Have you ever considered not being undeliberately obtuse? I suppose not.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Printable View
Have you ever considered not being undeliberately obtuse? I suppose not.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Listen, I've been over this with YesNo ad nauseam across countless threads. He's had no less than 4 different posters tell him he has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to quantum physics, yet he insists on making insulting claims like "Many Worlds is pseudoscience" without even understanding what MW is or being able to cite any authorities that support him. It's flat-out exhausting to argue with him because about 95% of the time he completely ignores what you say and responds with non-sequitors in between stating lies and falsities that he's been informed are lies and falsities. He'll endlessly repeat points he's made even after you've responded to them thoroughly. His "probability" argument in this thread is one which I've already responded to in another that, like usual, he completely ignored and has continued to make the same "point" as if I never said anything. His style was so frustrating that one actual physics student gave up addressing him (Cioran). After a while, one suspects that he's just a dishonest troll trying to convince naive minds that don't know any better, because his points may sound "reasonable" to anyone that knows little about these subjects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
So please don't think that what I'm saying about YesNo is extended to you or anyone else in this thread, and also don't think that it comes out-of-the-blue for no reason. I can link you to at least 4 other threads where we've been over this, and I can show you points I've made that he's ignored while continuing to repeat his same arguments over and over. Whatever his beliefs, it's the exact same tactics I see Creationists using; even after a point of theirs has been thoroughly refuted, they'll continue to make the point in hopes of convincing people that don't know any better.
Again, we've been over this. You say "happen by chance," but I don't think you know what that really means. You agreed in a previous thread (probably before you knew what you were talking about) that the null hypothesis is the default position, and the null hypothesis is "chance." To move away from the null hypothesis requires more than just calculating the odds against something happening, yet this is all you're describing. There's no way to calculate the probability that something happened "by chance," there is only the probability of it happening for whatever reason. The probability against seeing those 100 license plates "by chance" is 6^100, which means it's astronomically unlikely. This in no way suggests it DIDN'T happen by chance, and to even begin arguing that requires more than just the probability of happening at all. So no matter how unlikely it is that life and us got here by the "chance" processes of evolution and natural selection, that's in no way evidence for or against agents being involved. Until you get this fundamental point I don't see any reason to continue.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Not a single theoretical physicist would describe MW as "pseudoscience." Only someone like yourself that has no clue what it is would say that. What's more, only someone with no clue about the subject, in general, would be incapable of paraphrasing an argument against it that you read.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
That's pretty close to the actual definition, and under that definition falls something like remote viewing.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Yes it does! MW explains what is happening to cause Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle! In fact, the only real difference between CHI and MW is that the former says that a "collapse" is causing HUP while the latter says that decoherence is causing HUP. The former has no foundation either in the math or observations and conflicts with everything else we know about physics; the latter is actually taking the math as real, fits the observations, and doesn't conflict with everything else we know about physics.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Dude, there have been multiple multi-million dollar government funded studies done on remote viewing, and all of them were shut down due to a lack of results, after which the scientific community labeled it as "pseudoscience." I'm not dismissing it "because it causes dissonance with my belief system," there's already pretty definitive scientific data out there!Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Just humor, mon ami. Running low on points as it matters little, we are at an impasse, because I'm not going to change and neither are you, which is as it should be. One should stand on their own principals, or one has no principals.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
And Morpheus: I understand the frustration of dealing with someone who depends on the same old unsubstantiated points. I still say your comment was uncalled for.
I try to let people know I believe God created the world, but certain scientific facts do not change. Evolution is a fact, not just a belief. Laws of physics do not change. But as the Bible says "With MEN these things are impossible. But with God all things are possible." Humanity is required to follow only what can be done within the boundaries of science and physics. God by definition is not subject to these, but goes beyond them.
So I cannot defy gravity, go faster than the speed of light, produce more energy than I expend, be unaffected by inertia and friction, etc. But God as all powerful can.
I know this probably doesn't fit into your world view. That's fine. No fuss from me. I just believe what I believe, as do you.
God bless both of you
Pen
Oh, and Lewis Carrol posed his "naked little girls" with wings and gauze, showing no indecency and with parental permission. To him they were fairies and other fantasy beings. Yeah, perhaps he was weird, you never know. But he was pretty careful about the pictures.
I woke up this morning realizing that I think I understand this and agree with you. Facts are unique. They can't be replicated. One can, however, replicate the failure to falsify a theory by doing an experiment again. I suspect one could also replicate falsifying a theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Correct me if I got this wrong.
If you look at the bottom of the Wikipedia article you originally cited there is a reference to Michael Persinger's work that "suggests positive results": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_...ecent_researchQuote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I wonder if the term "pseudo-science" could be extended to the dismissal of data as well as the construction of theories specifically designed to counter established data.
All I need is one example of a psychic exhibiting remote viewing for my argument about consciousness not being totally generated by the individual brain to make sense. If consciousness were totally generated by an individual brain, such events should not occur at all.
Yes, one guy with "research" that "suggests positive results" obviously outweighs multi-million dollar studies done by multiple governments and shut down due to lack of results. You, of course, are not in any way a victim of confirmation bias, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Yep, that's all you need. Good luck finding what governments with millions of dollars in research couldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Other than your spelling (is that American?) I agree. I always get deeply concerned when a principal contacts me - it means one of the kids is in it again!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
What a lot of people don't understand - and Richard Dawkins is among them - is that there is nothing wrong at all with religion until it head-butts with science. This is something the Catholic Church realised a long time ago. It is the people within religion who try to use it as a battering ram to force their beliefs onto others that are the problem.
I know you're not one of them.
He may well have been just on a different plane of existence to the rest of us. Had he not been attracted to fairies, we might not have had Alice. I don't believe there are any accusations of abuse around him anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
TheAtheist, Hello, mon ami!
Yes I am American, but that was more depending on auto-correct than spelling goof~! The Principal always made me nervous as well. I stand on my principles, :D
Question for you Pendragon. How can you believe God created the world, but then state evolution is a fact? This would imply that you believe man is a product of evolution and not a direct creation of God's. The Holy Bible makes it very explicit that God created Adam, and then Eve from one of his ribs.
I'm just curious how you differentiate between the creation of the world and the appearance of man, and how you accept God creating the earth, but accept science's theory of evolution? The juxtaposition between the two is pretty big from my point of view.
I want you to know that I am just curious how you reconcile your beliefs with science here and your reasoning for these statements you have made.
Although I agree with you in the abstract, the question becomes: how can religion--which deals with everything from history, to law, to morality, to metaphysics--stay "merely personal" and NOT affect the society in which it operates? While the conflicts between science and religion are amongst the most obvious clashes that display the harmful effects religion can have, certain civil struggles like same-sex marriage and feminism are also in large part due to religious conservatism, where a great many feel homosexuality is a sin and women have certain "places" in society. What I would say, however, is that I feel that these negative aspects would probably exist without religion (especially since I feel religion is man-made and merely an expression of what people feel about these issues anyway); but I also feel that religion gives people a sense of security in their opinions, as if those opinions aren't "their own," so much, but are decreed by an omnipotent, omniscient God who wrote them down in a Holy Book.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
God created man, animals, plants, etc. Yet obviously the ones here now are not the same as the originals. For example, we know a modern horse came down to us from a Eohippus. Big cats came down from Sabretooth tigers. Man has gone through quite a few changes, although with some of their fossil evidence, I wonder if perhaps that single skeleton was merely a diseased or odd looking person. If we took the Elephant Man's skeleton alone, we might think man was deformed badly. If we took Robert Wadlow's we would think men almost nine feet high. If we went by Jyoti Amge and He Pingping (which gives us both sexes) we would think man was barely 2 feet tall and less than 20 pounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vota
We know animals migrate and have to change to do so. When I was in elementary school, armadillos were only in Arizona and New Mexico near the southern border. Now they are seen around Nashville, a much colder clime for which they would have to adjust. The Coyote was a western pest, now they howl in the mountains here in Virginia just up the road a mile or so from where I sit typing this.
Why would it be odd to think things evolve from their creation point. If you believe that chance is the father of the universe, then what chance made had to evolve. As I believe it all began with God, the same applies. Things change adapt evolve from their creation and will continued to do so until their place in nature is no longer there.
Maybe I'm a bit strange, but I hope this answers your question.
God Bless
Pen
Some churches seem to manage it - or get very close to the ideal - while many christians treat their faith that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
The Anglican church is the best example of a religion which tends to stay arm's length from insanity & interference.
They have their petty squabbles over gayness and women bishops, but they generally keep their religion under their hats.
Rastafari would be another [almost] harmless religion.
Few & far between, I'll grant you.
"Yet obviously the ones here now are not the same as the originals."
The Bible says God created man, not a chimpanzee or a neanderthal. From Adam and Even you get the whole lineage of their tribe. This directly conflicts with the theory of evolution. There is no evolution going on here except that descendants lives' gradually became less and less long-lived. If you believe in the theory of evolution AND that God created man then you either believe in God, but not Judeo-Christian God, or there is a direct conflict here.
"Why would it be odd to think things evolve from their creation point."
The thing is, in the bible they don't. In most religions they don't. I guess knowing what religion or spiritual system you proscribe to would clear this up. For some reason I assumed you believed in Jehova, but if you don't then that would clear things up.
Do you believe that God, or an all-powerful benevolent force exists and presides over the universe, but independent of any particular belief system? If so, then I could see how that would not necessarily conflict with evolution.
Thanks.
Another thought popped into my head. My philosophy professor made a comment that there are potentially as many religions as there are people that hold religious beliefs because everyone practices their religion THEIR way. I think it would be amazing indeed if you could find a single person that completely, perfectly, and literally lived their life according to their specific religion's or belief system's codes. I doubt such a person truly exists, for even one transgression, one violation of the prescribed codes however trivial would be this person's conscious or subconscious decision to do what they want regardless of any outside moral or civic influence.
Some of this sounds like some info I was reading about Sartre yesterday. Its funny how things you read sometimes work their way into your consciousness without you even realizing it.
I'm still skeptical. Assuming the people of such churches vote, and assuming their religion has opinions on what they're voting on, their religions really aren't keeping out of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I know it's different in your neck of the woods, but among christians down this end of the world, few few of their votes are swayed by their religious belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Our former Prime Minister, for example, was a fairly forthright agnostic/atheist, yet a massive number of christians voted for her, while the christian party polled under 1%.
A lot of religion in the western world outside of USA is actually both liberal and quiet.
Fair enough. Perhaps it's just the prevalence of religious extremists in certain parts of the world that have engendered the notion that such "religious poisoning" (as Hitchens called it) is as prevalent everywhere.
Man didn't descend from chimpanzees Volta. A Neanderthal is a man. 'chuckle' A few people still look like Neanderthal's. Check professional wrestler "Hacksaw" Jim Dugan!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vota
Citation please for this Bible statement. What religions think I am unconcerned. If horses have not evolved show me an Eohippus. Among their fossils appear not a single modern horse. Among fossils of mammoths, sabretooths, giant sloths appear no modern elephants, current big cats, or two toed or three toed sloths. They evolved and changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vota
For the record I believe in Jehovah. You seem to say He couldn't allow animals and humans to adapt to changing environments. Tell me, what right do you have to say Jehovah is so limited in power that He cannot allow change? With God all, and when it says "all" it means "all" things are possible.
Abraham Lincoln was asked during the Civil War if he believed God was on the Union Side. He stated: "I am not concern about God being on our side, I am concerned with being on God's side, because God's side is right." As for belief systems, to which are you referring? Christianity has as many beliefs as there are stars in the sky. The Jews also worship Jehovah, but Jewish sects are many. Islam believes in the same God as Christians and Jews whom they call Allah. How many interpretations of what Allah desires are there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vota
God operates outside of belief systems or even among Christians the vast majority would be wrong and a small group right. God is subject to no laws. We cannot limit God.
God Bless
Pen
Science is a liar...sometimes. Take for example the pyramids of Egypt. To this day mainstream scientists are convinced that the pyramids were built with primitive tools such as hammers and chisels. However, there is massive amounts of evidence that shows they had to have had much more advanced technology to move these massive stones miles and miles, and then shape them into bricks as big as minivans. What scientists can't explain, they usually give up trying to come up with a viable explanation, or come up with something that makes no sense at all. Nicola Tesla was shunned from the scientific community when he tried to convince the world that AC power was more efficient and cost-effective than Edison's DC power. So you see, science, in many ways, is no different than religion at all. Both are flawed.
Quite right - it was aliens. I thought everyone knew that.Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
Maybe if you checked what scientists involved with the pyramids actually say about their construction, you wouldn't make such ill-informed comments.
Also, please note that science does not lie. Cannot in fact. Scientists lie all the time - some to try to find fame, others a following. Just look at Michael Behe as a glowing example. Unquestionably a scientist, he lies all the damned time.
Science itself cannot lie, because it's a process, not an entity.
Utter nonsense, the evidence is enormously overwhelming that that's not what happens at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
How many billion dollars have we spent on the LHC at CERN? The global array? Space exploration? Molecular biology?
And where have all the scientific discoveries from? Pasteur? Rutherford? Curie? Fleming?
Every scientific achievement has come about because scientists didn't know, so tried to find out - and we're still doing it, with CERN finding out new information and confirming or refuting theories in sub-atomic physics.
I'm glad you mention that, because it's a perfect example of science changing and winning.Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Where did I say in my post that aliens were responsible for building the pyramids, or was that your own scientific theory? Science can't lie? Aristotle thought the Earth was the center of the universe, it was later disproved by another popular scientist, Galileo. But then Galileo thought comets were optical illusions, and that there was no way the moon could cause the ocean's tides, of course, his theory was later disproved by another well known scientist, Isaac Newton, who, mind you, would later die eating mercury. They all used science to come up with their theories. Thus science is wrong sometimes. Science is a tool, just like religion. If a smart guy tells you the Earth is flat, by God you believe him!
Here's a good article about the many lies of science: http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/...f-science.html
You didn't say it was aliens, but if it wasn't humans, who else is there? You say - with no evidence whatsoever - that the pyramids couldn't have been built with primitive tools. We know for sure Egyptians only had primitive tools, so if there's another explanation, I'd be glad to hear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
Aristotle was a scientist, he was not science. But your example does again beautifully describe how science works - one scientist proposes a silly theory, another comes along and science changes. Bingo! Now, we all know - well, all except for the guy who used to try to tell us the earth is centre of the universe - that the universe does not revolve around planet Earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
Apart from the idiotic premise that Newton died from eating Mercury, you're showing very nicely how science changes. As with the above example of Aristotle, science changed after developments by later scientists. You're contradicting yourself most brilliantly!Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
Newton possibly did die from mercury poisoning, but that's not by eating, it would be to do with chemical experiments and not recognising how poisonous is. SCIENCE has since taught us that mercury is a dangerous poison.
Riiiight.Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
Yeah, that contradicts science alright. All those guys with Nobel prizes and PhDs in science, and you're listening to some bloke who writes a blog.
Sounds legit.
Science changes. Really? Is that the best you can do? Rats change, birds change, planets change, everything changes. You have to be a bit more specific.
As for the guy in the blog. I'll believe him over all those hotshot scientists out to pad their million dollar homes any day of the week. By the way if you did a little research you'll find that Denis Rancourt is a SCIENTIST.
My apologies, but I can't be more specific than that. It's why science claims things as "theory", like evolution. Every scientist agrees it happened, but there are trillions of pieces of information to piece together, and since we lack evidence for a lot of it, the theory can only ever keep changing and improving.Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
If you want something rigid and inflexible to rule your world, try religion!
Yep, those scientists are so damned rich! Look at how many of them there are on the Forbes rich list!Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
As to money, check out how much your blogger pal makes from the ads splattered all over his site.
Look, you're welcome to believe what you like, but your nonsensical posts are not really arguing a point so much as going "Waaa, I hate science!".
I'll never understand why people feel that way, but since you're typing messages on a keyboard attached to/inside a computer, using the internet, powered by electricity, fibre-optic cables, servers and binary codes all given to us by science, it all seems a bit hypocritical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
If you practiced what you preached and did a bit of research, you would have found that Denis Rancourt is a well-known scientist. He is not just some blogger.
Where did I say I hate science? I'm a science-fiction writer. Take a gander at the quote below--from one of the most popular science fiction books ever written.
Oh, quelle surprise!
It's not as though the author of the blog, one Denis G Rancourt has anything to be a little sour grapes about, is it?
Maybe you should donate to his legal defence fund? Is your posting merely an attempt to gain hits and money for his legal fund?
Are you, in fact, Dennis G Rancourt?
You keep making baseless assumptions. Hey! Kinda like a scientist.
We can keep arguing about this until the cows come home. The fact remains, religion and science are both institutions. These institutions are governed by people, not robots, not angels, not aliens from Planet X. And just like any institution there are things that are left unexplored to keep its reputation intact. So when a Nikola Tesla, or Denis Rancourt, or Jesus comes along and tries to explore those taboo areas and show people the truth, they are automatically shunned and disbarred from the institution.
Science can be good but it can be bad too. Religion can be good but can also be bad.
The person who is trying to discern between the two has to take it upon themselves to make a decision. Their decision should not be made by Bill Nye the science guy or some random priest in a church.
It should be done on their own.
Completely wrong again, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
Like science, I am asking questions rather than assuming.
Have you ever considered being right about something? It's free of charge, you know.
Looks like you're determined to. Fine by me - my job means I can take a quick 5 minutes here anytime I feel like it, and because you keep making totally erroneous posts, I'll keep playing.Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
And there you go - 100% incorrect again.Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
You yourself say it even!
More nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
You say people rule science? Point to them. Tell me which institution and people "govern science".
Note: your pal Rancourt has been barred from one university. He is still able to pursue scientific interests and publish his work. He is not in any meaning of the word "barred" from science. Even complete muppets like Behe are not barred from science. Laughed at, sure, but not barred.
I'd answer that, but since it doesn't meet the standard of "better than word salad" I won't try.Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
People don't rule science? Are you kidding me? Do you actually believe this stuff yourself? Tell that to the thousands of Japanese civilians that died when the atom bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
As for Rancourt, his reputation has been taken away from him, thus his future as a practitioner of science is rather bleak. The powers that be decided to make a mockery of him because he wanted to tell the TRUTH.
Which scientist was piloting the Enola Gay that day? Which scientific institution ordered it to drop the bombs?Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
Seriously, your posts are becoming crazier by the post.
You credit science with the Hiroshima bombing, despite the fact that the attack was ordered by, and committed by, non-scientists, while laughingly deriding science on that keyboard I mentioned above. (That you also had no answer to.)
Well, of course. It's always about THE TRUTH, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
Tell me.
How come your boy Rancourt - a scientist - is believable when all other scientists are not?
Be honest - what relationship do you have to Rancourt? Why are you supporting him so fervently, accepting his word as THE TRUTH, while simultaneously calling all other scientists cheats & frauds?
Thanks in advance - I think you really should clear that up.
I agree. We are the ones responsible for the decisions we make and the authorities we accept. I view shunning and sarcasm as hints of underlying irrationality.Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
Here's a good article showing science isn't really that different from religion. Again, decide for yourself what you want to believe. I'm not trying to bash anyone's beliefs.
http://listverse.com/2012/12/15/top-...ther-religion/
I'm sorry, I must've missed where the goodness was. It got lost amongst a bunch of lies, idiocy, fallacies, and irrationality.Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
The Enola Gay was the vehicle. Science is the reason the atom bomb exists in the first place. How many people did the Nazis kill while trying to "advance" science?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'm not saying he's believable. He created a shadow of a doubt on various topics covered within the institution of science, and he's been shunned from the scientific community. To me, when you try to silence someone because he's writing about things he BELIEVES (key word) in, then it's obvious the institution is trying to discredit him. Where else have we heard this before?
So, you do like some scientists - those with an anti-science agenda.
I love the way you're disproving all of your own premises by posting the ravings of scientists who write anti-science agendas. You're making it awfully plain that you're willing to sacrifice your anti-scientist scruples as long as they agree with your rather silly premises.
Anyway, from the link you generously provided, your guy makes good points.
Except that numbers 1-10 are all actually false.
You know, quite a few scientists are anti-science. Even Nobel chemistry prize winner, Kary Mullis is both anti-AGW and an AIDS denier, and he has seen little green men from outer space. I really do recommend you use him rather then the two feebletons you've picked so far.
Mullis has gravitas, and demonstrably no need of sour grapes; he achieved the pinnacle of success in science and has nobody to be beholden to.
Check him out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis
Ah, you obviously saw all the same mistakes I did!Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Oh yeah, Godwin the thread. That'll turn out well.Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
Al Qaida? NAMBLA? The KKK? Stormfront?Quote:
Originally Posted by glennr25
I give up, which one do you mean?
Of course it did. Isn't that what any true believer of religion would say to back their beliefs?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman