Leaderboard

! Moderator Note This thread just died and won't be coming back.

I have a question: If your ideas were somehow wrong, what would have to happen in order to show this and prove your ideas are wrong? If your answer is something along the lines of "nothing", then what you're doing isn't science.

Specifically:

It's natural vs supernatural. Science isn't saying "no" to the supernatural, it's saying "Hey, not the right tool for the job." No religious beliefs needed, so science is not morphing into a new religion. What's morping is your definition of both science and religion. One is becoming so broad its meaningless, and the other is purposely narrow to drive your agenda in asking the question. You generalize and assume far too much, and many mistakes you've made have been corrected by others yet ignored by you. Your arguments suffer from this. You'll probably have to leave soon since you can't seem to understand that we don't allow people to make assertions with no support the way you do. It's against our rules, because it's a really, really stupid way to discuss science. You don't get to claim things here without support, and you don't understand what support in science means, so you keep shitting on our forum and screaming when we try to clean it up. You are NOT worth the trouble you cause, and your ideas are baseless until you can support them rationally. What is stopping you from backing up your ideas with more than wavy hands and screaming?

No.

I was born an Australian Catholic, although I have not checked in recent times re any possible excommunication. The text in your post I highlighted does though conform with my total way of thinking. I used the analogy the other day in a post, (forget where) like a child refusing to let go of his Teddy bear. My Mrs is a true Christian in every sense of what that should entail...kind, generous, tolerant, (after all she has put up with me for 42 years!) and would give her right arm to help someone in dire need or stress...sometimes to a fault. I never ever attempt to change her mind:she never ever attempts to change mine, although probably once every year at Xmas she will ask me to accompany her to church. My Son, obviously now a full blown adult, is tending to my way of thinking, but like me, tolerates his Mother, and appreciates the extreme goodness in her, despite the crutch she leans on.

Yes, if you don't suffer then it's not really a crime. Same with women who are drugged. It's not like they suffered much.

<Antfuckermode>Wrong. Disciplines that concern themselves with what physicists say about nature could be linguists and sociologists. Physicists try to describe how nature behaves. Therefore they use models, which of course are not how nature is. (or better: of which we cannot know if they describe nature as it really is).</Antfuckermode> 'Physical existence' is not well-defined. E.g. objects and processes are different 'be-ables' (I think it was Bell who used this term for everything that possibly can exist), both are subject of physics. Space and time are a separate physical category. Processes can cause other processes. Objects are the points at which processes 'touch each other'. It is clear that space and time are none of these. Processes and objects exist in space and time. In special relativity the Lorenz transformations can be seen as rotations in spacetime. But rotations have no influence on what is rotated, i.e. objects themselves do not change: observers see distances and periods differently dependent on the inertial frame they are in. I assume something similar holds in general relativity. But that would mean that the bending of light in a gravity field is also an effect of perspective, and no causal effect as with processes in spacetime. @Physicists here: does that make sense?

Actually, no. Despite you repeating yourself over and over, we don't see "the moon," and that's precisely my point. What we do "see" is a dynamically constructed version... a model or representation of the moon in our minds eye. We experience an awareness of the moon only after enough different cells have fired and patterns have activated in the right places. We essentially "build" a version of the moon in each moment using the stimuli entering our retinas, traveling along the optic nerve, into various areas of the cortex (occipital and otherwise) where it triggers a neural web shaped, strengthened, and pruned by all of our past experiences. On top of this, the activation of that biological infrastructure is itself altered and filtered by our mood, level of fatigue, hunger, electrolyte balance, hydration, which specific rod and cone receptors received the photons, whether we were in bright or dark conditions immediately prior, and countless other related factors. All of these things change the actual "moon" that we see. You and I can both look upon the exact same celestial object and see two completely different things, but we're part of a community where language has developed to call that celestial body the "moon." As we grew up, moved on beyond childhood, through adolescence, and into adulthood, we've been taught to connect these patterns of neural activation with other completely separate patterns of activation in the language centers of the brain, specifically the pattern we've repeated often enough to have a specific word for it... the pattern we call "moon." All of this to say, we don't (despite your protestations) see "the moon." We instead each experience our own individual personalized, manufactured, and reconstructed versions of it... Versions that could be dramatically altered with a quick electric pulse... Versions which at their core barely differ and are scarcely distinguishable from those other experiences of the faces in the leaves or the nonexistent cats on the roof you cite in context of your father. See also: The allegory of the cave from Plato. Or... In other words, what we "see" is just an illusion..

Transportation is NOT a one-size-fits-all proposition. I think a broader array of options is needed for flexibility. I also question the whole door-to-door delivery requirement, which seems unreasonable for many otherwise effective modes of travel. I love the idea of high-speed elevated monorail systems that don't interact with automobile roads at all. But even if it was available to me, I'll still be flying to NY next week because it'll only take a few hours, and the plane won't be stopping at every major city on the way. I'll take light rail if I'm going to downtown Denver or the airport, where my car is actually more of a nuisance and an expense. I take my car if I'm going to multiple places in a day (which is most days). I used to ride my bike to the grocers for small runs, but I've gotten better at planning so my groceries no longer fit in my backpack. Unfortunately, most places I need to go close enough for biking require I also have a bigger payload. I can't think of a single system that would be ideal. And many times you can adjust your habits to suit the system. A buddy of mine was horrified to find that taking light rail to work was going to double his commute time compared to driving himself, until his company pointed out they'd pay him for that time if he'd have his coffee and catch up on emails on the ride in every morning. Now he hits the ground running when he gets there. Wasn't it Asimov who had the series of moving walkways across the city, so you could always move to a faster one going in the right direction (like the express lane on some highways)? That might be a good way to move folks from a residential area to a commercial one, where they could choose from faster options depending on their destinations.

Nothing better than ---->

Why does it matter?

True. False. False. False. False. Your caricature of me and my goals is only 1/5 accurate. I think this is a problem, and you must be going out of your mind with worry that you're so poor at understanding what others mean by the words they use. Can I suggest you drop the constant sniping at convenient strawmen, and try to understand some nuance beyond the stereotypes you rail against? You might find we share a dislike for the way our taxes are spent, which could go a long way towards fixing the real problems, which incidentally might lower your overall tax burden. It might take some creative solutions (since decades of conservative ones still leave both of us bitching) like investing in fighting the reasons for crime instead of investing in punishing it. It might take going back to the framework for prosperity that worked last time (when the rising tide really did float all boats), back in Eisenhower's day. We seem to agree that leadership is not doing well. I'm sorry you don't see how lopsided the economy is, and how much more it favors the wealthiest extreme capitalists in all things. I think these fat cats have been leaning on the pool table long enough, and I'm calling cheat because that's the only way to stop it. I really hate the image of the US as poorly educated fodder for corporate maneuvering for profit. I don't understand Americans who don't want other Americans to be as well educated as possible, and grateful to a nation that cared enough to invest in their potential. Taxes can fix this, but we have to invest in education, starting with qualified leadership so our public dollars are more effective.

Glad to have you on the side of reason. So let's fine tune this statement of yours, because it's got several popular misconceptions while still showing that you understand the dangers of unfounded belief. Science isn't really interested in "proof" so much as the preponderance of evidence. Think less in terms of answers and more in terms of best supported explanations. Theory is the best science can achieve, and our modern theories are backed by mountains of supportive evidence as they develop over time. Logic is more of a math term. What you're looking for is critical thinking, or reason. Popular "logic" is used more as "that makes sense to me", which is horribly subjective and not scientific at all. Also, don't discount feelings, just use them correctly. There are times to be emotional. Usually best after you've reasoned things out, and are now passionate about the results. Lastly, belief has levels of trust. Faith asks you to believe strongly in something you can't possibly know. Science asks you to understand an explanation deeply enough to believe in it based on trust. Everything else is just wishful thinking.

That is ironic, coming from the master of the tl;dr screeds of irrelevant nonsense.

Jfoldbar, you need to understand that Pymander is really good at trying to use the "argument from authority" logical fallacy. It doesn't work very well. People point out that this "When Woodrow was asked if he believed Edgar Cayce to be a real psychic, Woodrow said "No man is that good a liar." " only matters if Wilson had some special ability to spot liars. There is no reason to suppose that he did. Similarly, this "The very existence of the Jews, and of Christianity and its influence over two thousand years, is difficult to explain unless the Bible and Jesus are the truth on some level of significance. " doesn't make much sense since you could apply it equally validly (or equally invalidly) to any scripture. It doesn't make sense, except at the level where, if a book says lots of things and some of tem er true, then the book has some truth in it. So what? That's true of Toad of Toad Hall- but it doesn't make it into holy writ. I could go on, but there's not much point. Further evidence of his impermeability to facts can be found, for example, in teh trhead here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85759-was-jesus-a-real-person/page-43#entry986934 You might want to consider that he has a current reputation here of -41 and he's achieved that while only posting 154 times.

You were my main prime suspect, along with your side kick, who gives you points every time you make a derogatory remark ref anyone on the forum. You also gave me most of my other brownie points, between you and your side kick. The more points the better, ROFL, bring them on, it might give you some amusement until you get bored. Have you been down marking a lot of people anonymously, is it your normal behaviour. HaHaHaHa Don't mess with the dumreepr you will be marked down anonymously Chuckle chuckle. You have been outed Ditto to you too

I had a similar theory to this which also explains the matter/antimatter asymmetry. I shared it on physics forums, but it got banned by admin because they didn't like theories. I'm not going to post it here, but I definitely think you are on to something, and perhaps we can work together to explain a possible split in the dimensions of our universe. Also, although I am a chemistry know-it-all, I still have a large background knowledge in nuclear and particle physics, as well as a huge knowledge of fusion research and electroplasmaic engineering. -RadioChemist

Lol there's more variation within some species than between them. http://muse.jhu.edu/article/381884/pdf Did you really not know that? Did it not occur to you to check whether variation in other taxa were similar? Does every single piece of DNA have to be different to constitute a different subspecies? Does that make sense given your vast knowledge of biology? Care to admit you're wrong before changing the subject? The AAA board was stacked with leftists and put out that statement with no membership voting. http://en.rightpedia.info/w/American_Anthropological_Association_Statement_on_"Race" (link appears broken due to length, copy paste) Doubtless we're now going to run in circles through all of the race denial fallacies. http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Arguments_regarding_the_existence_of_races Fake science, fake everything. Sad.

I am LITERALLY ROTFLMFAO! The Washington Post?Using the encyclopedia Britannica as a benchmark? There's no secular humanist agenda there, is there? Wow, I can't believe how ignorant some people can seem when they try to support nonsensical ideas.

I think that global warming is just an opinion. Who here in the science comunity agrees?!?

To answer that question, the first thing we have to do is understand what the definitions of science and religion are: sci·ence ˈsīəns/ noun noun: science the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. re·li·gion rəˈlijən/ noun noun: religion the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.#1 "ideas about the relationship between science and religion" synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More sect, church, cult, denomination "the freedom to practice their own religion" a particular system of faith and worship.#2 plural noun: religions "the world's great religions" a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.#3 In some other dictionaries, religion is defined as “any specific system of belief, worship, or conduct that prescribes certain responses to the existence (or non-existence) and character of God.” Also, “a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power.” #4 I think it's clear modern science very closely fits the criteria of #4 and in many ways fits the #2 and #3 criteria , and in a few ways #1 Science DOES create a predictable and prescribed response to the assertions of co coreligionists, for instance creationism is dismissed out of hand because it relies on a a belief in a supreme being. In a way it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater because while it does seem unlikely that a God in the classic sense of the word exists, that does not preclude the existence of some organized consciousness we don't yet understand. (which I believe is in fact closer to the truth than atheism) Obviously most modern scientists ascribe a supreme importance to their ideas over those of (other) coreligionists, because when those other beliefs conflict their own BELIEFS they dismiss them out of hand without evidence, and even systematically censor those conflicting ideas from what their view of science is, that is to say belief or non belief in a supreme power or spirit is in fact a faith based idea, it neither can be proved or disproved so neither BELIEF has any place in SCIENCE (see definition above). Is intelligent design a invalid theory of science because it prescribes a belief in an intelligent arrangement of the universe? Probably not, because precluding it on that basis would require #4 and #3 be part of the definition of science, which would make it a religion instead and require BELIEF in faith based ideas in the absence of empirical evidence and actual observations. It is also of particular interest when discussing this subject that many people like myself who do subscribe to the theory of an intelligent arrangement of the universe do not make any particular claims of the existence or non existence of a personal God or of any God, I in fact believe the classic religious view of what God is defies rationality and logic. As a adherent to the theory of intelligent design, I base that adherence to theory on reams of empirical evidence that supports it. I have been repeatedly censored on this board for espousing a belief in an intelligent arrangement of the universe and that meets criteria #4; and #2 to some extent. I also think it is interesting that the idea that the way modern science dismisses out of hand that there is no intelligent arrangement is ignoring evidence and refusing to acknowledge the obvious, that complex forms and interactions, laws and definite predictable responses to different input requires some intelligent design, for instance evolution allows organisms to adapt to environmental stresses and a complex system of interactions with very precise parameters allows the existence of life on this planet. "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world"- Is "behavior" an intelligent predictable response and does 'structure" require intelligent arrangment? The structure of a double helix strand of DNA with encoded information defines intelligent design. It transmits or preserves information so that the nucleus and mitochondria of a cell can interpret it in order to arrange a specific structure to itself, and intelligence is the ability to interpret information. Therefore there can be no rational doubt whatsoever that DNA and evolution both fit the criteria for "intelligent design" through empirical evidence. Denying it in order to fit a predetermined belief or non belief in a God is irrational and has no real place in science. http://www.reasons.org/articles/harvard-scientists-write-the-book-on-intelligent-design-in-dna I think it is fair to mention that with a very few exceptions all noteworthy scientists of history believed in an intelligent arrangement of the universe. Here are just a few examples: quoting Albert Einstein: "Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." quoting Sir Issac Newton: "One principle in Philosophy is the being of a God or spirit infinite eternal omniscient, omnipotent, & the best argument for such a being is the frame of nature & chiefly the contrivance of the bodies of living creatures. All the great land animals have two eyes, in the forehead a nose between them a mouth under the nose, two ears on the sides of the head, two arms or two fore leggs or two wings on the sholders & two leggs behind & this symmetry in the several species could not proceed from chance, there being an equal chance for one eye or for three or four eyes as for two, & so of the other members. Nothing is more curious & difficult then the frame of the eyes for seeing & of the ears for hearing & yet no sort of creatures has these members to no purpose. What more difficult then to fly? & yet was it by chance that all creatures can fly which have wings? Certainly he that framed the eyes of all creatures understood the nature of light & vision, he that framed their ears understood the nature of sounds & hearing, he that framed their noses understood the nature of odours & smelling, he that framed the wings of flying creatures & the fins of fishes understood the force of air & water & what members were requisite to enable creatures to fly & swim: & therefore the first formation of every species of creatures must be ascribed to an intelligent being." quoting: James Clerk Maxwell "one of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have produced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the identity of their properties to any of the causes which we call natural. On the other hand, the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self-existent. Thus we have been led, along a strictly scientific path, very near to the point at which Science must stop, — not that Science is debarred from studying the internal mechanism of a molecule which she cannot take to pieces, any more than from investigating an organism which she cannot put together. But in tracing back the history of matter, Science is arrested when she assures herself, on the one hand, that the molecule has been made, and, on the other, that it has not been made by any of the processes we call natural." Here are a few more: Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7) George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it." Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science."

There are two types of people mainly . White people and black people . lol White people has some advantage over black people . White people are more attractive than black people Why is this such a complex thing to understand .

I'd say it's Jewish monopolization of finance which they use to monopolise media and academia to push fake news and fake science in purely Jewish interests, while calling people "anti Semitic" for pointing out this neutral fact and their anti White pro Jewish lies. You might as well call Gandhi "anti British" for objecting to selfish British rule. This book has some good info. url deleted