People like this shouldn't be doctors...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**mattyrm**

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**

Sorry for getting upset about the term then.

**mattyrm**

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**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Testify wrote:
"A couple of hundred" out of "many thousands" is 10% dude. That's not negligable

It is within the statistical margin of error.

Unless you don't believe in set theory.

10% is not within the margin of error. At all.

And this in a discussion about why the scientific method is all conquering and herp derp derp.

Honestly I'd report this thread but seeing as the mods are apparently cool with it there's not much point.

**A Town Called Malus**

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%

I'd say that is statistically insignificant.

**Testify**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
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.

**A Town Called Malus**

Testify wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
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.

**Kaldor**

generalgrog wrote:

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

**d-usa**

So believing in God means I cannot believe in evolution?

**Testify**

A Town Called Malus wrote:

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.

**Kaldor**

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.

**Testify**

Kaldor wrote:
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.

**hotsauceman1**

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?

**KalashnikovMarine**

d-usa wrote:
Blah,

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.

**Kaldor**

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**

Kaldor wrote:
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.

I don't, I'm an atheist.

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.

Kaldor wrote:

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

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

**Kaldor**

Testify wrote:
I don't, I'm an atheist.

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.

**Testify**

Kaldor wrote:
Testify wrote:
I don't, I'm an atheist.

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?

**Kaldor**

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**

Kaldor wrote:
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

**Goliath**

Testify wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:

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.

Now lets all shake hands and discuss this nicely.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Testify wrote:
Kaldor wrote:
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.

I try not to do it too often.

**Kaldor**

Testify wrote:
Kaldor wrote:
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 think you think about it too much

**generalgrog**

Kaldor wrote:
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?

GG

**Testify**

Goliath wrote:

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

**Frazzled**

AustonT wrote:
Or congressmen fort that matter. I heard this today on the radio and I'm floored by how much stupid pushed all the fancy book learnin' out of him.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/rep-paul-broun-r-ga-evolution-big-bang-lies-straight-from-the-pit-of-hell.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA): Evolution, Big Bang ‘Lies Straight From The Pit Of Hell’

1
inShare
share
Benjy Sarlin October 5, 2012, 12:21 PM 78717

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.

**Albatross**

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**

Albatross wrote:
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.

**generalgrog**

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

**Albatross**

Testify wrote:
Albatross wrote:
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.

**Kovnik Obama**

Albatross wrote:
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.