I think it's retardation.
Your thoughts?
Printable View
I think it's retardation.
Your thoughts?
creation is necessary.
like from hydrogen and oxygen and boom you have H2O or water.
boy and girl together you have a baby.
etc etc.
:D
I think evolution is the tool of the great creator.
I also think the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster is that creator.
RAmen!!! :D
You need to Dawn your Pirate Regalia and worship his Noodlieness, asking for height. Your wish will be granted!
I do, and when I practice martial arts, I only use a sai, because it is equally useful as a spaghetti twirling fork.
All hail the FSM!! Arrrrggggghhhhhh!!!!!
------------->RaMennnnnnn!!!!
1. Yes, although you might as well say that something which comes from something else also interacts with the cause in such a way that the cause itself is changed because of that interaction; so then the cause is changed because of the effect's effect on the cause. It's really a synthetic process. Like when you make a PBJ sandwich. Sometimes you'll get a little jelly in the peanut butter canister, and some PB in the jelly jar.
2. No. Something cannot come from nothing. There is a certain amount of matter/energy in the world--perhaps infinite, perhaps finite. We cannot create or destroy matter/energy. There is always an interaction, perhaps a flux or decrease in one thing, but that reaction will cause the proper flux or decrease in something else.
Personally, I straddle the fence between the two. The closest I get to a clearly cataloged position is the concept of theistic evolution, which despite the moniker, is still a form of creationism.
Reading all this discussion is making me somewhat thirsty though. I'm going to enjoy some perfectly naturally occurring orange juice that was coaxed out of its rind and the flesh of the orange by natural phenomena. Of course, the juice came to my fridge without intervention by some supposed "guy in at an orange juice factory." I will explain how while keeping with the principles of Occam's Razor.
You see, hundreds of days ago, there was an orange, but over a period of time, pressure built up as the citrus became overripe and burst forth in a shower of pulp, seeds, rind and vitamin C-laden nectar.
The explosion shattered some tree the orange was growing on, and along with the ambient moisture, the shattered wood combined to make a sturdy paper-bond which encased the orange juice, and due to highly specific climate conditions, as well as, uhhh... gravity it formed a rectangular shape with a triangular peak, which astoundingly enough can be opened by pulling naturally-occurring flaps at the top. This rare seedless, pulp less specimen was discovered by archaeologists from the Tropicana company several weeks ago, who donated it to the Wal-Mart Museum, where I purchased this artifact for my own study. My findings so far have been good, though I am thinking of studying a specimen with a little bit of the pulp.
I would prove how the bouyancy of petroleum, a lightning-bolt and a conveniently-shaped nearby rock led to the evolution of the plastic cup I am drinking it from, but that would take far longer than I wish to invest in this post.
So let's abandon this talk of a supposed "grove" and "peoples picking fruit" and "machines." The simplest explanation, which I have outlined, is most likely correct. The evidence is there, if only you look for it. <./tongue-in-cheekness>
stop Phoenix from rising
The Ark Encounter. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Kentucky Creationist Museum Will Feature Dragons, Unicorns
Max Fisher 1,777 Views Dec 28, 2010
Kentucky's state-backed $150 million creationist theme park, The Ark Encounter, will allow visitors to explore a literal interpretation of the Bible's story of Noah and the ark. But pseudonymous liberal Kentucky blogger Media Czech raises two important questions about that interpretation and how it will be manifest in theme park form. First, were there dinosaurs on the original ark? Second, what about unicorns?
Now, the blogger has found answers to both questions at Answers In Genesis, the official blog of the group behind The Ark Encounter. The group says "yes," to both, which implies that their creationist theme park will include dinosaurs and unicorns on the Ark. Here's Answers In Genesis explaining why dinosaurs were on the Ark, although the group prefers to call them "dragons":
Being land animals, dinosaurs (or dragons of the land) were created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24–31), went aboard Noah’s Ark (Genesis 6:20), and then came off the Ark into the post-Flood world (Genesis 8:16–19). It makes sense that many cultures would have seen these creatures from time to time before they died out.
And here's their position on Biblical unicorns:
The biblical unicorn was a real animal, not an imaginary creature. ... The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to doubt its past existence. (Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past.). ... To think of the biblical unicorn as a fantasy animal is to demean God’s Word, which is true in every detail.
The Kentucky blogger fumes:
Kentucky will now be known as the state whose governor endorsed and gave $40 million in tax breaks to people who want to tell children that science and history explain that a 600 year old man herded dinosaurs, fire-breathing dragons and unicorns onto a big boat 4,000 years ago.
Oivey....*face palm*
there's unicorns in the bible??
did they look like this?:
http://www.unicornpedia.com/images/R...y_Edheloth.jpg
LOL if you'd been to Kentucky, you'd appreciate that irony of that blogger just a little more. I hope he has shoes on his feet.
Another LOL oddly enough when I Googled cretinism a picture of Obama came up under images.
Religion is the creation myth.
Science itself is a form of religion - it's better than most at explaining what we can observe (when it suits the prevalent theorists) but dogma is dogma and at some point - faith takes a role over common sense even in science.
---
We are here and we shouldn't be.
Why is the atom / cell structure that created my fingernail a fingernail and not a nose?
Is life a force just like gravity or heat and is it spread widely throughout the universe and if so, has it always been?
Disagree. Science is based upon the scientific method involving observation, hypothesis, and most importantly experimentation resulting in evidence to support that hypothesis. Religion involves (at most) observation and hypothesis but does not include experimentation and does not include evidence to support it.
Scientists, like anybody else, are not immune to beliefs beyond the science but the general scientific community understands this is where the science stops and the philosophy/religion begins. Many prominent scientists were devout religious believers but there are also many who are not. I think it's human nature to postulate beyond what we have the power to experiment and prove at this moment. This is why the human spirit is so great and has led humanity to the achievements it's had thus far.
Unfortunately this isn't always the case. Science is subject to governing boards and prevalent thought even in spite of direct observation. There are many stories of scientists being ostracized for putting forward theories that didn't conform to the norm. When it loses its objectivity - it becomes a type of faith.
Here's an example.
Attitudes like this lead to my theory that science is it's own religion:
Forcing Scientists to operate in an environment where they aren't allowed to think, dream or test outside a very specific set of norms because of a very real fear of being excommunicated, proves that Science isn't always concerned with forwarding human knowledge. Like everything... it's politics.Quote:
Sheldrake's untouchable status was conferred one morning in 1981 when, a couple of months after the publication of his first book, A New Science of Life, he woke up to read an editorial in the journal Nature, which announced to all right-thinking men and women that his was a "book for burning" and that Sheldrake was to be "condemned in exactly the language that the pope used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reason. It is heresy".
For a pariah, Sheldrake is particularly affable. But still, looking back at that moment, he still betrays a certain sense of shock. "It was," he says, "exactly like a papal excommunication. From that moment on, I became a very dangerous person to know for scientists." That opinion has hardened over the years, as Sheldrake has continued to operate at the margins of his discipline, looking for phenomena that "conventional, materialist science" cannot explain and arguing for a more open-minded approach to scientific inquiry.
I've only just started reading about the simulation hypothesis, and am finding it quite fascinating, especially with James Gates' relatively recent assertion that computer code was found imbedded in string theory equations. This stuff is way over my head, but it kinda blows my mind to think that we could be existing within a sort of self realizing program that is used to generate answers to queries from a "craetor" or creators if it were, and even more mind blowing to think what if that "creator" had a mortality and no longer even exists as we understand existing. It's like the Matrix f@cked Inception inside of Jacob's Ladder.
http://www.transcend.ws/?p=3020
a link about Gates
Sheldrake was "kicked out" because he broke every rule in the book. He published no peer reviewed articles on his "research" prior to pumping it out in a book. This screams of gold digging. He'd rather put it out, grab everyone's cash in a book, then when the criticisms to his "work" are brought forth he cries foul? Sorry bro, that's not how things work. Furthermore, when you read how he actually came to his conclusions (tripping on psychodelics and becoming a near born again christian) how can you honestly take the guy seriously? His rational boils down to one big argument from ignorance, or rather argument from incredulity. He can't think of a better reason for all the trees and for crystals becoming easier to form; so he substitutes actual testable premises with magic fields. He may as well have just said goddunit. No peer review, rampant logical fallacy...he's a hack. A hack with a good education, but still a hack. Ironically, he suffers from the same problem Dawkins is plagued by, they're more philosophy (or rather pseudo-philosophy) than anything close to science. Sheldrake's prose only serves to obfuscate. Its the same exact kind of crap TGY criticizes a lot on here of doing with vague, antiquated terminology that really has no precise meaning, with regards to TCM. At least Dawkins, for all his venom, doesn't blatantly violate logical principle. And I'll admit a measure of amusement at how that eats the creationists all up. I mention Dawkins because this dude's book seems to be a cheap attack at Dawk's popularity to make a quick buck. Or not so quick, he's been pulling this crap for 30 years now.
Oh and when you try to call out genetics, you better have a **** good basis for your claims. His book came out in what 81 or 82? We've progressed significantly in this area since then and those advances truly rip apart anything he put forth. Dude, we're even beginning to tease out which proteins are actually involved in memory, and which genes encode them. And in a lot of instances, its simply a matter of prolonged chemical bonding. Sorry, we really are just chemical reactions.
His crystal claim is hilarious. So somebody can form them more easily after having been done before....
I suppose this has nothing to do with the fact that, crystal residue on a material will orient additional molecules in the same pattern that is laid out. Its like pouring a mold, only on a molecular level. Oh and I guess you know, having the data that people previously used and seeing where they succeeded (or failed) wouldn't be useful at all in narrowing down your parameters would it? Nope. That's far too rational....
And honestly, if you think this is harsh, well you're probably not cut out for science. At least not in research. Its ok, most people aren't. This isn't reserved for just his kind. E.O. Wilson, Erik Pianka are both pinnacles in biological science and yet they've been getting slammed in recent years and rightfully so. This is how its done. Its why defending your thesis is one of the most nerve wracking experiences a growing scientist can endure. It keeps junk out of textbooks. Its the self correcting mechanism by which science operates. Is it a dogma? Maybe. Is it religion. Hell no. Its the means by which the system is supposed to (although not without some bloodshed) rise above the flaws of human fallacy. The same fallacies that religion does stems from, whether it be gullibility or stubbornness. Does it mean that sometimes good ideas get trashed? Yes. Sometimes those ideas are later vindicated, sometimes not. But its the best thing we have. Science is strict, but its skepticism is in fact the very opposite operating procedure than religion.
Criticizing people who throw whatever the hell explanation that makes them feel good in areas with lack of understanding does not make those critics closed minded. It means they don't often fall for bull****.
Sheldrake's just one of many and he was the first to pop up on a quick google search - and look at his credentials. Be careful about attacking ad hominem.
This still stands:
Happens all the time.Quote:
Forcing Scientists to operate in an environment where they aren't allowed to think, dream or test outside a very specific set of norms because of a very real fear of being excommunicated, proves that Science isn't always concerned with forwarding human knowledge. Like everything... it's politics.
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with most of accepted theory - but theory can become dogma especially when money, power, and prestige are on the line - and when theory becomes dogma, faith can overturn reason = "Religion"
I see what Mighty B is getting at, however Sheldrake was probably a poor example.
Dogmatic resistance to new ideas and the threat of excommunication in the scientific community is often about job security and the perception of that security being threatened. If you spent your entire career pursuing a particular line of research you would probably be violently resistant to someone who proposed anything that could possibly make that research out of date and meaningless. Many heretics were burned at the stake for nothing more than threatening the Church's bottom line.
Science as religious dogma is really more about laymen. Especially the atheist community on sites like reddit. They form cults of personality around Dawkins and Hitchens, worship the words Reason and Skepticism with no understanding of either, and do nothing more than replace one ideology for another in an environment of self reinforcing group think. They aren't really thinking or reasoning about anything.
True skepticism is open ended; it's not just about rejecting that which cannot be tested and proven, it also means being able to accept whatever is possible, especially if it threatens established understanding.
In 500 hundred years it could be demonstrated that the entire universe is a computer simulation and people then will ridicule the way the cult called Science worshiped at the altar of the Illusion of Empirical Objectivity.
Technically, all of this was created in a process.
But a dude with a beard making clay dolls and puffing life into them?
Yeah, that didn't happen.
I think that allegory and metaphor is lost on those who are uneducated and uninitiated. Therefore, the "face value" religious interpretation comes out as idiocy.
Also, that thing hasn't had updates to bring it into modernity culturally or socially for centuries.
It's important to know what is a story that outlines something and what is allegory, metaphor and even myth that is used to teach ways to act with yourself that will benefit you and ways to act with others that benefits all.
The obvious patriarchal and misogynistic stuff was clearly added by barbarian thought process when held to the light of reality today. As that changes, religion will have to change with it. So far, it's not doing that great of a job keeping up.
i believe in god because everyone around me dont. if everyone around me were religious i would have stayed a devout communist.
the counterculture has become the mainstream. so now i am the counterculture.
Stubbornness to accept new ideas is not religion. How you can make that leap of logic is beyond me. I've already addressed Sheldrake's credentials. A well educated hack is still a hack. And again, if you think this level of criticism is harsh, stay out of science. This is simply the way things go. IF his evidence were sound, it would have stood up for itself. It doesn't. End of story.
Scientism is not science. Do not mistake the two. And you are incorrect. That is not skepticism, that's gullibility. I don't care what's possible. Pink, invisible goblins holding me to the earth by my big toes are possible. I care about what is PROBABLE. Probability demands evidence to substantiate the claim of its likeliness to be the case. That is skepticism.
Only 24 hours in a day. Roughly 19 or those hours I will be awake. Another hour for random philosophical thought on the toilet and random ball scratching. An hour and a half for eating. 30 min for trolling the interwebs... I don't have time to follow every dead end claim that comes my way. If there's no evidence to give me reason to consider its credibility, then its not credible. I don't care if it may even turn out to be true. If you have no supportive evidence, you didn't do your job. Don't waste my time.
My entire point was about the distinction between as you called it Scientism and science, skepticism and pseudo skepticism.
I didn't say anything about just blindly accepting whatever crazy idea floats into your Ritalin addled brain.
http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/n-885
This is more what I was getting at. Testable theory that challenges currently accepted models.
And lets not even get in to what scientists will do to acquire or maintain funding. If they BELIEVE they are right, and it's just a matter of time(money) before they will prove it, these people may find it easier to lie about their findings in order to maintain their dream. When it turns out they were wrong this can lead to a whole big mess. Especially when other scientists working on the same things see their work and take it for gospel cause they are told it's verified. Two years later it comes out that it was all bullsh1t and now you have all these scientists caught with their pants down for cutting corners and lying because of false assumptions.
That being said, science still 110% more reliable for real world info than any religious text you will find.
Some religious texts seem to have made predictions that came true, but it's always highly subjective and open to interpretation. Like when me and DJ were discussing the Vedas.
Oh well that just proves that we are all just highly developed characters in some kids sim game. :rolleyes:
It's interesting, but not mind blowing. Who knows what kind of patterns you'll find if you look hard enough. If anything this suggests that our use of binary is something already found in nature. Oh wait, we already knew that. :eek: