Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: Alternative to Science??

saulgoldie 06 Oct 12 - 12:08 PM
Rapparee 06 Oct 12 - 12:17 PM
Ebbie 06 Oct 12 - 12:20 PM
Stilly River Sage 06 Oct 12 - 01:03 PM
DMcG 06 Oct 12 - 01:22 PM
Little Hawk 06 Oct 12 - 01:27 PM
Greg F. 06 Oct 12 - 01:32 PM
pdq 06 Oct 12 - 01:40 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 06 Oct 12 - 01:43 PM
Bev and Jerry 06 Oct 12 - 06:03 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 06 Oct 12 - 06:09 PM
gnu 06 Oct 12 - 06:17 PM
Greg F. 06 Oct 12 - 06:28 PM
Rapparee 06 Oct 12 - 08:20 PM
Bobert 06 Oct 12 - 08:32 PM
Ebbie 06 Oct 12 - 08:38 PM
McGrath of Harlow 07 Oct 12 - 11:50 AM
GUEST,999 07 Oct 12 - 12:27 PM
GUEST,Lighter 07 Oct 12 - 12:48 PM
Greg F. 07 Oct 12 - 01:16 PM
McGrath of Harlow 07 Oct 12 - 01:37 PM
Richard Bridge 07 Oct 12 - 07:43 PM
JohnInKansas 07 Oct 12 - 10:21 PM
Joe Offer 08 Oct 12 - 01:20 AM
Jack the Sailor 08 Oct 12 - 02:39 AM
Musket 08 Oct 12 - 03:48 AM
GUEST,Eliza 08 Oct 12 - 04:27 AM
Rob Naylor 08 Oct 12 - 05:52 AM
GUEST,999 08 Oct 12 - 06:02 AM
Jack the Sailor 08 Oct 12 - 07:00 AM
Jack the Sailor 08 Oct 12 - 07:03 AM
GUEST,999 08 Oct 12 - 07:06 AM
GUEST,999 08 Oct 12 - 07:26 AM
BrendanB 08 Oct 12 - 04:18 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Oct 12 - 04:42 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Oct 12 - 05:29 PM
Henry Krinkle 08 Oct 12 - 05:39 PM
dick greenhaus 08 Oct 12 - 05:52 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Oct 12 - 06:02 PM
Henry Krinkle 08 Oct 12 - 06:08 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Oct 12 - 06:22 PM
Jack the Sailor 08 Oct 12 - 06:35 PM
Greg F. 08 Oct 12 - 08:08 PM
dick greenhaus 09 Oct 12 - 12:20 AM
Bill D 09 Oct 12 - 12:01 PM
dick greenhaus 09 Oct 12 - 05:25 PM
Greg F. 09 Oct 12 - 06:26 PM
Bobert 09 Oct 12 - 06:30 PM
dick greenhaus 09 Oct 12 - 08:29 PM
Bill D 09 Oct 12 - 08:41 PM
Jack the Sailor 09 Oct 12 - 08:51 PM
Joe Offer 09 Oct 12 - 11:06 PM
EBarnacle 10 Oct 12 - 11:36 AM
Greg F. 10 Oct 12 - 12:21 PM
Musket 10 Oct 12 - 01:08 PM
GUEST,Lighter 10 Oct 12 - 01:38 PM
dick greenhaus 10 Oct 12 - 03:33 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 10 Oct 12 - 05:42 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 11 Oct 12 - 12:06 PM
DMcG 11 Oct 12 - 01:37 PM
Bert 11 Oct 12 - 01:56 PM
DMcG 11 Oct 12 - 02:02 PM
Musket 12 Oct 12 - 04:35 AM
GUEST,Lighter 12 Oct 12 - 11:11 AM
Bettynh 12 Oct 12 - 03:08 PM
GUEST,Jack Sprocket 12 Oct 12 - 06:00 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 12 Oct 12 - 06:01 PM
Bill D 12 Oct 12 - 06:20 PM
GUEST,Lighter 12 Oct 12 - 08:00 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 13 Oct 12 - 03:18 AM
DMcG 13 Oct 12 - 03:25 AM
GUEST,Jack Sprocket 13 Oct 12 - 05:00 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 13 Oct 12 - 05:14 AM
DMcG 13 Oct 12 - 05:53 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 13 Oct 12 - 06:01 AM
DMcG 13 Oct 12 - 06:19 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 13 Oct 12 - 06:46 AM
Joe Offer 13 Oct 12 - 10:45 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Oct 12 - 06:34 AM
Stringsinger 14 Oct 12 - 11:47 AM
Bill D 14 Oct 12 - 01:48 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 14 Oct 12 - 04:08 PM
Greg F. 14 Oct 12 - 04:36 PM
Jeri 14 Oct 12 - 04:50 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Oct 12 - 04:52 PM
Bill D 14 Oct 12 - 05:56 PM
Steve Shaw 14 Oct 12 - 07:38 PM
GUEST,999 14 Oct 12 - 08:43 PM
Steve Shaw 14 Oct 12 - 09:14 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 15 Oct 12 - 02:23 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 15 Oct 12 - 04:19 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 15 Oct 12 - 05:42 AM
Steve Shaw 15 Oct 12 - 12:23 PM
Joe_F 15 Oct 12 - 08:45 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 16 Oct 12 - 02:08 PM
GUEST,) 16 Oct 12 - 03:03 PM
Jack the Sailor 16 Oct 12 - 03:14 PM
Bill D 16 Oct 12 - 05:21 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 16 Oct 12 - 05:24 PM
EBarnacle 16 Oct 12 - 11:16 PM
Musket 17 Oct 12 - 05:34 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 17 Oct 12 - 05:56 AM
Stringsinger 17 Oct 12 - 01:28 PM
Steve Shaw 17 Oct 12 - 02:24 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 18 Oct 12 - 11:27 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 18 Oct 12 - 12:30 PM
Bill D 18 Oct 12 - 12:56 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 18 Oct 12 - 05:28 PM
Bill D 18 Oct 12 - 05:39 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 19 Oct 12 - 03:56 AM
BrendanB 19 Oct 12 - 10:57 AM
Bill D 19 Oct 12 - 11:39 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 19 Oct 12 - 01:20 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 19 Oct 12 - 02:00 PM
Jack the Sailor 19 Oct 12 - 02:07 PM
Bill D 19 Oct 12 - 02:49 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Oct 12 - 11:56 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 20 Oct 12 - 12:50 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 20 Oct 12 - 07:07 PM
Bill D 20 Oct 12 - 09:29 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Oct 12 - 09:40 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 21 Oct 12 - 07:48 AM
Steve Shaw 21 Oct 12 - 08:39 PM
Musket 22 Oct 12 - 04:19 AM
Bobert 22 Oct 12 - 08:24 AM
BrendanB 22 Oct 12 - 09:55 AM
Steve Shaw 22 Oct 12 - 12:25 PM
BrendanB 22 Oct 12 - 01:27 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Oct 12 - 01:42 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 22 Oct 12 - 01:52 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 22 Oct 12 - 01:56 PM
BrendanB 22 Oct 12 - 02:20 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Oct 12 - 02:39 PM
Steve Shaw 22 Oct 12 - 03:55 PM
BrendanB 22 Oct 12 - 04:04 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Oct 12 - 04:14 PM
Steve Shaw 22 Oct 12 - 06:08 PM
Steve Shaw 22 Oct 12 - 06:22 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Oct 12 - 06:32 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Oct 12 - 06:54 PM
Steve Shaw 22 Oct 12 - 07:51 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Oct 12 - 08:08 PM
Steve Shaw 22 Oct 12 - 08:49 PM
Bobert 22 Oct 12 - 08:54 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Oct 12 - 10:02 PM
Musket 23 Oct 12 - 04:34 AM
Steve Shaw 23 Oct 12 - 06:15 AM
Steve Shaw 23 Oct 12 - 11:53 AM
BrendanB 23 Oct 12 - 12:08 PM
Steve Shaw 23 Oct 12 - 03:04 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Oct 12 - 05:22 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Oct 12 - 05:39 AM
BrendanB 24 Oct 12 - 06:12 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Oct 12 - 07:09 AM
BrendanB 24 Oct 12 - 09:11 AM
Stu 24 Oct 12 - 10:32 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Oct 12 - 12:08 PM
BrendanB 24 Oct 12 - 12:20 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Oct 12 - 12:54 PM
BrendanB 24 Oct 12 - 02:00 PM
Stringsinger 24 Oct 12 - 02:51 PM
GUEST,Lighter 24 Oct 12 - 04:51 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 24 Oct 12 - 06:02 PM
GUEST,Lighter 24 Oct 12 - 06:24 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Oct 12 - 06:24 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Oct 12 - 06:52 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Oct 12 - 06:55 PM
GUEST,Lighter 24 Oct 12 - 07:22 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Oct 12 - 08:11 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Oct 12 - 02:31 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Oct 12 - 04:02 AM
Musket 25 Oct 12 - 04:06 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 25 Oct 12 - 04:48 AM
Steve Shaw 25 Oct 12 - 05:19 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 25 Oct 12 - 05:51 AM
Stu 25 Oct 12 - 10:15 AM
GUEST,Lighter 25 Oct 12 - 10:20 AM
Stu 25 Oct 12 - 12:09 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Oct 12 - 12:46 PM
Musket 25 Oct 12 - 12:46 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Oct 12 - 12:59 PM
BrendanB 25 Oct 12 - 01:34 PM
GUEST,Lighter 25 Oct 12 - 02:01 PM
Steve Shaw 25 Oct 12 - 04:47 PM
Steve Shaw 25 Oct 12 - 05:00 PM
Steve Shaw 25 Oct 12 - 07:49 PM
Steve Shaw 25 Oct 12 - 08:19 PM
Bobert 25 Oct 12 - 08:33 PM
Steve Shaw 25 Oct 12 - 08:47 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Oct 12 - 08:49 PM
Steve Shaw 25 Oct 12 - 08:57 PM
GUEST 25 Oct 12 - 09:08 PM
Bobert 25 Oct 12 - 09:08 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Oct 12 - 09:11 PM
Bobert 25 Oct 12 - 09:28 PM
Bobert 25 Oct 12 - 09:40 PM
GUEST,Lighter 25 Oct 12 - 10:49 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Oct 12 - 02:07 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 26 Oct 12 - 03:58 AM
Steve Shaw 26 Oct 12 - 05:15 AM
Steve Shaw 26 Oct 12 - 07:32 AM
Steve Shaw 26 Oct 12 - 07:53 AM
Bobert 26 Oct 12 - 08:13 AM
saulgoldie 26 Oct 12 - 11:07 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 26 Oct 12 - 12:26 PM
GUEST,Lighter 26 Oct 12 - 12:58 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 26 Oct 12 - 01:17 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Oct 12 - 02:14 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 26 Oct 12 - 04:42 PM
GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack out and about 26 Oct 12 - 08:10 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Oct 12 - 08:14 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Oct 12 - 08:34 PM
Bobert 26 Oct 12 - 08:38 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 27 Oct 12 - 08:09 AM
Bobert 27 Oct 12 - 08:49 AM
Steve Shaw 27 Oct 12 - 09:37 AM
GUEST,Lighter 27 Oct 12 - 11:13 AM
MGM·Lion 27 Oct 12 - 11:18 AM
DMcG 27 Oct 12 - 11:59 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Oct 12 - 12:46 PM
GUEST,Lighter 27 Oct 12 - 01:16 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Oct 12 - 02:00 PM
GUEST,Lighter 27 Oct 12 - 02:03 PM
DMcG 27 Oct 12 - 02:44 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Oct 12 - 04:35 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Oct 12 - 04:40 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Oct 12 - 04:52 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 27 Oct 12 - 05:30 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Oct 12 - 07:24 PM
Bobert 27 Oct 12 - 07:29 PM
GUEST,Lighter 27 Oct 12 - 07:57 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 28 Oct 12 - 02:36 AM
DMcG 28 Oct 12 - 04:17 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 28 Oct 12 - 04:36 AM
DMcG 28 Oct 12 - 05:24 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 28 Oct 12 - 05:52 AM
DMcG 28 Oct 12 - 06:03 AM
GUEST,Lighter 28 Oct 12 - 08:43 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 28 Oct 12 - 12:58 PM
GUEST 28 Oct 12 - 02:54 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Oct 12 - 03:59 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Oct 12 - 04:44 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 28 Oct 12 - 05:33 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 28 Oct 12 - 06:54 PM
Bobert 28 Oct 12 - 07:29 PM
GUEST,Lighter 28 Oct 12 - 08:14 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 28 Oct 12 - 09:36 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 28 Oct 12 - 09:38 PM
Bill D 28 Oct 12 - 10:11 PM
GUEST,Lighter 28 Oct 12 - 10:13 PM
Bobert 28 Oct 12 - 10:18 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 28 Oct 12 - 10:29 PM
Bill D 28 Oct 12 - 10:38 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 28 Oct 12 - 10:42 PM
Musket 29 Oct 12 - 04:20 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 29 Oct 12 - 05:17 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 29 Oct 12 - 12:46 PM
Bill D 29 Oct 12 - 01:17 PM
GUEST,Lighter 29 Oct 12 - 02:12 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 29 Oct 12 - 02:35 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 29 Oct 12 - 02:47 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 29 Oct 12 - 04:55 PM
Bill D 29 Oct 12 - 05:09 PM
Bobert 29 Oct 12 - 06:15 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 29 Oct 12 - 06:30 PM
Bill D 29 Oct 12 - 06:52 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 29 Oct 12 - 10:19 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 30 Oct 12 - 03:36 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 30 Oct 12 - 06:31 AM
DMcG 30 Oct 12 - 08:05 AM
Bobert 30 Oct 12 - 09:07 AM
Bill D 30 Oct 12 - 10:44 AM
GUEST,Lighter 30 Oct 12 - 11:40 AM
Stu 30 Oct 12 - 12:00 PM
GUEST,Lighter 30 Oct 12 - 01:37 PM
Bobert 30 Oct 12 - 02:43 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 30 Oct 12 - 03:07 PM
Stu 30 Oct 12 - 03:34 PM
GUEST,Lighter 30 Oct 12 - 03:48 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 30 Oct 12 - 04:10 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 30 Oct 12 - 04:39 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 30 Oct 12 - 05:20 PM
Bill D 30 Oct 12 - 06:08 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 31 Oct 12 - 03:17 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 31 Oct 12 - 03:42 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 31 Oct 12 - 03:54 AM
Stu 31 Oct 12 - 05:42 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 31 Oct 12 - 09:00 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 31 Oct 12 - 05:34 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 31 Oct 12 - 05:42 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Oct 12 - 08:19 PM
Bobert 31 Oct 12 - 08:24 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Oct 12 - 08:38 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 01 Nov 12 - 01:39 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 01 Nov 12 - 04:35 AM
Bill D 01 Nov 12 - 11:28 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 01 Nov 12 - 11:48 AM
GUEST,Lighter 01 Nov 12 - 11:55 AM
Steve Shaw 01 Nov 12 - 11:57 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 01 Nov 12 - 11:57 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 01 Nov 12 - 11:59 AM
GUEST,Lighter 01 Nov 12 - 12:00 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 01 Nov 12 - 12:49 PM
GUEST,Lighter 01 Nov 12 - 01:00 PM
Stringsinger 01 Nov 12 - 04:16 PM
BrendanB 01 Nov 12 - 04:40 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 02 Nov 12 - 04:02 AM
BrendanB 02 Nov 12 - 05:17 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Nov 12 - 07:29 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 02 Nov 12 - 08:02 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Nov 12 - 09:46 AM
GUEST,Lighter 02 Nov 12 - 09:53 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Nov 12 - 10:25 AM
Bobert 02 Nov 12 - 11:18 AM
GUEST,Lighter 02 Nov 12 - 11:44 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Nov 12 - 12:11 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Nov 12 - 12:12 PM
TIA 02 Nov 12 - 12:21 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Nov 12 - 01:55 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Nov 12 - 04:05 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 02 Nov 12 - 04:38 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Nov 12 - 07:45 PM
Bobert 02 Nov 12 - 07:51 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 02 Nov 12 - 08:38 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 03 Nov 12 - 12:30 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 12 - 10:39 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 03 Nov 12 - 11:57 AM
GUEST,Lighter 03 Nov 12 - 12:04 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 03 Nov 12 - 12:40 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 03 Nov 12 - 12:59 PM
GUEST,Lighter 03 Nov 12 - 01:27 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 12 - 01:30 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 12 - 01:37 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 03 Nov 12 - 07:44 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 12 - 07:58 PM
GUEST,Lighter 03 Nov 12 - 08:03 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 12 - 08:10 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 03 Nov 12 - 11:38 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Nov 12 - 06:25 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 04 Nov 12 - 07:14 AM
Stu 04 Nov 12 - 07:31 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Nov 12 - 08:22 AM
BrendanB 04 Nov 12 - 10:23 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Nov 12 - 11:23 PM
Musket 05 Nov 12 - 08:30 AM
GUEST,Lighter 05 Nov 12 - 08:40 AM
GUEST,Lighter 05 Nov 12 - 09:30 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Nov 12 - 09:46 AM
Bill D 05 Nov 12 - 12:27 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 05 Nov 12 - 03:05 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 05 Nov 12 - 03:34 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Nov 12 - 04:38 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 05 Nov 12 - 05:57 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Nov 12 - 06:56 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Nov 12 - 02:13 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 06 Nov 12 - 03:34 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 06 Nov 12 - 05:45 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 06 Nov 12 - 05:47 AM
GUEST,Lighter 06 Nov 12 - 08:04 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Nov 12 - 02:11 PM
GUEST,Lighter 06 Nov 12 - 02:39 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Nov 12 - 03:01 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 06 Nov 12 - 05:15 PM
GUEST,Lighter 06 Nov 12 - 05:46 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Nov 12 - 06:21 PM
Bill D 06 Nov 12 - 08:39 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 07 Nov 12 - 07:39 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 07 Nov 12 - 08:43 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 07 Nov 12 - 09:05 AM
Stu 07 Nov 12 - 11:12 AM
GUEST,sciencegeek 07 Nov 12 - 12:11 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Nov 12 - 02:12 PM
GUEST,sciencegeek 07 Nov 12 - 02:40 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 07 Nov 12 - 05:39 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 07 Nov 12 - 06:16 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Nov 12 - 07:11 PM
GUEST,Lighter 07 Nov 12 - 07:27 PM
Bill D 07 Nov 12 - 07:44 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Nov 12 - 07:58 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Nov 12 - 08:00 PM
Bill D 07 Nov 12 - 08:12 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Nov 12 - 08:53 PM
Bill D 07 Nov 12 - 09:43 PM
Stu 08 Nov 12 - 07:14 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Nov 12 - 07:20 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Nov 12 - 07:39 AM
GUEST,Lighter 08 Nov 12 - 08:41 AM
Bill D 08 Nov 12 - 10:27 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 Nov 12 - 11:07 AM
GUEST,Lighter 08 Nov 12 - 11:44 AM
GUEST,sciencegeek 08 Nov 12 - 12:11 PM
Musket 08 Nov 12 - 12:24 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Nov 12 - 01:24 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Nov 12 - 01:30 PM
Bill D 08 Nov 12 - 02:40 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Nov 12 - 03:35 PM
Bill D 08 Nov 12 - 04:04 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 08 Nov 12 - 04:25 PM
GUEST,Lighter 08 Nov 12 - 05:21 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Nov 12 - 05:29 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 08 Nov 12 - 05:30 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Nov 12 - 05:34 PM
Bill D 08 Nov 12 - 05:49 PM
GUEST,Lighter 08 Nov 12 - 06:05 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Nov 12 - 07:54 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Nov 12 - 08:04 PM
Bill D 08 Nov 12 - 08:09 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Nov 12 - 08:19 PM
GUEST,Lighter 08 Nov 12 - 08:48 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Nov 12 - 09:01 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 Nov 12 - 10:45 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 09 Nov 12 - 04:22 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 Nov 12 - 06:02 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 Nov 12 - 06:31 AM
sciencegeek 09 Nov 12 - 06:38 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 12 - 06:51 AM
Stu 09 Nov 12 - 06:56 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 12 - 08:24 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 12 - 08:33 AM
GUEST,sciencegeek 09 Nov 12 - 08:48 AM
Stu 09 Nov 12 - 09:14 AM
Musket 09 Nov 12 - 09:21 AM
GUEST,sciencegeek 09 Nov 12 - 09:40 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 12 - 10:11 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 12 - 10:18 AM
Stu 09 Nov 12 - 10:21 AM
GUEST,sciencegeek 09 Nov 12 - 10:38 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 12 - 10:41 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 12 - 10:53 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 12 - 11:14 AM
saulgoldie 09 Nov 12 - 11:41 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 09 Nov 12 - 11:57 AM
GUEST,sciencegeek 09 Nov 12 - 12:00 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 12 - 12:07 PM
GUEST,sciencegeek 09 Nov 12 - 12:38 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Nov 12 - 02:06 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 12 - 02:29 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 Nov 12 - 02:31 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Nov 12 - 02:33 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Nov 12 - 02:49 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Nov 12 - 02:53 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 12 - 03:03 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 12 - 03:05 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Nov 12 - 03:34 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Nov 12 - 03:37 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 12 - 03:48 PM
GUEST,sciencegeek 09 Nov 12 - 04:04 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 09 Nov 12 - 05:28 PM
Bobert 09 Nov 12 - 05:45 PM
GUEST,Lighter 09 Nov 12 - 05:56 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 12 - 07:43 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 12 - 07:48 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 12 - 08:12 PM
Bobert 09 Nov 12 - 08:17 PM
Bobert 09 Nov 12 - 08:19 PM
Bobert 09 Nov 12 - 08:23 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Nov 12 - 08:33 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 12 - 09:01 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Nov 12 - 10:25 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Nov 12 - 06:11 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 10 Nov 12 - 06:21 AM
Steve Shaw 10 Nov 12 - 07:16 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 10 Nov 12 - 07:27 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 10 Nov 12 - 07:33 AM
sciencegeek 10 Nov 12 - 08:04 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Nov 12 - 03:07 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Nov 12 - 03:18 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Nov 12 - 04:09 PM
GUEST 10 Nov 12 - 05:36 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Nov 12 - 05:37 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 10 Nov 12 - 06:25 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Nov 12 - 07:00 PM
Bobert 10 Nov 12 - 07:16 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Nov 12 - 08:41 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Nov 12 - 08:45 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Nov 12 - 08:52 PM
Bobert 10 Nov 12 - 08:59 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Nov 12 - 09:13 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Nov 12 - 05:47 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Nov 12 - 05:52 AM
sciencegeek 11 Nov 12 - 07:13 AM
DMcG 11 Nov 12 - 08:45 AM
GUEST,Lighter 11 Nov 12 - 09:24 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Nov 12 - 09:27 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 11 Nov 12 - 09:56 AM
Bobert 11 Nov 12 - 10:00 AM
Bobert 11 Nov 12 - 10:01 AM
sciencegeek 11 Nov 12 - 10:20 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 11 Nov 12 - 10:25 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Nov 12 - 10:27 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Nov 12 - 10:32 AM
Amos 11 Nov 12 - 10:44 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 11 Nov 12 - 10:54 AM
Bobert 11 Nov 12 - 11:10 AM
sciencegeek 11 Nov 12 - 11:28 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Nov 12 - 11:56 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 11 Nov 12 - 01:35 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 11 Nov 12 - 02:03 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 11 Nov 12 - 03:00 PM
GUEST,Gust from Sanity 11 Nov 12 - 03:02 PM
GUEST,Lighter 11 Nov 12 - 04:41 PM
Bill D 11 Nov 12 - 04:41 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 11 Nov 12 - 05:06 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Nov 12 - 06:30 PM
Bobert 11 Nov 12 - 08:12 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Nov 12 - 08:18 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Nov 12 - 12:54 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 12 Nov 12 - 04:08 AM
Steve Shaw 12 Nov 12 - 06:04 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 12 Nov 12 - 06:39 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Nov 12 - 09:23 AM
Steve Shaw 12 Nov 12 - 09:33 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 12 Nov 12 - 10:02 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Nov 12 - 11:02 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 12 Nov 12 - 11:20 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Nov 12 - 11:22 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Nov 12 - 11:26 AM
Steve Shaw 12 Nov 12 - 11:34 AM
Bill D 12 Nov 12 - 11:44 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Nov 12 - 12:05 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 12 Nov 12 - 12:24 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Nov 12 - 01:01 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Nov 12 - 01:02 PM
Bobert 12 Nov 12 - 01:19 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Nov 12 - 01:21 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 12 Nov 12 - 01:24 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Nov 12 - 01:26 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 12 Nov 12 - 01:34 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Nov 12 - 01:58 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Nov 12 - 02:07 PM
sciencegeek 12 Nov 12 - 04:46 PM
Bobert 12 Nov 12 - 05:04 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Nov 12 - 05:46 PM
Bill D 12 Nov 12 - 05:57 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 12 Nov 12 - 06:02 PM
GUEST,Lighter 12 Nov 12 - 06:43 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Nov 12 - 06:46 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 13 Nov 12 - 04:58 AM
GUEST,KP 13 Nov 12 - 07:09 AM
GUEST,Lighter 13 Nov 12 - 08:12 AM
Donuel 13 Nov 12 - 09:50 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 13 Nov 12 - 10:52 AM
Donuel 13 Nov 12 - 11:00 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Nov 12 - 11:01 AM
Donuel 13 Nov 12 - 02:35 PM
Donuel 13 Nov 12 - 02:37 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 13 Nov 12 - 05:25 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Nov 12 - 07:16 PM
Bill D 13 Nov 12 - 08:51 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Nov 12 - 01:00 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 14 Nov 12 - 02:04 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Nov 12 - 04:19 PM
GUEST,Lighter 14 Nov 12 - 07:21 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Nov 12 - 08:29 PM
GUEST,Lighter 14 Nov 12 - 08:47 PM
Bobert 14 Nov 12 - 09:34 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14 Nov 12 - 10:19 PM
Bill D 14 Nov 12 - 10:22 PM
Bobert 14 Nov 12 - 10:30 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Nov 12 - 01:29 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 15 Nov 12 - 05:04 AM
Musket 15 Nov 12 - 05:24 AM
sciencegeek 15 Nov 12 - 05:41 AM
Steve Shaw 15 Nov 12 - 07:43 AM
GUEST,Lighter 15 Nov 12 - 09:36 AM
Stu 15 Nov 12 - 10:10 AM
GUEST,Lighter 15 Nov 12 - 11:17 AM
Steve Shaw 15 Nov 12 - 03:30 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 15 Nov 12 - 05:53 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Nov 12 - 08:42 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Nov 12 - 11:33 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 16 Nov 12 - 04:12 AM
Stu 16 Nov 12 - 05:39 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Nov 12 - 05:58 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Nov 12 - 07:15 AM
GUEST,Lighter 16 Nov 12 - 08:07 AM
Bill D 16 Nov 12 - 11:18 AM
Rob Naylor 16 Nov 12 - 11:31 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 16 Nov 12 - 05:35 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Nov 12 - 05:55 PM
Rob Naylor 16 Nov 12 - 06:16 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Nov 12 - 12:09 AM
GUEST,Musket with cookie growth 17 Nov 12 - 03:04 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Nov 12 - 04:02 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 17 Nov 12 - 05:21 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 17 Nov 12 - 12:23 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Nov 12 - 04:23 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 17 Nov 12 - 05:10 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 17 Nov 12 - 07:40 PM
Bobert 17 Nov 12 - 08:05 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 18 Nov 12 - 04:28 AM
Stu 18 Nov 12 - 05:15 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 18 Nov 12 - 05:59 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Nov 12 - 06:36 AM
GUEST,Lighter 18 Nov 12 - 08:19 AM
Bill D 18 Nov 12 - 09:15 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Nov 12 - 10:14 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 Nov 12 - 11:30 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Nov 12 - 12:36 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 18 Nov 12 - 12:46 PM
Stringsinger 18 Nov 12 - 01:06 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 Nov 12 - 01:15 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 18 Nov 12 - 06:37 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 18 Nov 12 - 06:54 PM
Steve Shaw 18 Nov 12 - 07:20 PM
GUEST 19 Nov 12 - 05:32 AM
Stu 19 Nov 12 - 06:35 AM
Steve Shaw 19 Nov 12 - 07:09 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 19 Nov 12 - 09:14 AM
Musket 19 Nov 12 - 09:52 AM
GUEST,Lighter 19 Nov 12 - 09:59 AM
Steve Shaw 19 Nov 12 - 10:04 AM
Steve Shaw 19 Nov 12 - 10:14 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 19 Nov 12 - 10:27 AM
GUEST,Lighter 19 Nov 12 - 11:31 AM
Stu 19 Nov 12 - 11:39 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 19 Nov 12 - 12:00 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Nov 12 - 12:37 PM
Bill D 19 Nov 12 - 01:07 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Nov 12 - 01:10 PM
Bill D 19 Nov 12 - 01:30 PM
Stu 19 Nov 12 - 01:39 PM
GUEST,Lighter 19 Nov 12 - 01:39 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Nov 12 - 02:04 PM
frogprince 19 Nov 12 - 02:28 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Nov 12 - 03:37 PM
Steve Shaw 19 Nov 12 - 03:47 PM
GUEST,Lighter 19 Nov 12 - 04:32 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Nov 12 - 04:35 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 19 Nov 12 - 06:21 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Nov 12 - 06:40 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 20 Nov 12 - 04:29 AM
Musket 20 Nov 12 - 05:05 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 20 Nov 12 - 05:46 AM
TheSnail 20 Nov 12 - 06:22 AM
Steve Shaw 20 Nov 12 - 06:50 AM
GUEST,Lighter 20 Nov 12 - 08:10 AM
Bill D 20 Nov 12 - 10:50 AM
GUEST,Lighter 20 Nov 12 - 11:08 AM
frogprince 20 Nov 12 - 11:16 AM
GUEST,sciencegeek 20 Nov 12 - 11:19 AM
GUEST,Lighter 20 Nov 12 - 11:55 AM
GUEST,Lighter 20 Nov 12 - 11:56 AM
TheSnail 20 Nov 12 - 12:57 PM
GUEST,sciencegeek 20 Nov 12 - 01:05 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Nov 12 - 03:34 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Nov 12 - 03:36 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 20 Nov 12 - 05:32 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Nov 12 - 05:54 PM
Bill D 20 Nov 12 - 05:57 PM
GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack somewhere in the electron clo 20 Nov 12 - 05:58 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Nov 12 - 06:27 PM
GUEST,Lighter 20 Nov 12 - 09:34 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Nov 12 - 05:12 AM
Steve Shaw 21 Nov 12 - 05:48 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 21 Nov 12 - 06:47 AM
TheSnail 21 Nov 12 - 08:10 AM
Stu 21 Nov 12 - 08:35 AM
MGM·Lion 21 Nov 12 - 09:29 AM
GUEST,Lighter 21 Nov 12 - 09:44 AM
GUEST,Lighter 21 Nov 12 - 09:50 AM
MGM·Lion 21 Nov 12 - 11:43 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Nov 12 - 12:20 PM
Steve Shaw 21 Nov 12 - 12:22 PM
Steve Shaw 21 Nov 12 - 12:28 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Nov 12 - 12:43 PM
TheSnail 21 Nov 12 - 01:31 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 21 Nov 12 - 02:06 PM
sciencegeek 21 Nov 12 - 02:15 PM
Stringsinger 21 Nov 12 - 02:54 PM
Musket 22 Nov 12 - 04:06 AM
GUEST 22 Nov 12 - 06:40 AM
GUEST,Lighter 22 Nov 12 - 09:07 AM
TheSnail 22 Nov 12 - 09:34 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 22 Nov 12 - 09:40 AM
Steve Shaw 22 Nov 12 - 09:57 AM
GUEST,Lighter 22 Nov 12 - 10:08 AM
Steve Shaw 22 Nov 12 - 10:18 AM
Stu 22 Nov 12 - 10:28 AM
GUEST,Lighter 22 Nov 12 - 04:33 PM
Steve Shaw 22 Nov 12 - 06:25 PM
MGM·Lion 22 Nov 12 - 11:29 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Nov 12 - 01:14 AM
MGM·Lion 23 Nov 12 - 01:44 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Nov 12 - 02:10 AM
Steve Shaw 23 Nov 12 - 07:05 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 23 Nov 12 - 09:48 AM
Steve Shaw 23 Nov 12 - 11:40 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Nov 12 - 01:37 PM
MGM·Lion 23 Nov 12 - 01:51 PM
Steve Shaw 23 Nov 12 - 02:00 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Nov 12 - 02:05 PM
Steve Shaw 23 Nov 12 - 02:10 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Nov 12 - 02:48 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 23 Nov 12 - 03:09 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 23 Nov 12 - 04:06 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Nov 12 - 04:14 PM
MGM·Lion 23 Nov 12 - 04:43 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Nov 12 - 06:31 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Nov 12 - 06:32 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 23 Nov 12 - 06:42 PM
Bill D 23 Nov 12 - 07:19 PM
Steve Shaw 23 Nov 12 - 08:02 PM
frogprince 23 Nov 12 - 08:47 PM
Steve Shaw 23 Nov 12 - 08:52 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Nov 12 - 09:48 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Nov 12 - 06:43 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Nov 12 - 10:41 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 24 Nov 12 - 11:45 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Nov 12 - 12:00 PM
GUEST,saulgoldie 24 Nov 12 - 01:02 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Nov 12 - 01:55 PM
frogprince 24 Nov 12 - 02:09 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 24 Nov 12 - 02:55 PM
sciencegeek 24 Nov 12 - 03:17 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Nov 12 - 03:28 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 24 Nov 12 - 05:00 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 24 Nov 12 - 05:34 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 24 Nov 12 - 05:40 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 24 Nov 12 - 05:57 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Nov 12 - 08:22 PM
frogprince 24 Nov 12 - 11:12 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Nov 12 - 11:52 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 25 Nov 12 - 04:56 AM
number 6 25 Nov 12 - 09:27 AM
Musket 25 Nov 12 - 10:24 AM
Steve Shaw 25 Nov 12 - 10:39 AM
Steve Shaw 25 Nov 12 - 10:47 AM
Musket 25 Nov 12 - 10:55 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 25 Nov 12 - 11:20 AM
Steve Shaw 25 Nov 12 - 11:22 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Nov 12 - 11:58 AM
TheSnail 25 Nov 12 - 12:42 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Nov 12 - 02:29 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Nov 12 - 06:57 PM
Steve Shaw 25 Nov 12 - 07:05 PM
Steve Shaw 25 Nov 12 - 08:03 PM
MGM·Lion 25 Nov 12 - 11:19 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Nov 12 - 02:37 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 26 Nov 12 - 04:08 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 26 Nov 12 - 04:46 AM
Stu 26 Nov 12 - 05:18 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 26 Nov 12 - 05:39 AM
Steve Shaw 26 Nov 12 - 05:48 AM
TheSnail 26 Nov 12 - 07:02 AM
Steve Shaw 26 Nov 12 - 08:36 AM
Little Hawk 26 Nov 12 - 10:38 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 26 Nov 12 - 11:46 AM
Jack the Sailor 26 Nov 12 - 11:55 AM
Steve Shaw 26 Nov 12 - 12:15 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Nov 12 - 12:18 PM
Stu 26 Nov 12 - 12:21 PM
Bill D 26 Nov 12 - 12:52 PM
frogprince 26 Nov 12 - 01:23 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 26 Nov 12 - 02:21 PM
GUEST,Lighter 26 Nov 12 - 04:52 PM
TheSnail 26 Nov 12 - 06:10 PM
TheSnail 26 Nov 12 - 06:12 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 26 Nov 12 - 06:23 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Nov 12 - 06:46 PM
TheSnail 26 Nov 12 - 07:18 PM
TheSnail 26 Nov 12 - 07:28 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Nov 12 - 07:49 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Nov 12 - 07:54 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Nov 12 - 01:23 AM
Steve Shaw 27 Nov 12 - 05:16 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 27 Nov 12 - 05:39 AM
Steve Shaw 27 Nov 12 - 05:45 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Nov 12 - 09:51 AM
Steve Shaw 27 Nov 12 - 12:24 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 27 Nov 12 - 04:22 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Nov 12 - 07:07 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 27 Nov 12 - 07:18 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Nov 12 - 07:40 PM
MGM·Lion 27 Nov 12 - 11:30 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Nov 12 - 11:50 PM
Musket 28 Nov 12 - 04:12 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 28 Nov 12 - 05:01 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 28 Nov 12 - 12:22 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Nov 12 - 02:15 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 28 Nov 12 - 02:54 PM
TheSnail 28 Nov 12 - 03:04 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Nov 12 - 07:33 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Nov 12 - 08:10 PM
Bill D 28 Nov 12 - 08:34 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Nov 12 - 08:51 PM
Stu 29 Nov 12 - 04:18 AM
Bill D 29 Nov 12 - 11:41 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Nov 12 - 01:07 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 29 Nov 12 - 02:52 PM
Bill D 29 Nov 12 - 03:28 PM
TheSnail 29 Nov 12 - 04:48 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 29 Nov 12 - 04:54 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 29 Nov 12 - 05:24 PM
Bill D 29 Nov 12 - 06:08 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 29 Nov 12 - 06:29 PM
Bill D 29 Nov 12 - 06:38 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 29 Nov 12 - 07:42 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Nov 12 - 08:05 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Nov 12 - 08:13 PM
GUEST,saulgoldie 29 Nov 12 - 08:15 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Nov 12 - 08:19 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 29 Nov 12 - 09:56 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 30 Nov 12 - 04:26 AM
frogprince 30 Nov 12 - 08:46 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Nov 12 - 08:49 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 30 Nov 12 - 01:09 PM
saulgoldie 30 Nov 12 - 01:10 PM
saulgoldie 30 Nov 12 - 02:07 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 04 Dec 12 - 01:30 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Dec 12 - 01:41 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 04 Dec 12 - 01:53 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 04 Dec 12 - 05:47 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 04 Dec 12 - 10:38 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 05 Dec 12 - 04:29 AM
Musket 05 Dec 12 - 06:29 AM
TheSnail 05 Dec 12 - 08:39 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Dec 12 - 08:49 AM
GUEST,Lighter 05 Dec 12 - 09:01 AM
TheSnail 05 Dec 12 - 10:06 AM
Musket 05 Dec 12 - 10:42 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 05 Dec 12 - 05:03 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 05 Dec 12 - 06:16 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 05 Dec 12 - 06:32 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Dec 12 - 07:57 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Dec 12 - 12:38 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 06 Dec 12 - 05:04 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 06 Dec 12 - 05:19 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Dec 12 - 05:22 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 06 Dec 12 - 05:49 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 06 Dec 12 - 06:15 AM
GUEST,Lighter 06 Dec 12 - 08:09 AM
Musket 06 Dec 12 - 11:59 AM
TheSnail 06 Dec 12 - 02:07 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Dec 12 - 04:00 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Dec 12 - 04:02 PM
GUEST,Lighter 06 Dec 12 - 04:21 PM
GUEST,Lighter 06 Dec 12 - 04:27 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 06 Dec 12 - 10:15 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 07 Dec 12 - 03:18 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Dec 12 - 06:00 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Dec 12 - 06:03 AM
TheSnail 07 Dec 12 - 06:05 AM
TheSnail 07 Dec 12 - 06:08 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Dec 12 - 08:56 AM
TheSnail 07 Dec 12 - 10:30 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Dec 12 - 11:52 AM
TheSnail 07 Dec 12 - 12:16 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 Dec 12 - 01:40 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Dec 12 - 02:09 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 Dec 12 - 02:47 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 07 Dec 12 - 04:32 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 07 Dec 12 - 08:07 PM
TheSnail 08 Dec 12 - 04:54 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 08 Dec 12 - 09:13 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Dec 12 - 11:25 AM
TheSnail 08 Dec 12 - 12:46 PM
Musket 08 Dec 12 - 01:44 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Dec 12 - 04:29 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 08 Dec 12 - 10:53 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Dec 12 - 05:52 AM
TheSnail 09 Dec 12 - 06:28 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Dec 12 - 09:59 AM
GUEST,Lighter 09 Dec 12 - 11:49 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 09 Dec 12 - 06:49 PM
GUEST,Lighter 09 Dec 12 - 06:58 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 09 Dec 12 - 07:12 PM
frogprince 09 Dec 12 - 10:58 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Dec 12 - 04:59 AM
Steve Shaw 10 Dec 12 - 05:12 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Dec 12 - 04:09 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Dec 12 - 04:17 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Dec 12 - 04:21 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 10 Dec 12 - 05:53 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Dec 12 - 07:01 PM
Stringsinger 10 Dec 12 - 07:11 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 10 Dec 12 - 08:16 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Dec 12 - 08:23 PM
GUEST,Lighter 10 Dec 12 - 09:23 PM
frogprince 10 Dec 12 - 11:42 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 11 Dec 12 - 03:49 AM
GUEST,Lighter 11 Dec 12 - 08:06 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 11 Dec 12 - 01:18 PM
saulgoldie 11 Dec 12 - 04:47 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 11 Dec 12 - 05:07 PM
Bill D 11 Dec 12 - 05:28 PM
GUEST,Lighter 11 Dec 12 - 07:56 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Dec 12 - 09:17 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Dec 12 - 01:27 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 12 Dec 12 - 02:45 AM
GUEST,Guest from, Sanity 12 Dec 12 - 03:28 AM
Musket 12 Dec 12 - 04:54 AM
TheSnail 12 Dec 12 - 06:08 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Dec 12 - 05:56 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Dec 12 - 08:28 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Dec 12 - 03:01 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 13 Dec 12 - 04:07 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Dec 12 - 05:13 AM
TheSnail 13 Dec 12 - 05:54 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 13 Dec 12 - 10:09 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 13 Dec 12 - 12:55 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Dec 12 - 03:18 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Dec 12 - 07:41 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Dec 12 - 07:54 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Dec 12 - 08:32 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 13 Dec 12 - 11:30 PM
Steve Shaw 14 Dec 12 - 06:01 AM
TheSnail 14 Dec 12 - 12:41 PM
Steve Shaw 14 Dec 12 - 01:22 PM
saulgoldie 14 Dec 12 - 02:14 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 14 Dec 12 - 06:47 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 15 Dec 12 - 03:15 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 15 Dec 12 - 04:04 AM
Steve Shaw 15 Dec 12 - 05:47 AM
TheSnail 15 Dec 12 - 08:48 AM
Steve Shaw 15 Dec 12 - 08:26 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Dec 12 - 08:35 PM
GUEST,Lighter 15 Dec 12 - 10:10 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Dec 12 - 12:54 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 16 Dec 12 - 02:35 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Dec 12 - 05:46 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Dec 12 - 05:47 AM
GUEST 16 Dec 12 - 09:41 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Dec 12 - 06:37 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 16 Dec 12 - 10:51 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 17 Dec 12 - 08:12 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Dec 12 - 06:49 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 Dec 12 - 01:01 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 Dec 12 - 03:09 AM
Musket 18 Dec 12 - 04:01 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 18 Dec 12 - 06:37 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Dec 12 - 06:46 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 18 Dec 12 - 06:53 AM
GUEST,BrendanB lost cookie 18 Dec 12 - 08:36 AM
Musket 18 Dec 12 - 09:52 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Dec 12 - 09:56 AM
GUEST 18 Dec 12 - 06:37 PM
TheSnail 18 Dec 12 - 07:35 PM
Steve Shaw 18 Dec 12 - 08:05 PM
Steve Shaw 18 Dec 12 - 08:26 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 18 Dec 12 - 10:57 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Dec 12 - 02:07 AM
Steve Shaw 19 Dec 12 - 06:20 AM
GUEST,Lighter 19 Dec 12 - 07:03 AM
Steve Shaw 19 Dec 12 - 07:06 AM
Steve Shaw 19 Dec 12 - 07:14 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 19 Dec 12 - 11:01 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 19 Dec 12 - 11:31 AM
Steve Shaw 19 Dec 12 - 02:04 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Dec 12 - 03:23 PM
Steve Shaw 19 Dec 12 - 03:45 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Dec 12 - 05:02 PM
Steve Shaw 19 Dec 12 - 06:31 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 19 Dec 12 - 09:48 PM
Musket 20 Dec 12 - 04:57 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 20 Dec 12 - 05:36 AM
Steve Shaw 20 Dec 12 - 06:04 AM
Stu 20 Dec 12 - 07:30 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 20 Dec 12 - 02:56 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 20 Dec 12 - 04:43 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Dec 12 - 04:55 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Dec 12 - 01:36 AM
Steve Shaw 21 Dec 12 - 06:16 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Dec 12 - 06:40 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Dec 12 - 06:48 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Dec 12 - 01:18 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Dec 12 - 01:51 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Dec 12 - 01:56 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 21 Dec 12 - 02:18 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Dec 12 - 04:03 PM
Steve Shaw 21 Dec 12 - 08:30 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Dec 12 - 02:43 AM
Steve Shaw 22 Dec 12 - 07:52 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Dec 12 - 11:13 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Dec 12 - 11:15 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 23 Dec 12 - 12:28 PM
Steve Shaw 23 Dec 12 - 12:33 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Dec 12 - 01:36 PM
TheSnail 23 Dec 12 - 02:39 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Dec 12 - 02:52 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 23 Dec 12 - 05:45 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Dec 12 - 06:16 PM
Steve Shaw 23 Dec 12 - 08:44 PM
Bill D 23 Dec 12 - 09:23 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Dec 12 - 01:48 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 24 Dec 12 - 05:10 PM
Bill D 24 Dec 12 - 06:25 PM
Bill D 24 Dec 12 - 07:33 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Dec 12 - 03:39 AM
Steve Shaw 26 Dec 12 - 10:17 AM
Bill D 26 Dec 12 - 12:48 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 26 Dec 12 - 01:42 PM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 26 Dec 12 - 03:54 PM
Bill D 26 Dec 12 - 03:55 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 27 Dec 12 - 06:23 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 27 Dec 12 - 06:26 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Dec 12 - 03:13 PM
Bill D 27 Dec 12 - 03:22 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 27 Dec 12 - 04:28 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Dec 12 - 06:20 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 27 Dec 12 - 07:41 PM
Bill D 27 Dec 12 - 09:45 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Dec 12 - 09:51 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Dec 12 - 10:08 PM
Musket 28 Dec 12 - 06:16 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Dec 12 - 06:47 AM
Musket 28 Dec 12 - 07:15 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 28 Dec 12 - 11:18 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 28 Dec 12 - 01:57 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 28 Dec 12 - 02:18 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 28 Dec 12 - 03:36 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 28 Dec 12 - 04:17 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 28 Dec 12 - 05:40 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 28 Dec 12 - 06:02 PM
Bill D 28 Dec 12 - 06:21 PM
Bill D 28 Dec 12 - 06:24 PM
Musket 29 Dec 12 - 04:53 AM
GUEST,Lighter 29 Dec 12 - 10:45 AM
Bill D 29 Dec 12 - 11:05 AM
GUEST,Jack Sprocket 29 Dec 12 - 11:12 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 29 Dec 12 - 06:46 PM
Bill D 29 Dec 12 - 07:27 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 30 Dec 12 - 04:22 AM
DMcG 30 Dec 12 - 04:36 AM
bobad 30 Dec 12 - 09:35 AM
Bill D 30 Dec 12 - 10:47 AM
DMcG 30 Dec 12 - 11:28 AM
GUEST,Jack Sporcket 30 Dec 12 - 02:15 PM
Bill D 30 Dec 12 - 03:08 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 30 Dec 12 - 03:09 PM
DMcG 30 Dec 12 - 03:27 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 30 Dec 12 - 04:25 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Dec 12 - 06:55 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 31 Dec 12 - 11:37 AM
Bill D 31 Dec 12 - 11:46 AM
GUEST,Lighter 31 Dec 12 - 12:08 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 31 Dec 12 - 06:47 PM
GUEST,Lighter 31 Dec 12 - 07:48 PM
John P 01 Jan 13 - 10:14 AM
GUEST,Lighter 01 Jan 13 - 11:00 AM
Musket 01 Jan 13 - 12:43 PM
Bill D 01 Jan 13 - 12:48 PM
TheSnail 22 Feb 13 - 08:29 PM
Bill D 22 Feb 13 - 10:24 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Feb 13 - 12:09 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 23 Feb 13 - 03:34 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:









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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Warning: This will be a short thread. :)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Little Hawk's post nailed it.

Good work, Birdfeathers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

That's a peach, eh?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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)=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Yep.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Less point intrying to communicate with an asshole.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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 ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

The alternative to science is ignorance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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].


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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"!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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 ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Well?

Discuss!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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*********************


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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. ....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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! :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

                  Global warming a hoax....

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

I have. I'm laughing at you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Excellent.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

For dubious publication, read dubious dumbing-down website.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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***************************


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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******************************


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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*****************************


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Huh?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

What must be true?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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! :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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****************************


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Oops! My apologies, one and all!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

That was me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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****************************


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

..to all others: Best Wishes!!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

I yam speechluss, is wot I yam!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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 ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 09:07 AM

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

------------------Vaccines 'cause illness------------------------

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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*************************


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Oct 12 - 04:10 PM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Oct 12 - 03:54 AM

I already did..........your turn.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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**************************


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 12:00 PM

Over to you, guys.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

does away with


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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! :-(


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 07:51 PM

Raquel is still a very hot woman!!!

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 08:38 PM

Mmmmm! Tree ferns!




And Raquel Welch.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 12:30 AM

...unless oil is a-bionic...

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 08:10 PM

Ah, souls!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 04 Nov 12 - 10:23 AM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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! :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 02:39 PM

That should be "150 years," of course.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!"**


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 03:05 PM

only should be lonely


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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*****************************


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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:~)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 08:19 PM

My bad... It was a 900 foot Jesus...

B;~)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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;~)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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*************************


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 09:13 PM

It's not an imprint.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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***************************


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 10:01 AM

Ahhhhh, the other angles... You know, angels... lol...

B;~)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 10:54 AM

OK, Amos...agreed.

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 08:18 PM

Expect silence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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)!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 01:26 PM

He's bloody barking all right! :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 05:46 PM

...and then consider whole thing!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Nov 12 - 04:58 AM

Cheap insults do nothing for your credibilty, GfS!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Trans