Area54

The irony is that you have been saying the same thing, even although multiple members have refuted/destroyed/countered your arguments/evidence/assertions.

Just to expand on Strange's point - why are there any religions, including whichever one you follow?

The reasons for the existence of any religion (and the reasons there are so many of them) are complex. However, I know of no characteristic that would validate any particular religion as the "correct" one.

If you wish to continue with the arrogance and self righteousness of your view of the followers of those other religions, then you might wish to consider that your motivations are probably a sin in your own religion.

1 hour ago, T. McGrath said:

No, actually, you are not finding "decent-looking trees" near Inuvik.  This is what Inuvik in the Northwest Territory actually looks like:

Not a single tree to be seen as far as the eye can see.  I don't know where "Kolari" is located, but clearly it is not as far north of the Arctic Circle as Inuvik.

I'm a little confused. What are those big, tall pointy things with leaves in your picture. Or in this one, from wikipedia?

2 hours ago, T. McGrath said:

Except that your assumptions are not supported by the evidence.  Atmospheric oxygen levels during the Triassic and Jurassic were between 12% and 13%, and dropped even further to between 10% and 11% during the Cretaceous.  At the end of the Cretaceous the oxygen levels spike back up to 18%, but are still lower than today's level.  Hence, atmospheric oxygen levels played absolutely no role in determining the size of the dinosaurs.

I don't see any assumptions in Moontanman's post. Where do you think they are?

Nowhere does Moontanman claim that atmospheric oxygen played any role in determining dinosaur size. Indeed, his post was a direct effort to clarify that he was not claiming that.

When do you plan to acknowledge and respond to my post from Monday? As it stands you are left defending a silly position. It would be nice for you to acknowledge that so we can get on to matters of substance.

I've just remembered that I wanted to comment on this. It is a perfectly usual word (attested 130 times, twice in the bible) which is the 1st sing. active perfect indicative of the verb eurisko to discover, find out. So it means "I have discovered (it)" and was (probably) pronounced HOO-re-ka. This is in stark contrast to the present-day attempt of yoo-REE-ka

Which doesn't contradict the assertion that the Greeks invented the word, unless you are suggesting the word was imported from another language.

Accretion discs?

16 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

That sort of thing gets us nowhere.

I could say that I interpreted that as you appearing to say that you like poking pigeons with pork sausages.

The fact is that I didn't assert what you said I "seemed" to.

Not the same at all. There was good reason to suspect what you meant was what I saw as a possibility. There is no good reason to consider that I was talking of pigeons and porcine product. I included the "appears" as a courtesy to you. If you prefer, I can avoid courtesy in future posts.

58 minutes ago, Strange said:

It has nothing to do with "currently". And it is probably these constant repetitions of the same errors/falsehoods that annoys people, rather than your vague waffle about your beliefs. 

I have to disagree very strongly here. As I noted earlier, science employs methodological naturalism. i.e. the supernatural is excluded, not because its existence is denied, but because its existence is considered unsuitable for scientific investigation. The first scientists did not work under this "constraint". The knowledge gathered by naturalists, most/many of them churchmen, that provided the foundation for Darwin and Wallace was done to explore and glorify the creation of God. Darwin set out on the Beagle with the same attitude. I have no objection to the current arrangement, but Mike is correct that it is the current arrangement.

20 hours ago, Area54 said:

You consider the possibility of superior beings because you like the possibility of superior beings.

12 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

What's wrong with that ? 

If you cannot see the illogic of that, I don't know what to say. There are valuable arguments that can be made for following one or other religion that are not based on choosing a nice philosophy just because it makes you feel good. Your position is no different than if I were to think I shall live to be at least one hundred and fifty when I shall emigrate to Mars, simply because this is what I should like to do! It's just silly. (My unedited post contained many expletives at this point.)

Michael Angelo did not portray this concept just because he liked it. He portrayed it because he had been raised in an environment in which the concept was largely unquestioned, in which the sophisticated arguments of scholars supported the concept and in which his own contemplation provided insights and revelations that went far beyond simply liking the idea.

Moreover, we have the interesting similarity of the figure of God and his immediate background to the structure of the human brain. Was Michael Angelo making a subtle declaration on a ceiling at the heart of Christianity that he thought God was the product of the human mind?

Could you expand on what you mean by daring? In the sense that it would test a hypothesis that is almost certainly wrong? In the sense that it would raise hackles in the related field(s) of science? In that it would place one in personal, physical or mental danger? In some other way?

Pertinent observations.

2 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

I do understand your reasoning. However the same could be said of a strictly ' centre stage ' approach by conventional science. If we cannot stick a probe in it and measure a value ' it ain't there ' !

No. Science currently employs methodological naturalism. In your words that mean that if we cannot currently stick a probe in it and measure it then it is not suitable for scientific investigation.

Quote

Well that might have been alright while science was doing all sorts of mechanics , atomic and electric development. But now we have gone to the outskirts of the universe , the very small sub particles , the very old , the very fast , we are coming across some things that do not behave predictably. 

I agree that we have encountered some things one might describe as unpredictable, contrary to Strange's position. I'd be interested to know what examples you consider fit the bill.

Quote

How do you not know , we might be having this issue with ' the concept of super being/s ' ?

How do I not know David Icke's claim the Royal Family is a group of alien lizards is true?

How do I not know that a conspiracy of powerful people has prevented me taking my rightful place as a world leader

How do I not know that there are not creatures that look like inflated cabbages living in the clouds of Venus?

How do I not know that the world was created in the last five minutes, with all previous memories artificially created?

In each instance, including yours, I do not know, but if I consider likelihood there is essentially no evidence for believing any of those things. I don't rule any of them out, but I certainly don't give them space on my mantelshelf.

You consider the possibility of superior beings because you like the possibility of superior beings.

I agree. My own remarks about "perpetual motion" were, it seems, more a reflection of my own ignorance and reading comprehension than any stemming from Abnormally Honest.

Nicely put.

Hi quirky88, it's not clear to me why you can't purchase the balls and the system from the existing company. You say it is already being done, which implies that they have the balls in production. It is probable that purchasing a tried and tested solution would be less expensive - and quicker - than trying to develop a new one.

24 minutes ago, Rinocerberus said:

I like this a lot. Very intuitive.

Which is often code for "wild assed guess".

I read it, perhaps incorrectly, as a variant of the perpetual question about perpetual motion.

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

What meaning do you find in breaking down an ongoing process in this way?

Professional biologists might have a similar problem describing conception as the beginning of life, since it's part of a living process. 

Creationists do indeed hide behind this distinction, and the meaning they find is religious, not scientific.

Many processes are subdivided depending upon scale. It can be a useful distinction. Melanism in peppered moths is on a different scale from the emergence of a new genus.

I'm afraid your second observation has lost me. Obviously conception is simply the continuation of life, not its beginning and equally sperm, ovum and zygote are all alive, so I don't see where you are heading with that even as an issue separate from evolution.

I did not say that creationists do not abuse the concept, I simply observed that they had not invented it.

I lurked in this and other forums for some time before participating. I noticed, on several occassions, posters making the claim that microevolution and macroevolution

• Were meaningless terms
• Were avoided by professional biologists
• Were introduced by creationists to enable them to explain away observed adaptation, but reject evolution of species

I view each of these positions as flawed (seriously flawed), but wonder if any members incline to agree with any or all of them, and if so, why?

Nice finds from both of you. I especially like the second one, on account of the minor parts played by humans and goldfish.

Humans need heroes. In their absence we shall create them.

1 hour ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

There is something very distinctive as I attend my pool ( with the goldfish in ) . My eyes gaze about the various goldfish swimming about . 

WITHOUT FAIL , ....I AUTOMATICALLY COUNT THE FISH . 

CURRENTLY     10  ( 7 gold coloured , 3 black ) . There was 11 , but when I counted only 10 , . I immediately combed with my eyes , and 'low and behold ' the Big fish was dead . 

This daily procedure of automatically counting to see they were all there , I could not stop. 

I then thought , is there a comparison with the upper HEIRACHY to us humans . Is there a daily count to see we are ALL ALRIGHT. . Then it came to me . There was some discussion somewhere between JESUS  and some onlookers ( not sure who) but Jesus was heard to say something to the effect that " fear not ". " not a single Bird or animal , falls to the ground and dies without this knowledge being known to God . So there is the similarity of behaviour between the two HEIRACHY.  Quite interesting . Found ref .

( Ref Bible Matthew chap 10: verse 29-31 ) 

Even we , on earth , have head counts to the nearest 10,000 . There appears to be a mechanism in place , the next up in the HEIRACHY, where the numbers of ' man ' and ' beast ' are known  exactly . 

 

Mike 

Seriously? Mike, the assertion that God is aware of the fall of a single sparrow is an assertion made by man. It is hardly surprising that it reflects the same sentiments you feel towards your goldfish. It is not evidence for the divine. It is evidence for the like thinking of men over two millenia.

As a side note, if this benign God is only checking in on us once a day he isn't doing his job right.

50 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Looks like I was pretty close.

Wouldn't it be better to tackle anti-rationalism as a whole, rather than just antivaxers?

That's nice; but I didn't assert that.

I asserted that faith in irrational things is correlated with faith in other irrational things.
Care to try again with less strawmanning?

Point 1: I said you appeared to assert that. I left an element of doubt.

Point 2: Your central thesis has been that religion is "bad". The irrational beliefs is one example of this. The opposition to vaccination is a consequence of these irrational beliefs. You have used this and other examples to support your contention that religion is bad. You present a one-sided view.

Point 3: I cite examples of the good work done by religious groups in delivering aid in third world countries. At the same time I acknowledge, for example, the child abuse  by a subset of priests. I hold a more balanced view.

Point 4: Making that point is not attacking a strawman it is dismantling your central thesis.

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

It's a fair cop.

Incidentally, if I post this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/despite-measles-outbreak-anti-vaccine-activists-in-minnesota-refuse-to-back-down/2017/08/21/886cca3e-820a-11e7-ab27-1a21a8e006ab_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.fa409111ccd4
people will tell me that not all anti vaxers are religious.

Tue, but they are all part of the same group that feed off eachother's irrationality.

(autocorrect messed that up)

I am not prepared to invest the time in confirming this, but my education leads me to believe that a singnificant proportion of the first vaccination programs in Africa were promoted, supported, facilitated or delivered by missionaries and church groups. Now, I am not going to deduce from this that all religious are logical and committed to such programs, but I don't think you are standing on solid ground when you appear to assert the opposite.

6 minutes ago, Manticore said:

Me too. I decided decades ago that Americans do not speak English. Trouble is, neither do large numbers of Britishers any more.

Should that be Britons?

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

"Is now" as compared to when. In years past the U.S. was seriously compromised as well for reasons already stated.

 I am not comparing upward mobility in the US with anything in the past. I am comparing it with upward mobility in China.

I seem to have touched some sort of raw nerve. I was making a very simple point. (If it helps, please think of it as a simplistic point.) Upward mobility, a central part of the American Dream, is now a prominent feature of the Chinese culture and economy.

You were happy enough to point out that many were excluded from realising the American Dream fifty years ago, yet now make a point that, in China,  women "are still second class citizens in many ways". I just don't feel you are making a coherent point, but are just offended in some way that I've called into question the viability of the American Dream and will throw up minor debating points in order to defend this.

So, on the main point, do you or do you not agree that China is now pursuing a version of the American Dream?