and a roof in exchange for helping to clean up neighborhoods? I never suggested we just give everybody a sandwich and send them on their way.I hope that's a joke. Regardless, you need more than desire to pull yourself out of a hole. Sometimes you are able to do this yourself, others, you need help. What's wrong with making help easier to find for those seeking it?
Well I think we are a bit more in agreement then.

"Give A Man A Fish, Feed Him For A Day. Teach A Man To Fish, Feed Him For A Lifetime"

--Lao Tzu
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 11:10 AM   #30
FafnerMorell
Warrior 4 the working-day
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,629
Originally Posted by furo View Post
And how many homeless have gotten "back on their feet" after receiving a free meal and a free stay somewhere?? Have you ever seen that happen?
Well, I don't know about homeless, but there's at least one single mom on welfare who made a couple of billion dollars. That said, it's certainly not too common (and I'm sure the UK taxes the heck out of her).
__________________
Fafner Wabbitslayer, Retired Shaman of Reviction, Erollisi Marr/Morell Thule
"This story shall the good man teach his son;...
From this day to the ending of the world,"
-- William Shakespeare, Henvy V, Act 4, Scene 3

Last edited by FafnerMorell; 04-22-2008 at 12:01 PM.
FafnerMorell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 12:31 PM   #31
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Hormadrune View Post
Ah, but see I think we are talking about creationists- and that's a large part of my point. Fuck, at least creationists are honest about what they believe in, even if they are generally duller than dirt. ID is smoke and mirrors: lipstick on a pig.

This has nothing to do with genuine scientific discourse though and everything to do with your ongoing issues with science. I'm guessing Mr. Wizard didn't return your fanmail and this is all merely some sort of twisted and unrequited love of the late great Don Herbert.
Really? Nothing to do with genuine scientific discourse? Then why are molecular biologists coming up with these theories? You dismiss what you refuse to take the time to understand. +1 for YOU! You've bought the company line hook line and sinker!
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 01:04 PM   #32
Gurglespit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 1,707
Send a message via Yahoo to Gurglespit
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
Really? Nothing to do with genuine scientific discourse? Then why are molecular biologists coming up with these theories? You dismiss what you refuse to take the time to understand. +1 for YOU! You've bought the company line hook line and sinker!
Just because a molecular biologist comes up with a theory, doesn't make it scientific. What makes it scientific is the way he arrived at his theory.. if he arrived there using bio-molecular experiments with all of the standard scientific methodology, THEN it's a scientific theory.

If he offers up a theory based on pure assumption and/or beliefs.. then it is no more scientific than a theory based on pure assumptino and/or beliefs stated by a garbage man, a stripper, or the Pope.
__________________
___________________________________________
This space for rent!
Gurglespit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 01:10 PM   #33
Hormadrune
Sociopathic bully?
 
Hormadrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 11,895
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
Really? Nothing to do with genuine scientific discourse? Then why are molecular biologists coming up with these theories? You dismiss what you refuse to take the time to understand. +1 for YOU! You've bought the company line hook line and sinker!
ID versus evolution is not a scientific discussion Drysdale- by its very nature. I know that your background as a network admin makes you far more qualified than someone like me (with absolutely no educational or working background in the biological sciences) to judge the merits of these issues, so please forgive me.



Honestly, I've had this argument previously, at least once, with one of Lurikeen's personalities if I recall correctly, and it always turns out the same way. Naive ID proponent_029581 trots out a list of "scientists" that nobody has heard of, with very dubious academic or industry credentials, most of whom work either directly for the Discovery Institute or for an irrelevant bible college in Eastern Podunk, Arkansas. I maintain: ID is not science unless you redefine science to allow tooth fairy logic.
__________________
WoW-Ghostlands-US: Prae | sp | Prolonix | Horm | Ulfhednar | l
EQ: Hormadrune <Retired> <OFS> <CoI> <Affy> <CE>
Hormadrune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 01:44 PM   #34
Axgar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,028
Send a message via Yahoo to Axgar
Originally Posted by Gurglespit View Post
Most of the people who believe in evolution would be more than happy to open our minds to a soundly scientific theory to the creation and further adaptation of life on Earth. However the invisible-man-in-the-sky story has no basis in anything scientific. If you found a 2000 year old book that said fairies pushed the moon around the earth and the sparkles of fairy dust that trailed off of them creates the starts we see every night.. I think you'd laugh just as hard as I do when you say your invisible man (who's reference comes from a similar 2000 year old book) or space aliens, a secret race of lizardmen or whatever other super advanced intelligent species or being you think did it... created everything that exists.

Come up with a valid scientific theory and we evolutionists will be happy to open it up to study and discussion.

yep next thing you inow people will be able to communicat within seconds being thousands of miles away....... who knows maybe even beable to see boobies on something they call a web cam.......... naww thats a bit far fetched.
Axgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 02:07 PM   #35
Gurglespit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 1,707
Send a message via Yahoo to Gurglespit
Originally Posted by Axgar View Post
yep next thing you inow people will be able to communicat within seconds being thousands of miles away....... who knows maybe even beable to see boobies on something they call a web cam.......... naww thats a bit far fetched.
Can someone translate this from Axgarinese for me? I really have absolutely no clue what he's trying to say..
__________________
___________________________________________
This space for rent!
Gurglespit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 02:19 PM   #36
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by Hormadrune View Post
ID versus evolution is not a scientific discussion Drysdale- by its very nature. I know that your background as a network admin makes you far more qualified than someone like me (with absolutely no educational or working background in the biological sciences) to judge the merits of these issues, so please forgive me.



Honestly, I've had this argument previously, at least once, with one of Lurikeen's personalities if I recall correctly, and it always turns out the same way. Naive ID proponent_029581 trots out a list of "scientists" that nobody has heard of, with very dubious academic or industry credentials, most of whom work either directly for the Discovery Institute or for an irrelevant bible college in Eastern Podunk, Arkansas. I maintain: ID is not science unless you redefine science to allow tooth fairy logic.
I'm no proponent of the "ID" community, but I know bias when I see it.

Can you name one respectable scientist today (within the 'scientific community') or in recent times that is a fundamental believer in Christianity and creationism?

Not saying they aren't out there, but can you name one?

The 'scientific community' as a whole is about as biased as any out there. If I didn't know better you'd have to pass a pro-evolution self-identification survey to get even the slightest positive mention within any of the leading scientific journals or to receive one of their bs awards.
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 03:08 PM   #37
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Hormadrune View Post
ID versus evolution is not a scientific discussion Drysdale- by its very nature. I know that your background as a network admin makes you far more qualified than someone like me (with absolutely no educational or working background in the biological sciences) to judge the merits of these issues, so please forgive me.



Honestly, I've had this argument previously, at least once, with one of Lurikeen's personalities if I recall correctly, and it always turns out the same way. Naive ID proponent_029581 trots out a list of "scientists" that nobody has heard of, with very dubious academic or industry credentials, most of whom work either directly for the Discovery Institute or for an irrelevant bible college in Eastern Podunk, Arkansas. I maintain: ID is not science unless you redefine science to allow tooth fairy logic.

How many biologists can you name off the top of your head? I can't name one who's still alive.

Here's one he had in the movie:

Richard Sternberg - Sternberg has two PhDs; the first from 1995 in molecular evolution from Florida International University, and a second in systems science from Binghamton University. He did post-doctoral work between 1999 and 2001 at the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) at the Smithsonian Institution and in 2004 he was given a 3 year appointment as an unpaid research associate.[3] On 15 November 2006, he received a further three year appointment as an unpaid 'research collaborator' at the NMNH.

Note: He was taken to the woodshed because he apparantly didn't follow peer review process when publishing a paper on ID. Hmm... i wonder if ANY peer review process would have allowed that article to be published considering its subject matter.

Point is, He's a prominent molecular biologist who supports ID based on the science of the matter (so he says). And yes, you can find all sorts of demonization about him on the web. He might as well be a black republican running for President.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 03:09 PM   #38
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Gurglespit View Post
Come up with a valid scientific theory and we evolutionists will be happy to open it up to study and discussion.
You first.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 03:22 PM   #39
Gurglespit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 1,707
Send a message via Yahoo to Gurglespit
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
You first.
We have one.. it's called "Evolution."

Though, I imagine you probably already know at least some basics behind it.

Now here is where you say it's not scientific.. or at the very least not any more scientific than "Intelligent Design" (which is based on nothing more than pseudo-science)
__________________
___________________________________________
This space for rent!
Gurglespit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 03:53 PM   #40
Gurglespit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 1,707
Send a message via Yahoo to Gurglespit
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
How many biologists can you name off the top of your head? I can't name one who's still alive.

Here's one he had in the movie:

Richard Sternberg - Sternberg has two PhDs; the first from 1995 in molecular evolution from Florida International University, and a second in systems science from Binghamton University. He did post-doctoral work between 1999 and 2001 at the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) at the Smithsonian Institution and in 2004 he was given a 3 year appointment as an unpaid research associate.[3] On 15 November 2006, he received a further three year appointment as an unpaid 'research collaborator' at the NMNH.

Note: He was taken to the woodshed because he apparantly didn't follow peer review process when publishing a paper on ID. Hmm... i wonder if ANY peer review process would have allowed that article to be published considering its subject matter.

Point is, He's a prominent molecular biologist who supports ID based on the science of the matter (so he says). And yes, you can find all sorts of demonization about him on the web. He might as well be a black republican running for President.
Actually he was the managing editor for a ID based paper printed in the peer reviewed biology journal "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" Where author Stephen C. Meyer tried to be a proponent of ID by denouncing Evolution (which isn't a scientific way to go about proving your theory.. proving something false in no way validates your own claims.. not that he did a good job of proving anything false anyway)

So.. I guess a peer reviewed paper on that subject CAN exist.. when you follow the process correctly.. even when it is junk pseudoscience.
__________________
___________________________________________
This space for rent!
Gurglespit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 05:47 PM   #41
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Ice Weasel X View Post
While I hate to get into religious discussions, I can't figure out why it's so hard for people to believe in evolution and creation at the same time.
It isn't terribly hard. Many people don't know the history of empiricism and don't know that it all started with the Roman Catholics who adopted Aristotelian thought. It wasn't really until the 18th century that some began to seriously think that the universe didn't need a cause. That somehow the primary event causing time, matter and life just arose out of nothing for no apparent reason. Anyway, there are theists who believe that God started and sustains the process of evolution. What has happened is that there are a few "loud mouthed" fundamentalists trying to speak for all us Christians and promote a young earth theory and who reject anything that smacks of evolution. I happen to be a christian who readily admits that I don't know how old the earth is, I maintain that God created all things but that doesn't rule out evolution on some scale. At the same time I reject the ridiculous notion that evoultion somehow disproves there is a creator who started it all. It does no such thing and anyone who thinks the theory posits such stupidity is welcome to look foolish in trying to prove that it does.
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 05:47 PM   #42
Hormadrune
Sociopathic bully?
 
Hormadrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 11,895
Originally Posted by furo View Post
I'm no proponent of the "ID" community, but I know bias when I see it.

Can you name one respectable scientist today (within the 'scientific community') or in recent times that is a fundamental believer in Christianity and creationism?

Not saying they aren't out there, but can you name one?

The 'scientific community' as a whole is about as biased as any out there. If I didn't know better you'd have to pass a pro-evolution self-identification survey to get even the slightest positive mention within any of the leading scientific journals or to receive one of their bs awards.
Given that fundamentalist Christianity is completely at odds with huge swaths of the life sciences, yes, hardcore Biblical creationists will be few and far between. This is surprising? Just to clarify, I'm fairly sure mathematicians who use God in their proofs don't fare too well in their professional circles either. I doubt Andrew Wiles would be Sir Andrew Wiles if he "proved" Fermat's Last Theorem by incorporating intelligent design. It's intellectual laziness at its worst frankly.

Again, why bother even discussing the topic when it's so clear you hold science and scientists in such disdain?

Originally Posted by Drysdale
How many biologists can you name off the top of your head? I can't name one who's still alive.
Dozens- that's not internet BS, remember what I used to do for a living. Honestly, it should be more than that but I'm bad about keeping up as much as I should now that I've changed careers, albeit within the same general fields.

Here's one he had in the movie:

Richard Sternberg - Sternberg has two PhDs; the first from 1995 in molecular evolution from Florida International University, and a second in systems science from Binghamton University. He did post-doctoral work between 1999 and 2001 at the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) at the Smithsonian Institution and in 2004 he was given a 3 year appointment as an unpaid research associate.[3] On 15 November 2006, he received a further three year appointment as an unpaid 'research collaborator' at the NMNH.

Note: He was taken to the woodshed because he apparantly didn't follow peer review process when publishing a paper on ID. Hmm... i wonder if ANY peer review process would have allowed that article to be published considering its subject matter.

Point is, He's a prominent molecular biologist who supports ID based on the science of the matter (so he says). And yes, you can find all sorts of demonization about him on the web. He might as well be a black republican running for President.
He is prominent only so far as he is noteworthy for his egregious publishing tactics. His CV, btw, is a hilarious read for those in the sciences (particularly the part where he talks about his full academic scholarships for his PhD programs....I've never heard of a PhD student in the life sciences paying their own way- everyone gets full boat plus stipend).

This is really dull company you've started keeping though Drysdale. Believe me, if scientific evidence against evolutionary theory comes along, I'll be just as interested as anyone. But it simply hasn't happened.
__________________
WoW-Ghostlands-US: Prae | sp | Prolonix | Horm | Ulfhednar | l
EQ: Hormadrune <Retired> <OFS> <CoI> <Affy> <CE>
Hormadrune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 06:19 PM   #43
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Hormadrune View Post
This is really dull company you've started keeping though Drysdale. Believe me, if scientific evidence against evolutionary theory comes along, I'll be just as interested as anyone. But it simply hasn't happened.
The proponents of a geocentrist view of the universe said something quite similar I am sure.
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 08:52 PM   #44
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by Hormadrune View Post
Given that fundamentalist Christianity is completely at odds with huge swaths of the life sciences, yes, hardcore Biblical creationists will be few and far between. This is surprising?
So few and far between that it isn't worth discussing, to use your own argument. There is a clear anti-religious mentality among what seems to be the majority of scientists. And I'm guessing that you probably can't even name a notable one who was a fundamental believer in creationism..

Originally Posted by Horm
Again, why bother even discussing the topic when it's so clear you hold science and scientists in such disdain?
It's the other way around, Horm. It's the scientists who hold creationism in disdain.

And I'm not here saying that religion is always a good thing either. I'm quite certain that more folks have died in the name of their god than their scientific theory ... by far.

And it's probably always been that way since modern scientific theories such as evolution came to light.
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 09:40 PM   #45
Hormadrune
Sociopathic bully?
 
Hormadrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 11,895
Originally Posted by furo View Post
So few and far between that it isn't worth discussing, to use your own argument. There is a clear anti-religious mentality among what seems to be the majority of scientists. And I'm guessing that you probably can't even name a notable one who was a fundamental believer in creationism..
Again, you're making the naive assumption that pro-evolution=anti-religion, which is simply not true. How many scientists do you even interact with on a regular basis? I'm guessing it's a lot fewer than I do.

It's the other way around, Horm. It's the scientists who hold creationism in disdain.
I'd say most scientists have a problem with a belief system predicated on a fundamental disbelief in science. Again- this surprises you? But I'm still curious about you and your obvious disdain for science and scientists.

And I'm not here saying that religion is always a good thing either. I'm quite certain that more folks have died in the name of their god than their scientific theory ... by far.
Agreed. And the few who died in the name of their scientific theory probably did because of someone else's god.
__________________
WoW-Ghostlands-US: Prae | sp | Prolonix | Horm | Ulfhednar | l
EQ: Hormadrune <Retired> <OFS> <CoI> <Affy> <CE>
Hormadrune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 07:42 AM   #46
Axgar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,028
Send a message via Yahoo to Axgar
Originally Posted by Gurglespit View Post
Can someone translate this from Axgarinese for me? I really have absolutely no clue what he's trying to say..

Think and you will understand.
Axgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 08:08 AM   #47
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by Hormadrune View Post
Again, you're making the naive assumption that pro-evolution=anti-religion, which is simply not true.
Pro evolution isn't anti-religion per se... but I'm quite certain it is anti-creationism. How many major religions out there have a set of beliefs contrary to creationism??

Originally Posted by Horm
How many scientists do you even interact with on a regular basis? I'm guessing it's a lot fewer than I do.
Not many. How many priests/pastors/religous scholars do you interact with on a regular basis, and how many of those scholars do you question about creation vs evolution?

And how many of these scientists that you know have religious backgrounds and exposure to religious doctrine?

Originally Posted by Horm
I'd say most scientists have a problem with a belief system predicated on a fundamental disbelief in science. Again- this surprises you? But I'm still curious about you and your obvious disdain for science and scientists.
No disdain. I just realize the obvious - that most scientists probably don't believe in creationism.
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 08:57 AM   #48
Michael Cumberlan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 617
Originally Posted by furo View Post

No disdain. I just realize the obvious - that most scientists probably don't believe in creationism.
If you are defining creationism as The universe was created in 6 days and the earth is several thousand years old ... you would be right. The vast majority of scientists understand enough about chemistry and physics to be able to interpret things like galaxies millions of light years away being able to be seen on earth as a FACT that the universe is probably older than 6,000 years. Radioactive dating and things like ancient tree fossils whose rings can be counted "PROVE" that stuff was herelonger than a few millenia.

BUT ... a majority of scientists are in agreement that the universe did come into existance some time in the past, and although we are getting close to the mechanics of how the universe evolved (sorry,best word I could think of) no one really knows what happened BEFORE the beginning, or more interestingly WHY ... This is how people can both believe in "God" or a higher being, and not be conflicted with the scientific realities of today ...
Michael Cumberlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 09:12 AM   #49
Misty
Do Not Disturb
 
Misty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,070
I don't know how to buy into comment without wind-bagging.

Lately I'm hearing that academics are giving credence to genetics causing mental illness. A gene is something people can pinpoint and label. On the other hand, statistical normalcy is a moving target defined as a bell-shaped population frequency distribution curve, and nothing more. There's something wrong with not noticing that the grounds of normality may shift with the times. I prefer to consider behavioural personality as reactivity without the blueprint. Until a gene manifests physical aberrations pinpointing lunacy, the blueprint does not concern mental sanity: I cannot accept implied genetic rationality before the thinker has thought something.

There is no dead water in a living stream of consciousness. Only what is produced in the wake.

A hereditary gene implies constant insanity. The gene is there, therefore the inherited insanity must always be there. Clinicians refer to disturbed behaviour as 'episodic'. Genetics, after all, order our permanent living state. Something so liquid as our current state of mind won't anchor to a laid road.
__________________
Originally Posted by Drysdale
"Fair enough. I don't agree with anyone all the time."
Originally Posted by Davek
"*blink* *blink* *blink*
*bliiiink* *bliiiink* *bliiiink*
*blink* *blink* *blink*
[fixt]

Mistyglen 68 Half Elf StormWarden (retired)
ex-Mystic Blue, ex-Sundered Heart, ex-Heart of Fenris
Redback's stuff
Redback 72 WoodElf Ranger (Lucid Devotion)

Last edited by Misty; 04-23-2008 at 09:27 AM.
Misty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 10:26 AM   #50
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by Michael Cumberlan View Post
Radioactive dating and things like ancient tree fossils whose rings can be counted "PROVE" that stuff was herelonger than a few millenia.
Take a look at the hard facts. Tree rings can be known to have more than one ring per season.

Secondly, the term is "radiometric dating," not "radioactive dating."

Finally, there are many holes within the evidence that you speak of. There are countless studies and books that get into the nuts and bolts of this so called "proof" you speak of.

If you don't believe me, then read these books:

In Six Days

In the Beginning

Want to read about fossils and a contradiction to your so called "proof?" Then check out Bones of Contention .

And there's a laundry list of other books too.

Now, does this list of books prove anything? Maybe, maybe not.

But that's not the point. The point is that your so-called "proof" isn't so cut and dry, Michael.

By the way, how many books on this subject have you written, or read for that matter?

I'll admit I've read very little and written none. But I'm not so naiive to proclaim that there is absolute and unequivocal "proof" that debunks creationism.
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:38 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.