Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) tore into scientists as tools of the devil in a speech at the Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman’s Banquet last month.
“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,” Broun said. “And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”
According to Broun, the scientific plot was primarily concerned with hiding the true age of the Earth. Broun serves on the House Science Committee, which came under scrutiny recently after another one of its Republican members, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), suggested that victims of “legitimate rape” have unnamed biological defenses against pregnancy.
“You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth,” he said. “I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”
Broun — a physician, with an M.D. and a B.S. in chemistry — is generally considered to be among the most conservative members of Congress, if not the most. He drew national attention in 2010 for saying he did not know if President Obama was an American citizen.
In his speech, a clip of which was provided to TPM by The Bridge Project, a non-profit progressive tracker, Broun credited his literal Biblical interpretation with driving his approach to government.
The full 47-minute speech, posted by the Liberty Baptist Church, can be found here.
“What I’ve come to learn is that it’s the manufacturer’s handbook, is what I call it,” he said. “It teaches us how to run our lives individually, how to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society. And that’s the reason as your congressman I hold the holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that.”
Stupid people, while entertaining. Shouldn't be in positions of power, like on the House Science Committee.
Also, it's amazing how often you see scientists who don't deal with geology or biology believe in young-earth creationism. I suspect they're the people who just memorized a list of formulas for each test and never really understood the scientific method or the theory behind it all, and then went straight into a job where they only have to deal with a very narrowly focused field.
I mean, Data was pretty scientific, but to pretend Lore wasn't either is just criminal. And refusing to add the "s"? Brent Spiner is probably incensed!
chances are he needs guns on hand for whatever reason due to his job. The job however, i got no idea, can't think of any where that is the case, but you have to supply our own. Besides a criminal of some kind of course.
JohnnoM wrote: chances are he needs guns on hand for whatever reason due to his job. The job however, i got no idea, can't think of any where that is the case, but you have to supply our own. Besides a criminal of some kind of course.
Mentioned something about being a gunsmith in another thread, if I recall correctly. So living in a country with strict gun laws would be bad for business.
Fafnir's got it in one. I looked into working for SAPOL (NSW wouldn't return my emails) and they basically told me that even with specialist skills I'd have to be a beat cop for a couple years then request a transfer to firearms section. So I can't even work for the government.
JohnnoM wrote: chances are he needs guns on hand for whatever reason due to his job. The job however, i got no idea, can't think of any where that is the case, but you have to supply our own. Besides a criminal of some kind of course.
Mentioned something about being a gunsmith in another thread, if I recall correctly. So living in a country with strict gun laws would be bad for business.
Also, it's amazing how often you see scientists who don't deal with geology or biology believe in young-earth creationism. I suspect they're the people who just memorized a list of formulas for each test and never really understood the scientific method or the theory behind it all, and then went straight into a job where they only have to deal with a very narrowly focused field.
A very small number of scientists are creationists, I think something like 4% of scientists don't believe in evolution. None of these (or virtually none) will work in the life sciences.
The fact that such an ill informed/delusional fool is actually on a government science commitee speaks volumes about how useful these commitees actually are.
I think that the real problem is that we have a house "Science" committee. We should have the house righteousness or biblical committee. These good men of proper faith are just doing their best with a broken system.
A very small number of scientists are creationists, I think something like 4% of scientists don't believe in evolution. None of these (or virtually none) will work in the life sciences.
The fact that such an ill informed/delusional fool is actually on a government science commitee speaks volumes about how useful these commitees actually are.
Here is a list of ill informed/delusional fools..virtually none of them work in life sciences....wait a minute....virtually none?...See bolded list below.
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Dr. Kenneth W. Funk, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology Dr. William F. Kane, (Civil) Geotechnical Engineering
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology Dr. John G. Leslie, Biochemist, Physician, Archaeologist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, Physician
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology Dr. Kenneth Royal, Psychometrics
Dr. Joachim Scheven, Palaeontologist
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist George S. Smith, M.S., Chemistry
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist Dr. Stephen J. Vinay III, Chemical Engineering
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Gordon Wilson, Environmental Science and Public Policy
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
Here is a list of ill informed/delusional fools..virtually none of them work in life sciences....wait a minute....virtually none?...See bolded list below.
Now, would you like a list of scientists of all stripes who do believe in evolution? Because we can essentially go through every research institute, university, think tank, research firm, and whatever else you care to name in this nation, grab every scientist, and just cross the names you wrote off the list.
You're not going to win the, "We're credible with our creationist/young earth tripe!" argument by trotting out a pathetically small list of names. One in five Americans think we staged the moon landing. The fact that there's a lot of misinformed, outright wrong people doesn't lend any credibility at all to the wrong notion. See: politics.
Here is a list of ill informed/delusional fools..virtually none of them work in life sciences....wait a minute....virtually none?...See bolded list below.
Now, would you like a list of scientists of all stripes who do believe in evolution? Because we can essentially go through every research institute, university, think tank, research firm, and whatever else you care to name in this nation, grab every scientist, and just cross the names you wrote off the list.
You're not going to win the, "We're credible with our creationist/young earth tripe!" argument by trotting out a pathetically small list of names. One in five Americans think we staged the moon landing. The fact that there's a lot of misinformed, outright wrong people doesn't lend any credibility at all to the wrong notion. See: politics.
You are arguing from ad-populum.
All I was doing was responding to palindromes erroneus statement regarding life scientists that believe in creation as "virtually none" If he had said small number I wouldn't have had an issue with his misleading statement.
Here is a list of ill informed/delusional fools..virtually none of them work in life sciences....wait a minute....virtually none?...See bolded list below.
Now, would you like a list of scientists of all stripes who do believe in evolution? Because we can essentially go through every research institute, university, think tank, research firm, and whatever else you care to name in this nation, grab every scientist, and just cross the names you wrote off the list.
You're not going to win the, "We're credible with our creationist/young earth tripe!" argument by trotting out a pathetically small list of names. One in five Americans think we staged the moon landing. The fact that there's a lot of misinformed, outright wrong people doesn't lend any credibility at all to the wrong notion. See: politics.
You are arguing from ad-populum.
All I was doing was responding to palindromes erroneus statement regarding life scientists that believe in creation as "virtually none" If he had said small number I wouldn't have had an issue with his misleading statement.
GG
His statement is still accurate when you consider the proportion of life scientists who don't believe in evolution as a percentage of the total number of life scientists. The percentage would be so low you could assume it is zero, without it affecting your data in any meaningful way.
How many scientists are there in the world? How many names are on your list? Additionally about half of your list don't work in the life sciences, 1 is even a plastic surgeon. I made no misleading statement.
How the hell can you be a Paleontologist and a creationist? A creationist Geneticist, serioulsy? That must put a damper on his professional credability.
Here is a list of ill informed/delusional fools..virtually none of them work in life sciences....wait a minute....virtually none?...See bolded list below.
Now, would you like a list of scientists of all stripes who do believe in evolution? Because we can essentially go through every research institute, university, think tank, research firm, and whatever else you care to name in this nation, grab every scientist, and just cross the names you wrote off the list.
You're not going to win the, "We're credible with our creationist/young earth tripe!" argument by trotting out a pathetically small list of names. One in five Americans think we staged the moon landing. The fact that there's a lot of misinformed, outright wrong people doesn't lend any credibility at all to the wrong notion. See: politics.
You are arguing from ad-populum.
All I was doing was responding to palindromes erroneus statement regarding life scientists that believe in creation as "virtually none" If he had said small number I wouldn't have had an issue with his misleading statement.
GG
His statement is still accurate when you consider the proportion of life scientists who don't believe in evolution as a percentage of the total number of life scientists. The percentage would be so low you could assume it is zero, without it affecting your data in any meaningful way.
No it's not when you look at his original statement..in fact he said 4% don't believe in evolution and of those..."virtually none are from life sciences" I did a quick calculation and a little over 25% of that list are from the life sciences fields.
No it's not when you look at his original statement..in fact he said 4% don't believe in evolution and of those..."virtually none are from life sciences" I did a quick calculation and a little over 25% of that list are from the life sciences fields.
GG
Palindrome wrote: How many scientists are there in the world? How many names are on your list? Additionally about half of your list don't work in the life sciences, 1 is even a plastic surgeon. I made no misleading statement.
How the hell can you be a Paleontologist and a creationist? A creationist Geneticist, serioulsy? That must put a damper on his professional credability.
I said look at the "BOLDED" those are life scienctists...and it looks like I left off the Botonists so you can add those to the list of "BOLDED".
No it's not when you look at his original statement..in fact he said 4% don't believe in evolution and of those..."virtually none are from life sciences" I did a quick calculation and a little over 25% of that list are from the life sciences fields.
GG
Which is still virtually none.
You obviously don't know anything about statistics.
I'd just like to say as someone who has played 40k, I don't buy that the Space Marines are produced by "Games Workshop" in some kind of "Factory" with "Plastic". It's right there in the Codex, they're genetically modified from young recruits. You can't change the Codex truth of Space Marine creation, take that as an expert opinion from someone who has played the game.
Bloke has an MD and doesn't "believe" in embryology!? I'm glad the mother fether isn't my missus doctor!
Seriously, this stuff really annoys me now. Its poisoned my military service as well, because for example, I was proud and pleased when I was selected to form the advance party sent into Iraq a couple of months before the war started, I was happy to go back on OIF 4 a couple of years later as well. I trusted the upper echelons like any good soldier does, and figured I was doing my duty for a good reason.
And then I found out a few years later that the real reason we went is because Bush Is a half mad deluded lunatic who thought God told him to invade Iraq during a candid conversation.
I thought we were invading for a sensible reason, and I figured I had something in common with Mr Bush because we both have no tolerance for Islam. But the my lack of tolerance is because I have a lack of tolerance for all Religion and Theocracy, I think that it is the anathema to true freedom which causes suffering and misery for millions.
The reason Bush had no tolerance for Islam is because he wants to replace it with his own almost as intolerant version, hardcore Christianity!
35 -40% of Americans are no better than Iranians or Pakistanis. They would be more than happy to live in a Religious Theocracy as long as it was their Religion, they would be more than happy to see gays locked up and abortions made illegal.
Also, it's amazing how often you see scientists who don't deal with geology or biology believe in young-earth creationism. I suspect they're the people who just memorized a list of formulas for each test and never really understood the scientific method or the theory behind it all, and then went straight into a job where they only have to deal with a very narrowly focused field.
I thinks its more of an unwillingness to look beyond yourself. Many People i talk to both think that its both awesome and scary that there is so much out there. Scary because it shows you how little you actually matter, so some may not want to think that.
No it's not when you look at his original statement..in fact he said 4% don't believe in evolution and of those..."virtually none are from life sciences" I did a quick calculation and a little over 25% of that list are from the life sciences fields.
GG
Which is still virtually none.
Why do you even bother?
GG is a dyed in young earth Creationist/Scientific conspiracy theorist. There is no point at all in even entering into a debate with him. He/they have literally zero credibility. You don't NEED to refute him, because the facts, common sense, and everyone who matters doesn't agree with him, they agree with you.
His bizarre theory is as ridiculous as the flat earth theory, and I don't see anyone worrying about refuting their claims.
It is painfully obvious that they are desperate to make the facts tally with their Religious books, they will never achieve that aim because almost everything they say is utterly utterly false. You can never make a lie transform into the truth no matter how much you try to spin it.
And taking the time to write a short list of "scientists" on dakka dakka in an attempt to give some validation to his laughable claims.. well.. come on. Thats just flat out ridiculous. Does this gak actually work on anyone over the age of 12?
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
*Long List of names*
Is that the Discovery Institute list? Without Googling the names, I'm assuming so. If so, a couple of things;
1. The question asked was not "Do you believe in evolution or creation?". The Discovery Institute list statement was "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged". I believe in evolution as much as I believe in the theory of gravity--yet I still think we should encourage careful examination of the evidence--because that's what scientists do. Link to Discovery Site;
2. Many of the names on the list were not critical of Darwinism as the advertisements often claim, the credentials often affiliated with the individual are not where they work--but were they attended as an undergrad, some of the signatories stated they were misled.
I have no interest in debating creationism v. evolution anymore than I do Zeus induced lightning v. crystal/water static discharge. However, willfully misleading documents that attempt to discredit real science (IE the Discovery Institute and persons that advertise this list as a counter to evolution-----not you) deserves scorn.
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
*Long List of names*
Is that the Discovery Institute list? Without Googling the names, I'm assuming so. If so, a couple of things;
1. The question asked was not "Do you believe in evolution or creation?". The Discovery Institute list statement was "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged". I believe in evolution as much as I believe in the theory of gravity--yet I still think we should encourage careful examination of the evidence--because that's what scientists do. Link to Discovery Site;
2. Many of the names on the list were not critical of Darwinism as the advertisements often claim, the credentials often affiliated with the individual are not where they work--but were they attended as an undergrad, some of the signatories stated they were misled.
I have no interest in debating creationism v. evolution anymore than I do Zeus induced lightning v. crystal/water static discharge. However, willfully misleading documents that attempt to discredit real science (IE the Discovery Institute and persons that advertise this list as a counter to evolution-----not you) deserves scorn.
Thats why I said there is no need to respond to them.. They (Young earthers) are unbelievably dishonest.
Here is a list of ill informed/delusional fools..virtually none of them work in life sciences....wait a minute....virtually none?...See bolded list below.
Now, would you like a list of scientists of all stripes who do believe in evolution? Because we can essentially go through every research institute, university, think tank, research firm, and whatever else you care to name in this nation, grab every scientist, and just cross the names you wrote off the list.
You're not going to win the, "We're credible with our creationist/young earth tripe!" argument by trotting out a pathetically small list of names. One in five Americans think we staged the moon landing. The fact that there's a lot of misinformed, outright wrong people doesn't lend any credibility at all to the wrong notion. See: politics.
You are arguing from ad-populum.
All I was doing was responding to palindromes erroneus statement regarding life scientists that believe in creation as "virtually none" If he had said small number I wouldn't have had an issue with his misleading statement.
GG
Presumably it is relative. There must be many thousands of qualified biologists in the USA. A couple of hundred of them would be a negligible proportion.
Another congressman, state this time, is under fire from his own party for some things he wrote in a book. Article
He basically reiterates the old 'White (Congress)Man's Burden' attitude that slavery was really blessing, and that there is a conspiracy between liberals and Muslims to take over the USA. He also believes that liberals and Muslims alike want to " take over the entire world through violent, bloody, revolution" and that it his job to do "whatever I can to defend, protect and preserve our Christian heritage." He also intimates, of course, that Pres Obama is a Muslim Communist.
mattyrm wrote: Bloke has an MD and doesn't "believe" in embryology!? I'm glad the mother fether isn't my missus doctor!
Seriously, this stuff really annoys me now. Its poisoned my military service as well, because for example, I was proud and pleased when I was selected to form the advance party sent into Iraq a couple of months before the war started, I was happy to go back on OIF 4 a couple of years later as well. I trusted the upper echelons like any good soldier does, and figured I was doing my duty for a good reason.
And then I found out a few years later that the real reason we went is because Bush Is a half mad deluded lunatic who thought God told him to invade Iraq during a candid conversation.
I thought we were invading for a sensible reason, and I figured I had something in common with Mr Bush because we both have no tolerance for Islam. But the my lack of tolerance is because I have a lack of tolerance for all Religion and Theocracy, I think that it is the anathema to true freedom which causes suffering and misery for millions.
The reason Bush had no tolerance for Islam is because he wants to replace it with his own almost as intolerant version, hardcore Christianity!
35 -40% of Americans are no better than Iranians or Pakistanis. They would be more than happy to live in a Religious Theocracy as long as it was their Religion, they would be more than happy to see gays locked up and abortions made illegal.
Land of the free indeed.
It's often interesting to me,given how we are often at opposites regarding politics, to see how much we agree on beyond the partisan.
Science is bloody great and I am sick and tired of having to mend my language and tread on eggshells for the fear of upsetting the superstitious from reading their futures in chicken entrails or talking to the great invisible rabbit about how they'd like tomorrow to be sunny because they want to have a picnic or how the voice only they can hear is telling them to invade an oil-rich [Mod Edit - who knew that what would sneak through?] in the sand.
It's often interesting to me,given how we are often at opposites regarding politics, to see how much we agree on beyond the partisan.
Science is bloody great and I am sick and tired of having to mend my language and tread on eggshells for the fear of upsetting the superstitious from reading their futures in chicken entrails or talking to the great invisible rabbit about how they'd like tomorrow to be sunny because they want to have a picnic or how the voice only they can hear is telling them to invade an oil-rich [x] in the sand.
Indeed. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I respect that, but I am most definitely not one of the people who thinks that superstition is harmless. Have you seen how many kids In Britain suffer because of people believing in stupid gak? Every year kids get killed by people from African nations who believe in voodoo and demons and all kinds of stupid gak. This is why the older I get, the more intolerant of it I have become, because I think ignorance and superstition have real devastating consequences for people. It breaks my heart when I read about a child being killed or an Albino getting murdered or some other nonsense just because people believe in ridiculous gak, it basically gives people a motive to commit murder! And surely we want to keep that to a minimum right?
Even actual harmless fun annoys me.. I think I'm just a miserable fether! Like for example I hate "ghost walks" because I think they actually lend credence to stupidity. I saw a radio poll that said 40% of people believe in ghosts for example. I even get pissed off with horoscopes, because thats just my opinion, I think anything and everything that has to do with superstition is a part of a wider problem that has real ramifications.
Even actual harmless fun annoys me.. I think I'm just a miserable fether! Like for example I hate "ghost walks" because I think they actually lend credence to stupidity. I saw a radio poll that said 40% of people believe in ghosts for example. I even get pissed off with horoscopes, because thats just my opinion, I think anything and everything that has to do with superstition is a part of a wider problem that has real ramifications.
I like ghost walks, they are a good way to get to see parts of old and often private estates one wouldn't otherwise get access to. I just tune out the theatrical guide and geek out on the history of the place.
Even actual harmless fun annoys me.. I think I'm just a miserable fether! Like for example I hate "ghost walks" because I think they actually lend credence to stupidity. I saw a radio poll that said 40% of people believe in ghosts for example.
I just hate them because they are all that infests the scyfy channel these days, instead of an interesting scifi show like farscape or battlestar, we get a big pile of gak with arseholes jumping at noises and filmed in 'nightsight' camera so they all have spooky eyes. It fills me with bile.
Sorry but where did I use the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy?
It's funny that people think I am arguing for creationism here. I am only pointing out palindromes fallacy of stating that, out of creation believing scientists, "virtually none" are from the life sciences field. That's what he said and that was misleading. He didn't say "out of all scientists "virtually none" were from the life sciences field"
Even actual harmless fun annoys me.. I think I'm just a miserable fether! Like for example I hate "ghost walks" because I think they actually lend credence to stupidity. I saw a radio poll that said 40% of people believe in ghosts for example.
I just hate them because they are all that infests the scyfy channel these days, instead of an interesting scifi show like farscape or battlestar, we get a big pile of gak with arseholes jumping at noises and filmed in 'nightsight' camera so they all have spooky eyes. It fills me with bile.
Then I'd suggest you stop watching SyFy on Wednesday/Tuesday(the nights where they show such things) and watch on Friday/Monday when they show the things you want.
Alphas, Warehouse 13, and Haven all "fit the bill" for what you like.
SyFy has however stated that shows like Face/Off, Ghost Hunters, Destination Truth, etc...they're all huge draws to the network. A season of Destination Truth, even with all the travel costs and the like for Josh Gates and his team, makes its money back tenfold and pays for a season of Warehouse 13.
I'm a creationist by definition. I believe that God made it happen, but I don't believe in any form of young earth anti-evolution creationism. I don't think there is any conflict in thinking "this universe is ancient, God created it. Look evolution, that's an interesting process, I wonder if God used that process to create life."
I imagine that a majority of Christians fall in a similar category.
Indeed its not, but you are going to need a better dataset for me to take that figure seriously. One of the guys on that list has been dead for 33 years.
A very small number of scientists are creationists, I think something like 4% of scientists don't believe in evolution. None of these (or virtually none) will work in the life sciences.
The fact that such an ill informed/delusional fool is actually on a government science commitee speaks volumes about how useful these commitees actually are.
Here is a list of ill informed/delusional fools..virtually none of them work in life sciences....wait a minute....virtually none?...See bolded list below.
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Dr. Kenneth W. Funk, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology Dr. William F. Kane, (Civil) Geotechnical Engineering
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology Dr. John G. Leslie, Biochemist, Physician, Archaeologist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, Physician
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology Dr. Kenneth Royal, Psychometrics
Dr. Joachim Scheven, Palaeontologist
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist George S. Smith, M.S., Chemistry
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist Dr. Stephen J. Vinay III, Chemical Engineering
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Gordon Wilson, Environmental Science and Public Policy
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
GG
You know there are 7 billion people on earth right? I could probably find that many scientists that still think the earth is flat.
Indeed its not, but you are going to need a better dataset for me to take that figure seriously. One of the guys on that list has been dead for 33 years.
It is absolutely nowhere near that number. That list he published is full of lies as well, half of the people on it either aren't actual scientists or DO agree with the obvious fact of evolution.
As I said, its all lies, half truths and misrepresentations. I guarantee a fair number of the blokes on that list would be outraged to find their names on it, the fethers that write that gak are lying scumbags who peddle misinformation because they think they can buy their way into paradise by lying for Jesus.
Indeed its not, but you are going to need a better dataset for me to take that figure seriously. One of the guys on that list has been dead for 33 years.
"Lying for Jesus" doesn't mean "believing in some form of divine involvement", it refers to the dishonesty of certain creationists (usually either young-earth or intelligent design). For example, getting diploma mill "degrees" in biology so they can claim better credentials on their book covers, blatantly lying about the existence of transitional fossils, taking quotes out of context (for example, Darwin's "what use is half an eye" is a popular one, but it's actually the start of a paragraph where Darwin explains how it could have evolved), etc. On the rare occasion that they admit the dishonesty they claim that it's ok, because anything that brings people to Jesus is morally good, even lying.
Yeah lying for Jesus isn't an attack, it's commonly heard and peregrine has the right of it.
I've no major issue with the overwhelming majority of Christians because as you correctly said earlier, the overwhelming majority of Christians aren't young earthers.
d-usa wrote: Sorry for getting upset about the term then.
No sweat old chap!
Some of the young earthers are really really dishonest though. I don't even think some of the more famous ones even are Christians!
Guys like Kent Hovind.. I don't even think he believes in Jesus and God. The guy just reeks of hypocrisy and cynicism. Saying whatever he thinks will help to line his pocket.
Testify wrote: "A couple of hundred" out of "many thousands" is 10% dude. That's not negligable
Many thousands is anything between two thousand and infinity, as all numbers in that limit contain more than one thousand and therefore many. So written mathematically it would be something like 2000<=x<=Infinity, where x is the number of scientists. Of course since there aren't an infinite number of scientists that upper limit is going to be a lot smaller.
Lets do it with figures then. In 2010 there was 250,000 applications to post-grad positions (studying for doctorates) in the US. Source. This is still within the range for calling it "Many thousands". In 2010 12,500 people got their Doctorate in the Biological and Medical Sciences (same source). This also is still within the range for calling it "Many thousands".
A couple of hundred is 200<=x<300, where x is again the number of scientists, as a couple specifically means two.
So just going by doctors we have 299 out of 12,500, which is 0.02392 or 2.4%. By people with degrees we have 299 out of 250,000 which is 0.12%
Testify wrote: "A couple of hundred" out of "many thousands" is 10% dude. That's not negligable
Many thousands is anything between two thousand and infinity, as all numbers in that limit contain more than one thousand and therefore many.
So written mathematically it would be something like 2000<=x<=Infinity, where x is the number of scientists. Of course since there aren't an infinite number of scientists that upper limit is going to be a lot smaller.
Lets do it with figures then. In 2010 there was 250,000 applications to post-grad positions (studying for doctorates) in the US. Source.
In 2010 12,500 people got their Doctorate in the Biological and Medical Sciences (same source).
A couple of hundred is 200<=x<300, where x is again the number of scientists, as a couple specifically means two.
So just going by doctors we have 299 out of 12,500, which is 0.02392 or 2.4%.
By people with degrees we have 299 out of 250,000 which is 0.12%
I'd say that is statistically insignificant.
Kodus on making up your own version of what I put.
i said ""A couple of hundred" out of "many thousands" is 10% dude. That's not negligable"
And it's correct. I was responding off the information in another post. Feel free to quote the original erroneous post and correct that.
Testify wrote: "A couple of hundred" out of "many thousands" is 10% dude. That's not negligable
Many thousands is anything between two thousand and infinity, as all numbers in that limit contain more than one thousand and therefore many. So written mathematically it would be something like 2000<=x<=Infinity, where x is the number of scientists. Of course since there aren't an infinite number of scientists that upper limit is going to be a lot smaller.
Lets do it with figures then. In 2010 there was 250,000 applications to post-grad positions (studying for doctorates) in the US. Source. This is still within the range for calling it "Many thousands". In 2010 12,500 people got their Doctorate in the Biological and Medical Sciences (same source). This is also still within the range for calling it "Many thousands".
A couple of hundred is 200<=x<300, where x is again the number of scientists, as a couple specifically means two.
So just going by doctors we have 299 out of 12,500, which is 0.02392 or 2.4%. By people with degrees we have 299 out of 250,000 which is 0.12%
I'd say that is statistically insignificant.
Kodus on making up your own version of what I put. i said ""A couple of hundred" out of "many thousands" is 10% dude. That's not negligable" And it's correct. I was responding off the information in another post. Feel free to quote the original erroneous post and correct that.
Except you are wrong as many thousands is anything greater than or equal to 2000, whilst a couple of hundred is anything between 200 and 299. You assumed that many thousands was the same as a couple of thousands when in reality the range of 2000 to 3000 is a tiny part of what the term "many thousands" can actually be.
His statement is still accurate when you consider the proportion of life scientists who don't believe in evolution as a percentage of the total number of life scientists. The percentage would be so low you could assume it is zero, without it affecting your data in any meaningful way.
No it's not when you look at his original statement..in fact he said 4% don't believe in evolution and of those..."virtually none are from life sciences" I did a quick calculation and a little over 25% of that list are from the life sciences fields.
GG
The global population of scientists is so massive, that the ~55 people you named form less than 0.001 percent of the total.
What was your point again?
d-usa wrote: you can believe in science and still think God has something to do with it
Not without being willfully ignorant, I'm afraid. The instant one applies the scientific method to their religious texts, once is forced to disregard those religious texts.
Except you are wrong as many thousands is anything greater than or equal to 2000, whilst a couple of hundred is anything between 200 and 299. You assumed that many thousands was the same as a couple of thousands when in reality the range of 2000 to 3000 is a tiny part of what the term "many thousands" can actually be.
*facepalm*
I assumed for the sake of simplicity that "many" and "a few" were the same. If you respond to this post in a similarly pedantic and irreverent fashion I will report it. Find something better to do, I'm sure you're better than this.
d-usa wrote: So believing in God means I cannot believe in evolution?
No, it's more that accepting the scientific method of basing our inquiries on empirical, verifiable data and logical principles of reasoning means that we 'believe' in evolution, and have no reason to believe in god.
d-usa wrote: So believing in God means I cannot believe in evolution?
No, it's more that accepting the scientific method of basing our inquiries on empirical, verifiable data and logical principles of reasoning means that we 'believe' in evolution, and have no reason to believe in god.
Hmm. can't remember the last time the scientific method offered me love, or understanding, or compassion, or forgiveness.
But who needs any humanity whatsoever when we could just mindlessly worship science?
And of course, anything that science does is *infallible*. That in itself makes me sick to the fething core.
Ahtman wrote: Another congressman, state this time, is under fire from his own party for some things he wrote in a book. Article
He basically reiterates the old 'White (Congress)Man's Burden' attitude that slavery was really blessing, and that there is a conspiracy between liberals and Muslims to take over the USA. He also believes that liberals and Muslims alike want to " take over the entire world through violent, bloody, revolution" and that it his job to do "whatever I can to defend, protect and preserve our Christian heritage." He also intimates, of course, that Pres Obama is a Muslim Communist.
I thought Liberals are spinless wusses who are afraid of fighting?
I'm a creationist by definition. I believe that God made it happen, but I don't believe in any form of young earth anti-evolution creationism. I don't think there is any conflict in thinking "this universe is ancient, God created it. Look evolution, that's an interesting process, I wonder if God used that process to create life."
I imagine that a majority of Christians fall in a similar category.
Yeah I've never felt that science and divinity are at odds. To borrow from Einstein "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind" now that does take some clarification primarily because Einstein might not have been a religious man in the same sense I am not. I, nor he attended church or cared about a holy book. The concept of Faith and god were vital to Einstein however, religion in the more subtle sense then wearing an icon around your neck, praying in a building or sticking notes in a wall. Through science man begins to comprehend the nature of that which the divine has created and the processes by which the divine did that work.
What we as a species need to learn however is to keep our faiths to ourselves.
"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone."
-Thomas Jefferson
This of course says nothing of the issue of taking a book of myths and metaphors seriously at face value with no critical thinking or attempt to gain deeper understanding... six thousand years my arse and I guess all those dinosaur bones are fake too eh? Root your concept of god in reality and keep it to yourself and the world will be a better place.
Testify wrote: Hmm. can't remember the last time the scientific method offered me love, or understanding, or compassion, or forgiveness.
But who needs any humanity whatsoever when we could just mindlessly worship science?
If you need to believe in an imaginary sky fairy to have love, understanding, compassion or forgiveness in your life, I feel very sorry for you.
Testify wrote: And of course, anything that science does is *infallible*. That in itself makes me sick to the fething core.
The scientific method is self correcting. "The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false".
I suppose the alternative is to just make things up without bothering to verify them, but that's how we got the bible in the first place
Testify wrote: And of course, anything that science does is *infallible*. That in itself makes me sick to the fething core.
The scientific method is self correcting. "The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false".
I suppose the alternative is to just make things up without bothering to verify them, but that's how we got the bible in the first place
Well, no. The scientific method is as effective as its proof, and is constantly being updated. You could say that the scientific method itself concludes that everything it proves is invalid.
Anyway, if you can't see the huge disconnect between the scientific method and humanity, then...okay. Sucks to be you, I guess.
Yeah I've never felt that science and divinity are at odds. To borrow from Einstein "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind" now that does take some clarification primarily because Einstein might not have been a religious man in the same sense I am not. I, nor he attended church or cared about a holy book. The concept of Faith and god were vital to Einstein however, religion in the more subtle sense then wearing an icon around your neck, praying in a building or sticking notes in a wall. Through science man begins to comprehend the nature of that which the divine has created and the processes by which the divine did that work.
What we as a species need to learn however is to keep our faiths to ourselves.
"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone."
-Thomas Jefferson
This of course says nothing of the issue of taking a book of myths and metaphors seriously at face value with no critical thinking or attempt to gain deeper understanding... six thousand years my arse and I guess all those dinosaur bones are fake too eh? Root your concept of god in reality and keep it to yourself and the world will be a better place.
What you say is all well and true, but consider this - as a society, we lack the ability to hold two ideologies. Our government has adopted the scientific method as its guiding ideology, claiming in the process divine infallibility (hmm) and completely ignoring any humanity whatsoever.
But people are not data. We are not points on a chart. We have pysches, and our society at present ignores them, in my opinion this is a bad thing. YMMV
But I find the Bible to be a source of humanity in a way that Feynman, Dawkins et al are not, and do not even try to be.
Granted, but they're, as you say, not trying to be humanists. I wouldn't expect love and compassion from a mechanic or train conductor either. They don't know me, and it's not their job. Love, compassion, forgiveness and so on are what friends and family are for.
Testify wrote: Anyway, if you can't see the huge disconnect between the scientific method and humanity, then...okay. Sucks to be you, I guess.
But I find the Bible to be a source of humanity in a way that Feynman, Dawkins et al are not, and do not even try to be.
Granted, but they're, as you say, not trying to be humanists. I wouldn't expect love and compassion from a mechanic or train conductor either. They don't know me, and it's not their job. Love, compassion, forgiveness and so on are what friends and family are for.
Testify wrote: Anyway, if you can't see the huge disconnect between the scientific method and humanity, then...okay. Sucks to be you, I guess.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.
So you don't care for the opinions of anyone you don't directly know when it comes to the human condition?
The desire to understand your own life and human existance is so irrelevant to you that you literally have no desire whatsoever into understanding it?
Testify wrote: The desire to understand your own life and human existance is so irrelevant to you that you literally have no desire whatsoever into understanding it?
More like I don't need to invent existential crises to fill my time.
Testify wrote: The desire to understand your own life and human existance is so irrelevant to you that you literally have no desire whatsoever into understanding it?
More like I don't need to invent existential crises to fill my time.
Pondering about the human existance and you place in the universe is an "existential crisis". Oh dear.
Except you are wrong as many thousands is anything greater than or equal to 2000, whilst a couple of hundred is anything between 200 and 299. You assumed that many thousands was the same as a couple of thousands when in reality the range of 2000 to 3000 is a tiny part of what the term "many thousands" can actually be.
*facepalm*
I assumed for the sake of simplicity that "many" and "a few" were the same. If you respond to this post in a similarly pedantic and irreverent fashion I will report it. Find something better to do, I'm sure you're better than this.
Wait a moment, you were being kind of pedantic when you originally responded to KK, let's be honest here.
Theres no need to go off at Malus because he used semantics to argue against your point, just because you made a statement that turned out to be false and he called you on it.
Testify wrote: The desire to understand your own life and human existance is so irrelevant to you that you literally have no desire whatsoever into understanding it?
More like I don't need to invent existential crises to fill my time.
Pondering about the human existance and you place in the universe is an "existential crisis". Oh dear.
You need a therapist very, very badly
I didn't mean to repsond to two of your posts in a row, but whenever I go fully into thinking about my place in existence it makes me feel nauseous, and I have trouble sleeping for a day or so.
Testify wrote: The desire to understand your own life and human existance is so irrelevant to you that you literally have no desire whatsoever into understanding it?
More like I don't need to invent existential crises to fill my time.
Pondering about the human existance and you place in the universe is an "existential crisis". Oh dear.
Testify wrote: The desire to understand your own life and human existance is so irrelevant to you that you literally have no desire whatsoever into understanding it?
More like I don't need to invent existential crises to fill my time.
Hmm interesting...so you just do it on internet forums then?
Wait a moment, you were being kind of pedantic when you originally responded to KK, let's be honest here.
Theres no need to go off at Malus because he used semantics to argue against your point, just because you made a statement that turned out to be false and he called you on it.
Now lets all shake hands and discuss this nicely.
fair enough.
Goliath wrote:
I didn't mean to repsond to two of your posts in a row, but whenever I go fully into thinking about my place in existence it makes me feel nauseous, and I have trouble sleeping for a day or so.
I try not to do it too often.
man...you should. There is a whole world of understanding out there, that is completely seperate from the "scientific method". If it didn't make me sound like a massive dweeb, I'd recommend just sitting down and reading the Saint John bible. It blew my mind
Kaldor wrote:
I think you think about it too much
There's no such thing as too much thinking.
Unless it's about those confused feelings you get when you see that musclular boy from accounts
Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) tore into scientists as tools of the devil in a speech at the Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman’s Banquet last month.
“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,” Broun said. “And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”
According to Broun, the scientific plot was primarily concerned with hiding the true age of the Earth. Broun serves on the House Science Committee, which came under scrutiny recently after another one of its Republican members, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), suggested that victims of “legitimate rape” have unnamed biological defenses against pregnancy.
“You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth,” he said. “I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”
Broun — a physician, with an M.D. and a B.S. in chemistry — is generally considered to be among the most conservative members of Congress, if not the most. He drew national attention in 2010 for saying he did not know if President Obama was an American citizen.
In his speech, a clip of which was provided to TPM by The Bridge Project, a non-profit progressive tracker, Broun credited his literal Biblical interpretation with driving his approach to government.
The full 47-minute speech, posted by the Liberty Baptist Church, can be found here.
“What I’ve come to learn is that it’s the manufacturer’s handbook, is what I call it,” he said. “It teaches us how to run our lives individually, how to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society. And that’s the reason as your congressman I hold the holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that.”
Stupid people, while entertaining. Shouldn't be in positions of power, like on the House Science Committee.
(Looks at the machine gun, breach loading artillery, strategic bomber, and the A Bomb)
Well... about that...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: What does the Bible inform us about US citizenship law?
Watch out for illegal immigrants. They'll march around your city and destroy everything.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh wait, I just realized this is the weekly religion bashing thread. Time to run away.
Testify wrote: ...consider this - as a society, we lack the ability to hold two ideologies.
If you're unsure of what the word 'ideology' means, then you probably shouldn't use it. Your statement is completely incorrect. Societies are, in effect, a nexus of ideologies.
Testify wrote: ...consider this - as a society, we lack the ability to hold two ideologies.
If you're unsure of what the word 'ideology' means, then you probably shouldn't use it. Your statement is completely incorrect. Societies are, in effect, a nexus of ideologies.
That's debateable. I would argue that our society has rejected Christianity in favour of a warped view of empiricism. If I had more time/motivation I'd make an epic post explaining why I think this but...meh.
I find it amusing all this "Lying for Jesus" talk and how easily those people forget about the Lying for science..or probably more for the money and fame it can bring...Lets not forget the wonderful amusing world of scientific breakthroughs shall we A short list of hoaxes
Piltdown man
Nebraska Man
Eugenics
laboratory replicated abiogenesis
Ida (as late as 2009)
Testify wrote: ...consider this - as a society, we lack the ability to hold two ideologies.
If you're unsure of what the word 'ideology' means, then you probably shouldn't use it. Your statement is completely incorrect. Societies are, in effect, a nexus of ideologies.
That's debateable. I would argue that our society has rejected Christianity in favour of a warped view of empiricism. If I had more time/motivation I'd make an epic post explaining why I think this but...meh.
If you think it's debatable then you probably shouldn't reinforce my point in your responses to my posts!
The very fact that you've admitted to the existence of both Christianity and empiricism as existent ideologies lends further weight to my assertion that society is a nexus of ideologies. You needn't feel bad, though. It's pretty self-evident. Society is not ideologically homogeneous, is it? It's a site of negotiation.
Testify wrote: ...consider this - as a society, we lack the ability to hold two ideologies.
If you're unsure of what the word 'ideology' means, then you probably shouldn't use it. Your statement is completely incorrect. Societies are, in effect, a nexus of ideologies.
Well, this is certainly a first -me agreeing with Albatross- but he's right. If a single person can experience ambivalence, I'm sure a society can. In fact, almost all existential problems come down to a perceived ontological paradox.
I think most of the problems you refer to with 'our warped view of empiricism' have more to do with trying to hang on to a set of christian ideals while making sense of the positive society we've built around us. A prime exemple of ambivalence.
generalgrog wrote: I find it amusing all this "Lying for Jesus" talk and how easily those people forget about the Lying for science..or probably more for the money and fame it can bring...Lets not forget the wonderful amusing world of scientific breakthroughs shall we A short list of hoaxes
Piltdown man
Nebraska Man
Eugenics
laboratory replicated abiogenesis
Ida (as late as 2009)
GG
I'm pretty sure the only ones claiming to be infallible are your lot, GG. Failure is built in to science - how else can one empirically test something without trial and error?
generalgrog wrote: I find it amusing all this "Lying for Jesus" talk and how easily those people forget about the Lying for science..or probably more for the money and fame it can bring...Lets not forget the wonderful amusing world of scientific breakthroughs shall we A short list of hoaxes
Piltdown man
Nebraska Man
Eugenics
laboratory replicated abiogenesis
Ida (as late as 2009)
GG
I don't get where this 'how easily those people forget about the Lying for science' comes from. The aim of the scientific debate is to identify hoaxes. It is so well remembered, that it's integrated in the system.
Testify wrote: ...consider this - as a society, we lack the ability to hold two ideologies.
If you're unsure of what the word 'ideology' means, then you probably shouldn't use it. Your statement is completely incorrect. Societies are, in effect, a nexus of ideologies.
Well, this is certainly a first -me agreeing with Albatross- but he's right. If a single person can experience ambivalence, I'm sure a society can.
You're right, but I'm thinking more in terms of how societies are constructed. They're constructed of individuals, each with individual structures of belief and representation. I'd be VERY wary of describing cultural groups as ideologically homogeneous, even. In fact, I wouldn't say that at all.
And I'm sure you'd agree with me on a lot of things, presentation of arguments not being one of them!
So this question, and follow on statement is directed for Matty (who is hopefully still monitoring this thread):
Do you disagree with ALL forms of superstition, or just the stupid ones that lead to harm to people? By this I mean, do you (or did you) wear a certain pair of "lucky" socks on sports days, or missions while in the RM? While watching a game, do you hold your beer a certain way, in order to affect the outcome of a play? (the bud light "labels out" superstition commercial sort of thing)
I definitely agree with you, as far as the getting people hurt or killed sorts of superstition, but think that certain "silly" superstitions (socks on gameday, labels out, etc.) are OK, and have an odd sort of place in our society.
Testify wrote: ...consider this - as a society, we lack the ability to hold two ideologies.
If you're unsure of what the word 'ideology' means, then you probably shouldn't use it. Your statement is completely incorrect. Societies are, in effect, a nexus of ideologies.
That's debateable. I would argue that our society has rejected Christianity in favour of a warped view of empiricism. If I had more time/motivation I'd make an epic post explaining why I think this but...meh.
If you think it's debatable then you probably shouldn't reinforce my point in your responses to my posts!
The very fact that you've admitted to the existence of both Christianity and empiricism as existent ideologies lends further weight to my assertion that society is a nexus of ideologies. You needn't feel bad, though. It's pretty self-evident. Society is not ideologically homogeneous, is it? It's a site of negotiation.
I would be hard-pressed to find a single thing that government has done, on either side, in recent times that pointed to anything other than a decline in "conventional" values and a rise of "objective" values.
I would be hard-pressed to find a single thing that government has done, on either side, in recent times that pointed to anything other than a decline in "conventional" values and a rise of "objective" values.
The olympic bid?
Just kidding.
'Conventional' and 'objective' are not opposing terms.
Testify wrote: I would be hard-pressed to find a single thing that government has done, on either side, in recent times that pointed to anything other than a decline in "conventional" values and a rise of "objective" values.
Gnyaah kinda hard to argue, as 'objective' isn't and shouldn't be opposed to 'conventional'. As far as policies with a traditional foundation, well, I mean, just look around, it's all there.
-Ninja'ed on most of the content-
Also, I'd add that there really isn't that much of a disconnect between positive and traditionnal values, since positive science, be it human or natural, is a lot more about shortcircuiting the meta-story which produced those values and simply replace it by a necessity to use data from available and reproducible sources.
Positive science will, if they have not already, elucidate the existential problems. It's just that in the mean time it all seems so reductive to the point of almost being an insult to the feeling of complexity we have about ourselves. Give it time.
Sartre sucked donkey schlongs. Merleau-Ponty all the way, baby.
I would like to know the number of scientist who don't believe in a deity, don't believe in ghosts, don't believe in lucky charms, have no superstitions, or any other illogical fault.
generalgrog wrote: I find it amusing all this "Lying for Jesus" talk and how easily those people forget about the Lying for science..or probably more for the money and fame it can bring...Lets not forget the wonderful amusing world of scientific breakthroughs shall we A short list of hoaxes
Except there's one key difference:
Scientists can sometimes be misled by a hoax, but when the truth is exposed the people behind the fraud are shunned from the community and everyone admits "yeah, we were wrong, here's the truth".
Liars for Jesus are deliberately committing fraud, and even when their fraud is exposed as painfully obvious to anyone who does even the most basic research into the subject they insist on defending the fraud, and even defending the act of lying because it was done "for a good cause".
d-usa wrote: I would like to know the number of scientist who don't believe in a deity, don't believe in ghosts, don't believe in lucky charms, have no superstitions, or any other illogical fault.
Now I'm reminded of the Archmagos in the second Grey Knight novel, when he berrates his apprentice for showing a fear of heights ; ''A fall of more than 6 meters is potentially fatal, thus ascribing an increase of fear to any higher elevation is illogical".
Well, no ones is exempt of logic faults. Some of them we're even naturally bent toward making. Honestly, I could never appreciate a political debate after the Ethics course in which they taught us the list of sophism. You could do an analysis of even the best debators out there and I'm still convinced you'd approach about 1 sophism per paragraphs. In bad debators, it'd be about 1 per sentence. In fact, I'd like to start doing that, that'd be a good exercice for the kids in class.
I think I once saw that about 40% of scientists in the US believe in God. Now as I'm doing the search all the primary sites cited are obviously not the kind to be absolutely unbiased.
As the scientific evidence piles up each year, it become necessary for creationists to start to believe in some kind of conspiracy within the scientific community to keep the biblical truth of a young earth with no evolution hidden. So why not pick the devil for the source of this?
I mean, really, once you accept this Georgian fruitbats starting point, blaming it all on the devil seems only logical.
All I was doing was responding to palindromes erroneus statement regarding life scientists that believe in creation as "virtually none" If he had said small number I wouldn't have had an issue with his misleading statement.
GG
In the context of global science, that number is virtually none.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: "A couple of hundred" out of "many thousands" is 10% dude. That's not negligable
It's 191 names, and they had to lie to bump it up to that.
There is about half a million people working in scientific research in the USA.
That's means the percentage, even if we pretend every one of those 191 people actually disbelieves in evolution, is 0.038%.
Which is virtually nil.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote: Sorry but where did I use the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy?
It's funny that people think I am arguing for creationism here. I am only pointing out palindromes fallacy of stating that, out of creation believing scientists, "virtually none" are from the life sciences field. That's what he said and that was misleading. He didn't say "out of all scientists "virtually none" were from the life sciences field"
25% is not a statistically insignificant number.
GG
That ratio is a gibberish number. Looking at the number of scientists overall who do not believe in evolution, or looking at the number of scientists in various life sciences who don't believe in evolution would be informative numbers.
But the number of life scientists who do not believe in evolution, measured as a portion of the total science population who don't believe in evolution? A gibberish number.
By your argument, if the number of scientists in life sciences remained constant, but there was an increase in scientists in other fields who didn't believe in evolution... we'd have a decrease in that number and somehow the idea would be further discredited, despite the number of life scientists holding constant, and the number of scientists overall who don't believe in evolution increasing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Sorry for getting upset about the term then.
Not a problem. The more we discuss this and properly clarify the difference between 'belief in Jesus' from 'disingenuous attack on scientific institutions to support a particularly narrow, and rather dubious interpretation of the Bible all to justify an expansion of the religion into government and greater society' the better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kaldor wrote: No, it's more that accepting the scientific method of basing our inquiries on empirical, verifiable data and logical principles of reasoning means that we 'believe' in evolution, and have no reason to believe in god.
Stop this nonsense, please. Evolution explains how we came to be, it says nothing about why, or what might have started that process. If some people want to think a divine creator played a role in that, that is there choice and science cannot confirm or refute that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: I thought Liberals are spinless wusses who are afraid of fighting?
From Umberto Eco's Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt;
"When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."
And I absolutely intend to not only compare, but equate the Christian Domionist originally mentioned by dogma with Italian fascists.
sebster wrote: If some people want to think a divine creator played a role in (the creation of the universe), that is there choice and science cannot confirm or refute that.
There's a huge disconnect between "Maybe something supernatural happened to kick start the universe, although there's no evidence to suggest that" and "God, as defined and described by this book, definitely exists".
Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes it is. The sample is too small to be representative of the population.
Agreed. I only stated that 10s as a ratio of 100s was 10%.
sebster wrote:
It's 191 names, and they had to lie to bump it up to that.
There is about half a million people working in scientific research in the USA.
That's means the percentage, even if we pretend every one of those 191 people actually disbelieves in evolution, is 0.038%.
Which is virtually nil.
I know you love mass-quoting people, and I usually care a great deal what you have to say, but you're replying to something that I didn't say. I was replying to a specific comment. The comment itself may have been off-hand, in which case feel free to dismiss my reply to it, but I'd appreciate not being labled as a defender of young-earth creationism.
Testify wrote: What you say is all well and true, but consider this - as a society, we lack the ability to hold two ideologies. Our government has adopted the scientific method as its guiding ideology, claiming in the process divine infallibility (hmm) and completely ignoring any humanity whatsoever.
No, it hasn't. The guiding principle of our societies is democracy, because a thing will happen when a majority of people wants that thing to happen. Exactly what one or more scientific studies might conclude on that issue means sweet feth all as to whether that thing will happen, except to the extent those scientific studies manage to sway a portion of the population.
Government's approach to science is that it is more scientific study good thing for the overall benefit for our society, so it puts in place various subsidies, direct funding, and other policies that support scientific endeavour. Government's approach to religion is that it is a good thing for the overall benefit of society for government to stay right out of religion, and so, for the most part, that's what it does.
I would be hard-pressed to find a single thing that government has done, on either side, in recent times that pointed to anything other than a decline in "conventional" values and a rise of "objective" values.
The olympic bid?
Just kidding.
'Conventional' and 'objective' are not opposing terms.
No but it's obvious from the context what I meant.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Testify wrote: I would be hard-pressed to find a single thing that government has done, on either side, in recent times that pointed to anything other than a decline in "conventional" values and a rise of "objective" values.
Gnyaah kinda hard to argue, as 'objective' isn't and shouldn't be opposed to 'conventional'. As far as policies with a traditional foundation, well, I mean, just look around, it's all there.
-Ninja'ed on most of the content-
Also, I'd add that there really isn't that much of a disconnect between positive and traditionnal values, since positive science, be it human or natural, is a lot more about shortcircuiting the meta-story which produced those values and simply replace it by a necessity to use data from available and reproducible sources.
Positive science will, if they have not already, elucidate the existential problems. It's just that in the mean time it all seems so reductive to the point of almost being an insult to the feeling of complexity we have about ourselves. Give it time.
Sartre sucked donkey schlongs. Merleau-Ponty all the way, baby.
None of that makes any sense to me.
I have a high intelligence but have not been educated beyond GCSE level, try to be broader and not as deep
Testify wrote: What you say is all well and true, but consider this - as a society, we lack the ability to hold two ideologies. Our government has adopted the scientific method as its guiding ideology, claiming in the process divine infallibility (hmm) and completely ignoring any humanity whatsoever.
No, it hasn't. The guiding principle of our societies is democracy, because a thing will happen when a majority of people wants that thing to happen. Exactly what one or more scientific studies might conclude on that issue means sweet feth all as to whether that thing will happen, except to the extent those scientific studies manage to sway a portion of the population.
Government's approach to science is that it is more scientific study good thing for the overall benefit for our society, so it puts in place various subsidies, direct funding, and other policies that support scientific endeavour. Government's approach to religion is that it is a good thing for the overall benefit of society for government to stay right out of religion, and so, for the most part, that's what it does.
Virtually every policy in the UK over the past 10 years has had the backing of "scientific evidence". Hell, the government even have scientific evidence for keeping weed illegal
The fact is that science and religion are, in public terms, virtually identical - both claim infallibility at core, and you can explain away mistakes by simply saying that whatever went wrong was not the "true" form.
Testify wrote: man...you should. There is a whole world of understanding out there, that is completely seperate from the "scientific method". If it didn't make me sound like a massive dweeb, I'd recommend just sitting down and reading the Saint John bible. It blew my mind
Yes, absolutely. I really hate how so many people, religious folk and atheists, pretend like scientific and religious knowledge are in competition. They're not, they're actually complementary - the more you know about what science has observed in the world, the better context you will have for your religious reading. And the more you know about what religion has had to say about human experience, the better the context for your scientific reading.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote: I find it amusing all this "Lying for Jesus" talk and how easily those people forget about the Lying for science..or probably more for the money and fame it can bring...Lets not forget the wonderful amusing world of scientific breakthroughs shall we A short list of hoaxes
Piltdown man
Nebraska Man
Eugenics
laboratory replicated abiogenesis
Ida (as late as 2009)
GG
Yes, people lie for personal gain, either political power (eugenics) or cash (Piltdown Man). In each case proper science has shown the lies to be what they are.
I'm a little unclear as to how that makes the lies told by creationists any more acceptable, though.
Albatross wrote: I'm pretty sure the only ones claiming to be infallible are your lot, GG. Failure is built in to science - how else can one empirically test something without trial and error?
And the point of science is that when someone makes a claim, it is checked. That somethings take way longer than they should to be properly discredited is not great, but it does nothing to discredit the scientific process as a whole.
Whereas among the anti-evolution creationists there just is no science going on. There's a collection of claims about what's wrong with evolution (of which some are things science hasn't figured out yet, while most are just straight up lies), but no effort at all to actually build and test an alternative theory.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote: I think I once saw that about 40% of scientists in the US believe in God. Now as I'm doing the search all the primary sites cited are obviously not the kind to be absolutely unbiased.
Yeah, and that's the number that two groups try to pretend doesn't exist, anti-science religious people, and anti-religious atheists.
The rest of us seem to understand that science and religion can happily co-exist, but it seems that haters gotta hate.
Oh, and the Pew survey on this is a pretty good one, I believe. I think that found about 50% of scientists believe in some kind of higher power, but I can't recall any more than that. I think they release figures on it every couple of years, and the numbers are always about the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: Virtually every policy in the UK over the past 10 years has had the backing of "scientific evidence". Hell, the government even have scientific evidence for keeping weed illegal
The fact is that science and religion are, in public terms, virtually identical - both claim infallibility at core, and you can explain away mistakes by simply saying that whatever went wrong was not the "true" form.
And that science might inform the decision, but it doesn't decide it. That still comes down to the decisions made by those popularly elected by the people.
Which, simply, is the only sensible way for things to be. The first alternative is to hand decision making over to the conclusion of scientific studies - and while you're trying to sort of vaguely state that's what is happening, it simply isn't.
The second alternative is to stop trying to study the real world in order to inform policy. To actually back away from using science to inform decision making. Which is, fairly obviously, an absurd approach, but the only possible conclusion of what you're claiming here.
I have a high intelligence but have not been educated beyond GCSE level, try to be broader and not as deep
Sorry And it doesn't bear any implication on your intelligence, since knowledge and intelligence are related but not identical things.
To make my post clearer ; all the problems that the existential tradition, either Christian (ex, Mounier) or atheistic (Sartre, Heidegger) have brought up and claimed were unsolvable by positive science will be answered by analytical and scientific means in the next generation or so. They are all epiphenomenal problems, like freedom, the fear of death, our belief in others, so it's perfectly normal that science couldn't start there, since it works by reduction. Not that the existential tradition is entirely worthless, because science still needs free speculation. But you can't buy in the ''the subject can't be made an object'' line they throw everywhere.
There isn't much of a clash between science and traditionnal values because, when traditionnal values weren't completely dumb and unfounded, they mostly were pragmatic. Those that were dumb were already denounced thousands of years ago, like Plato's harsh judgement on unequal treatment of men and women.
In most cases, science will explain why the traditionnal values are valid, why compassion, love and happiness are important. You shouldn't expect the knowledge given to warm your cold nights, but then, you don't read the synopsis of a movie because it's good, but because of what it might tell you about the movie.
We already had our 'science gone wild' crisis, and it was temporally and locally contained - mid 20th century Germany and Japan. We aren't in a state of utopia or dystopia in comparison to the earlier Moderns. The Last Man has yet to come (oki that's deep).
Religion is fighting a losing war in the west. I've said before that I don't believe it can survive the internet age, and I think that becomes more obviously true with every passing year. Unfortunately, this somewhat inevitably leads to a few fringers adopting a siege mentality and, rather than starting to negotiate terms of surrender, guys like this are the ones who say, "We're running out of soldiers? feth it, give these kids rifles, fight to the last!" No amount of reason's ever going to piece the power of sticking fingers in one's ears and refusing to listen.
d-usa wrote: I would like to know the number of scientist who don't believe in a deity, don't believe in ghosts, don't believe in lucky charms, have no superstitions, or any other illogical fault.
Well there is me for one, aside from the built in flaws that every human ha;. I have no superstitions at all, I don't even have lucky dice. I was also an atheist in a fox hole even though they aren't supposed to exist.
Seaward wrote: Religion is fighting a losing war in the west. I've said before that I don't believe it can survive the internet age, and I think that becomes more obviously true with every passing year. Unfortunately, this somewhat inevitably leads to a few fringers adopting a siege mentality and, rather than starting to negotiate terms of surrender, guys like this are the ones who say, "We're running out of soldiers? feth it, give these kids rifles, fight to the last!" No amount of reason's ever going to piece the power of sticking fingers in one's ears and refusing to listen.
But that isn't true. The world remains overwhelmingly religious. As social pressure to be religious dropped away the number declined, but that effect has pretty much ended in most Western countries. The percentage of people who seem themselves as religious in various developed countries is now pretty static.
The only exception I'm aware of is the US, where the social pressure to be religious is still quite strong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palindrome wrote: Well there is me for one, aside from the built in flaws that every human ha;. I have no superstitions at all, I don't even have lucky dice. I was also an atheist in a fox hole even though they aren't supposed to exist.
Yeah, I became convinced I really was an atheist because when bad things have happened to me, it didn't even occur to me to think of a higher power to help me out.
Seaward wrote: Religion is fighting a losing war in the west. I've said before that I don't believe it can survive the internet age, and I think that becomes more obviously true with every passing year. Unfortunately, this somewhat inevitably leads to a few fringers adopting a siege mentality and, rather than starting to negotiate terms of surrender, guys like this are the ones who say, "We're running out of soldiers? feth it, give these kids rifles, fight to the last!" No amount of reason's ever going to piece the power of sticking fingers in one's ears and refusing to listen.
But that isn't true. The world remains overwhelmingly religious. As social pressure to be religious dropped away the number declined, but that effect has pretty much ended in most Western countries. The percentage of people who seem themselves as religious in various developed countries is now pretty static.
The only exception I'm aware of is the US, where the social pressure to be religious is still quite strong.
Actually, while the social pressure may still be there - and I'd say that's regional, not a uniform pattern - the percentage who self-identify as atheists or agnostics rises every year, like clockwork.
sebster wrote: If some people want to think a divine creator played a role in (the creation of the universe), that is there choice and science cannot confirm or refute that.
There's a huge disconnect between "Maybe something supernatural happened to kick start the universe, although there's no evidence to suggest that" and "God, as defined and described by this book, definitely exists".
So why refute that with "God, as defined and described in that book, definitely doesn't exist." Referring to various deities as "imaginary sky fairies" when there's no way of proving that God DOESN'T exist is incredibly rude, and only adds fuel to the fire. Seriously, get some manners.
And yes, I know that the burden of proof lies on those who claim something, but I don't see why you have to be so confrontational and rude about it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So why refute that with "God, as defined and described in that book, definitely doesn't exist." Referring to various deities as "imaginary sky fairies" when there's no way of proving that God DOESN'T exist is incredibly rude, and only adds fuel to the fire. Seriously, get some manners.
And yes, I know that the burden of proof lies on those who claim something, but I don't see why you have to be so confrontational and rude about it.
By that logic, we should treat everyone who expresses belief in the phenomena of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, Odin, et cetera et cetera ad nauseum, with the same polite credulity.
Seaward wrote: Actually, while the social pressure may still be there - and I'd say that's regional, not a uniform pattern - the percentage who self-identify as atheists or agnostics rises every year, like clockwork.
My nephew keeps grew three inches in the last year. If this continues, but 2050 he'll be more than 12 foot tall. How will we possibly compete with this new world of giant toddler people.
Seriously, "here is a trend, it will keep happening forever" is bad trend analysis.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kaldor wrote: There's a huge disconnect between "Maybe something supernatural happened to kick start the universe, although there's no evidence to suggest that" and "God, as defined and described by this book, definitely exists".
There's a difference, yeah. But to think God is defined and described in the bible is to miss the whole point of the thing.
And it isn't an evidence based question. That's the whole point of religious faith.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: By that logic, we should treat everyone who expresses belief in the phenomena of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, Odin, et cetera et cetera ad nauseum, with the same polite credulity.
Do you do that? I somewhat doubt it.
Bigfoot, Loch Ness and ghosts are stated belief in observable phenomena. They are supposed to literally exist and interact with the material world in direct, observable ways. That we've never observed such a thing is solid evidence to conclude they don't exist.
But the same isn't true of Odin, or any other God (well, it is for older definitions of Odin in which he apparently did interact with the world directly, but not for more modern interpretations).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: I know you love mass-quoting people, and I usually care a great deal what you have to say, but you're replying to something that I didn't say. I was replying to a specific comment. The comment itself may have been off-hand, in which case feel free to dismiss my reply to it, but I'd appreciate not being labled as a defender of young-earth creationism.
Sorry, I saw you clarify your position and decided to remove that post of mine... and then completely forgot to do it. My bad.
In other news, I don't like mass quoting people, but I live on the other side of the world and people say so many things that are just wrong. I mean, did you read that WWII thread?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And yes, I know that the burden of proof lies on those who claim something, but I don't see why you have to be so confrontational and rude about it.
It only lies on them when they're trying to convince someone else of some kind of action. So, if someone was to claim 'gay marriage will destroy the planet because God told me so' then the burden of proof is on them to prove God exists and said such a thing.
But if it's just 'I like to go to church on Sunday and share my faith with like minded people' well then they've got no more burden than anyone else.
sebster wrote: My nephew keeps grew three inches in the last year. If this continues, but 2050 he'll be more than 12 foot tall. How will we possibly compete with this new world of giant toddler people.
Seriously, "here is a trend, it will keep happening forever" is bad trend analysis.
But in this case we have a good reason for suspecting it might continue. Religion (or at least organized religion) depends on having a certain critical mass in society. Most people keep the religion of their parents, go to a church which is well represented in their community, etc, and never really question whether or not it's a good idea because everyone around them is doing it. On the other hand, the more of that critical mass you lose the harder it is to avoid coming to the conclusion that the whole thing is just nonsense. Once religion loses its privileged position in society we might even see the rate of increasing unbelief increase, up to a point where most people are either non-religious or "church once a year" token believers.
And it isn't an evidence based question. That's the whole point of religious faith.
Except that's not how religion works. Religion is quite happy to make evidence based claims all the time: miracles, prayer, historical arguments, etc. It only rejects evidence and demands respect for "faith"* when the evidence goes against religion. It's a dodge to avoid having to admit you're wrong, not a consistent theory on what is a justified belief.
*Faith: belief in something even though you have no good reason and shouldn't. This isn't a virtue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: Bigfoot, Loch Ness and ghosts are stated belief in observable phenomena. They are supposed to literally exist and interact with the material world in direct, observable ways. That we've never observed such a thing is solid evidence to conclude they don't exist.
But the same isn't true of Odin, or any other God (well, it is for older definitions of Odin in which he apparently did interact with the world directly, but not for more modern interpretations).
So when someone prays for their sick child to recover they're just performing some kind of comforting ritual and don't actually think that god is going to interact with the physical world and grant that request?
Peregrine wrote: But in this case we have a good reason for suspecting it might continue. Religion (or at least organized religion) depends on having a certain critical mass in society. Most people keep the religion of their parents, go to a church which is well represented in their community, etc, and never really question whether or not it's a good idea because everyone around them is doing it. On the other hand, the more of that critical mass you lose the harder it is to avoid coming to the conclusion that the whole thing is just nonsense. Once religion loses its privileged position in society we might even see the rate of increasing unbelief increase, up to a point where most people are either non-religious or "church once a year" token believers.
Except religious fervour has ebbed and flowed through history. In it's short history the US has had several declines and revivals in faith.
And you also have to seperate organised religion from religious belief. It is plausible, but highly speculative, that faith based organisations that give decrees from on high might disappear in time, but to see their decline and speculate that sprirituality as a whole will disappear is just not sensible.
I mean, in the last couple of generations we've had whole new faiths appear out of nowhere. To conclude that thanks to scientific knowledge man no longer needs religion and it's just inertia keeping them going just doesn't match with how things are.
Except that's not how religion works. Religion is quite happy to make evidence based claims all the time: miracles, prayer, historical arguments, etc. It only rejects evidence and demands respect for "faith"* when the evidence goes against religion. It's a dodge to avoid having to admit you're wrong, not a consistent theory on what is a justified belief.
There is no 'how religion works'. It's incredibly diverse.
Now, I'd agree that some people in religion make claims of evidence all the time, miracles and all that. But to see that and conclude that's how all religion is wrong. It's a bit like seeing an atheist who's not that interested in atheism and all and actually just likes attacking the christian faith on-line, and concluding that all atheism is just propped up by anti-christian sentiment.
*Faith: belief in something even though you have no good reason and shouldn't. This isn't a virtue.
It isn't a virtue, or a flaw. It's just how people are.
So when someone prays for their sick child to recover they're just performing some kind of comforting ritual and don't actually think that god is going to interact with the physical world and grant that request?
It's some combination of column A and column B. How much of each depends on the religion and the person in question.
Yes, people lie for personal gain, either political power (eugenics) or cash (Piltdown Man). In each case proper science has shown the lies to be what they are.
I'm a little unclear as to how that makes the lies told by creationists any more acceptable, though.
It doesn't make the lies told by come creationist's acceptable. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy. Also... at the time those "scientific" hoaxes were foisted on the world, you would have been considered an "ill informed uneducated fool" if you didn't agree with it.
generalgrog wrote: It doesn't make the lies told by come creationist's acceptable. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy. Also... at the time those "scientific" hoaxes were foisted on the world, you would have been considered an "ill informed uneducated fool" if you didn't agree with it.
Except it's not hypocrisy at all:
The scientific community rejected the hoaxes once they realized it was a hoax.
The creationist community embraces its liars, and even attempts to justify the lying.
Dishonesty in the scientific community has always come from a minority. They may succeed in influencing others before the details of their dishonesty are revealed, but the original source of the hoax is still a minority.
Dishonesty in the creationist community is universal. You'd have to look long and hard to find a significant figure in the community who isn't a liar and a fraud.
So no, it's not hypocrisy for scientists to be outraged about creationist lies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: Except religious fervour has ebbed and flowed through history. In it's short history the US has had several declines and revivals in faith.
I don't think we've seen anything like the current trend before. We don't just have greater and lesser degrees of passion in belief (while everyone still goes to church), we have fewer people actively participating in religion, fewer people having any solid religious belief, and a lot more people openly and proudly stating their lack of beliefs. And, most importantly, the trend is strongest among younger people, the people who will define society of the future as older generations die.
I mean, in the last couple of generations we've had whole new faiths appear out of nowhere. To conclude that thanks to scientific knowledge man no longer needs religion and it's just inertia keeping them going just doesn't match with how things are.
Except those faiths are still founded in an environment where religion as a whole is given a privileged position in society. For a lot of people the idea is that it isn't that important what religion you are a part of, as long as you have some kind of religion. Even if a particular religion or branch of a religion doesn't have its own inertia the general inertia of religion as a whole helps it keep going.
Now, I'd agree that some people in religion make claims of evidence all the time, miracles and all that. But to see that and conclude that's how all religion is wrong. It's a bit like seeing an atheist who's not that interested in atheism and all and actually just likes attacking the christian faith on-line, and concluding that all atheism is just propped up by anti-christian sentiment.
Go take a poll of how many religious people believe in at least some form of factual claim. Then compare it to the number of people who don't. I suspect you'll find that belief in miracles/prayer/etc is the majority, and belief in the academic "philosopher's religion" is a small minority.
sebster wrote: My nephew keeps grew three inches in the last year. If this continues, but 2050 he'll be more than 12 foot tall. How will we possibly compete with this new world of giant toddler people.
Seriously, "here is a trend, it will keep happening forever" is bad trend analysis.
Perhaps, but so is, "Here is a trend, it will definitely end!"
Bigfoot, Loch Ness and ghosts are stated belief in observable phenomena. They are supposed to literally exist and interact with the material world in direct, observable ways. That we've never observed such a thing is solid evidence to conclude they don't exist.
But the same isn't true of Odin, or any other God (well, it is for older definitions of Odin in which he apparently did interact with the world directly, but not for more modern interpretations).
My experience with religious people suggests they do indeed believe that the god of their choice often takes an active role in intervening in their lives.
Otherwise, what're you driving at?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: Except religious fervour has ebbed and flowed through history. In it's short history the US has had several declines and revivals in faith.
I don't believe we've ever had a measurable decline in actual faith, simply fervency of faith. The Great Awakening(s) weren't calling a nation of atheists back to the religious herd.
This is different. More and more people saying, "Nah, no religion for me, thanks," is something that America hasn't experienced before.
Seaward wrote: Religion is fighting a losing war in the west. I've said before that I don't believe it can survive the internet age, and I think that becomes more obviously true with every passing year. Unfortunately, this somewhat inevitably leads to a few fringers adopting a siege mentality and, rather than starting to negotiate terms of surrender, guys like this are the ones who say, "We're running out of soldiers? feth it, give these kids rifles, fight to the last!" No amount of reason's ever going to piece the power of sticking fingers in one's ears and refusing to listen.
But that isn't true. The world remains overwhelmingly religious. As social pressure to be religious dropped away the number declined, but that effect has pretty much ended in most Western countries. The percentage of people who seem themselves as religious in various developed countries is now pretty static.
The only exception I'm aware of is the US, where the social pressure to be religious is still quite strong.
Actually, while the social pressure may still be there - and I'd say that's regional, not a uniform pattern - the percentage who self-identify as atheists or agnostics rises every year, like clockwork.
Could we be able to argue that there is also a societal pressure for people to be atheists, so their atheists friends stop telling them how stupid they are for praying at night?
I think generally people who are predominantly around non-religious people simply get less pressure to be religious. The majority of atheists are atheist through not being religious and not generally caring about religion rather than actively not beleiving in god(s).
Granted, some people will actively try to "convert" or prevent their children from being exposed to religion, but I would say that is rare (in the UK at least).
haha, fair enough! I just thought it was weird to see MD up on there since I was fairly sure someone in the last election cycle was outed as an atheist. Of course, now I can't find who it is so I'm wondering if I imagined it all, but oh well.
I'm not sure if atheism is on the rise, or like most everything else, we are getting better at collecting data on it.
It also depends on the wording of the poll asked. If you ask someone;
Do you consider yourself religious?
Well--what is religious? Do you mean spiritual? Do I believe in a deity that kick started the basic physical laws of the universe and then sat back? Am I a pantheist or follow the god of Spinoza/Einstein? Most would likely say yes.
Or you could ask.....
Do you believe in a God that intercedes in your daily life, answers/listens to prayers and can create miracles?
You might get a different set of answers.
If you are interested in how faith has interacts with American culture and possible future trends---I would highly suggest Shopping for Faith by Cimino or A New Religious America by Ecks. Both are collegiate level books written on the subject and are definitely worth the read.
That said, personally I do not believe as a culture we will ever not have a significant amount of the population not believe in a deity of some sort. Why? Well, there is a good chance we are just too dumb to figure out many of the more perplexing aspects of the universe. Quantum mechanics is completely beyond comprehension and all we can really do is understand how badly we can't understand it. Watch Feynam describe the nature of probability and how photons interact with different mediums to get an idea of how strange the universe really is (by the way, the fact that this is FREE to watch and available to everyone is just awesome sauce);
Why does understanding matter? Because the God of the gaps is very real and pretty hard to dislodge. For example, we have reliable science that shows fMRI scans that can predict certain decisions you make 7 seconds before you are conscious of making them. What does this say about free will? An atheist might say--our consciousness is just the part of our brain that is riding the wave of subconscious decisions that were already made--so free will is a partial illusion----while the theist might say quantum behavior and predictability is actually the emergence of free will, even if we are unconscious of the decision being made. So what point is there to argue with it? Not much really...
SilverMK2 wrote: I think generally people who are predominantly around non-religious people simply get less pressure to be religious. The majority of atheists are atheist through not being religious and not generally caring about religion rather than actively not beleiving in god(s).
Granted, some people will actively try to "convert" or prevent their children from being exposed to religion, but I would say that is rare (in the UK at least).
Yeah, I live in a family where religion was rarely talked about so it's no surprise I'm an atheist, I have nothing against religion and am respectful of others beliefs though.
And it doesn't bear any implication on your intelligence, since knowledge and intelligence are related but not identical things. 
