We are Doomed! DOOOOOMMED I say!

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

MSimon wrote:
choff wrote:I don't think the feminists are at all responsible for the declining birth rate. Rather, as Adam Smith pointed out, labour is a commodity that responds to supply and demand like everything else. Just look at a graph of unemployment going up and real wages going down over time, and you will see a corresponding decline in the birth rate. Kids are expensive, people have them when they can afford them.
It is not quite as clear as that.

The poor and the rich have kids. The middle class dies out.

I have a family of 4

#1 - boy - still finding himself
#2 - boy - Off to Russia to teach English for a year
#3 - boy - 4th year (Sept) EE
#4 - girl - 2nd year (Sept) Chem Engr

Not too shabby. If everyone followed my example..... we'd have too many engineers.


You can never have too many engineers. The world would be a much better place if EVERYONE was an engineer! :)
MSimon wrote: I must say that school is way too expensive. and except for labs - unnecessary.
I concur. The biggest problem i've seen regarding self learning is finding access to the pertinent books. Current society does not encourage people learning knowledge outside of the ordered structure that society has set forth.

For example, I try to pick up as much medical knowledge as I can, thinking there may come a time when I and my family might be on our own. Beyond basic first aid, it is not easy to obtain access to medical school type books. Apart from that, using any of the knowledge you do pick up makes it more probable that you are going to be called upon by uniformed men from the state.

I had a neurosurgeon friend that used to tell me all sorts of things about brain surgery. I found it fascinating. He did a lot of field work in Africa, and he explained aspects of brain surgery in primitive conditions. He mentioned that in the jungle, you don't have a refrigerator, and many procedures require a section of skull be removed, and it must not be replaced for several days. (Usually to let the brain swelling abate after a traumatic head injury.) Without a refrigerator, the section of skull bone would die and rot. An older doctor taught him the trick of inserting the skull section into an incision in the abdomen, and the body will nourish it and keep it free of infection. He said it would last there as long as necessary.

That's the sort of thing you simply don't pick up outside of a medical school.

Free the knowledge!

:)

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Did you never go to a church where they warned you constantly that all the stuff which is happening now was going to happen?
I dont usually go to church. It is the same old fairy tale over and over again.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Surely there must have been SOME reason why the bible condemns this behavior, and why society has affirmed this condemnation throughout history?
The Romans and Greeks had different ideas.

As to Bible condemnation: they condemned a lot of things than no longer make sense. Dietary laws for instance. And mixing fibers. Big no no there.

And then the adultery thing. Death seems a little harsh.

But in fact the Rabbis about 2,000 years ago made the death penalty for any offense almost impossible.

You see there are far to many who know biblical law and far too few who know Jewish common law. Pity.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

The poor aren't paying their own bills, and they will have kids whether they can afford them or not. This is why I have been a persistent advocate of this draconian idea.

If the STATE pays for your childbirth, you will be reverseably sterilized. So will the father.

This is exactly what we ought to do, and it's exactly what we should have been doing all along,
With the right kind of government anything is possible.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

MSimon wrote:
Surely there must have been SOME reason why the bible condemns this behavior, and why society has affirmed this condemnation throughout history?
The Romans and Greeks had different ideas.

Can't speak to Roman ideas on Homosexuality, but I've debated this issue before, and others have brought up the Greeks before. According to the research I did at the time, the Greeks practiced pedarasty with young boys. They considered having Adult partners to be obscene. As for the Romans, they practiced all sorts of barbarism and debauchery such as animal sex and necrophilia. And they are GONE. Not sure why they should serve as a good example or something.


MSimon wrote: As to Bible condemnation: they condemned a lot of things than no longer make sense. Dietary laws for instance. And mixing fibers. Big no no there.

This is a sort of tu qouque argument. (that because the bible condemned one thing that turned out to be no big deal, everything else the bible condemns must also be no big deal.) It is a logical fallacy.

Apart from that, it doesn't even address my point. The question I asked was WHY did the bible condemn it?
MSimon wrote: And then the adultery thing. Death seems a little harsh.

You think so? I would have thought that starting a vendetta killing spree between the families of the Wife, the Husband, and the lover, possibly even turning into a community wide civil war, might justify nipping it in the bud by killing only the adulterers, but perhaps people back then were more civilized than I give them credit for? :)

Beyond that, in those times, contracting a venereal disease was often a death sentence. People just didn't find that funny, like they do today.

MSimon wrote: But in fact the Rabbis about 2,000 years ago made the death penalty for any offense almost impossible.

You see there are far to many who know biblical law and far too few who know Jewish common law. Pity.
I like to pick up knowledge of it whenever I have an opportunity. Back when I used to have satellite tv ( I got rid of it because I didn't like the shows the kids were watching.) I used to watch the research channel, and they would occasionally have a lecturer on Jewish law and history. I found it fascinating.

Apart from that, not to dismiss the rabbis, but I think the way the bible relates the issue, speaks for itself. The Tribe of Benjamin was nearly exterminated because of their homosexuality and other sexual deviancy. If that is how the bible says they should be dealt with, I don't see how the believers have much wiggle room. I'm not sure how the Rabbis finesse that one.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Maybe, Maybe not. In any case, the Catholics have done, and are still doing much good in the world.
Yeah, like tolerating and covering up cases of child molestation and abuse.
;)
It leaves open the idea of killing as long as one can get away with it.
There have always been cases of murder. Now and back in the days of a much stronger catholic church. I dont see what difference it made.
Best way to lower the crime rate is to increase police presence and equipment. If most of the murder cases are solved, there will be less murders.
As for the Romans, they practiced all sorts of barbarism and debauchery such as animal sex and necrophilia. And they are GONE.
I am not so sure about the things you mentioned, but they did have very strong homo sexual tendencies there and sex there was generally viewed differently from our western society (with strong christian influences). Extra marital sex and prostitution were a lot more present in Rom. That is why the new testamentaric "Whore Babylon" is actually referring to Rome. Babylon was of no importance by that time anymore (had not been for centuries). You get the word play though right? Seven headed Snake, seven hills of Rome...
The blood of the saints... christians that had been killed in Rome...and so on.
A lot of the bible was politically motivated.
Problem is, that today it does not work anymore. It is outdated. People can not believe in something that is so clearly wrong. The problem with religions, like all ideologies is, that it can not adapt to new situations. Ideologies are static. You can not just go and "update" the bible with the big bang theory and turn the 7 days into a few billion years.
This is why the catholic church, like any religion, will ultimately fail. It may take a couple of thousand years more (worst case scenario), but I think that the catholic church just signifficantly decreased its halflife with the recent scandals.
I think that of all religions, the jewish religion has been among the most adaptable (some of the factions anyway, there are some that are forever yesterday).
Anyway, the more "modern" an ideology is, the better it will work at any given time. Depending on how "smart" it has been constructed and how adaptable it is, it will last longer or shorter.
Ultimately though, all ideologies will fail, because they can never keep up with scientific progress. This is why all ideologies try to, one way or the other, slow down or even demonize science (especially those branches of science that could ultimately disprove their dogmas).
Take scientology as an example: They hate psychiatry. Why? Because disproves, or could disprove, anything they believe in.
The chatholics hate stem cells and genetics. Why? Because genetics allow the humans to "play god" and stem cells will bring about biblical "miracles" (you know, the lame will walk and the mute will talk and the blind will see and all that). Of course doing all these things is reserved to god and those that believe in him (or claim to like Popoff, ggggg).
The socialists hate genetics because it disproves Lamarque and teh rest of their dialectic bullcrap.
Last edited by Skipjack on Sun May 30, 2010 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:
Maybe, Maybe not. In any case, the Catholics have done, and are still doing much good in the world.
Yeah, like tolerating and covering up cases of child molestation and abuse.
;)

A cheap shot? Really? Well, while we're taking cheap shots, I will point out the vast majority of the pederasty by Priests is of the homosexual variety. I.E. molesting young boys. Did that escape everyone's attention?

So you have nothing good to say about how the Catholics help the poor, and how they try to teach people to live moral and upstanding lives? Last I checked, Catholic Charities is the biggest and most extensive charity organization on the planet.

Skipjack wrote:
It leaves open the idea of killing as long as one can get away with it.
There have always been cases of murder. Now and back in the days of a much stronger catholic church. I dont see what difference it made.
It is obvious that you don't. You apparently lack the ability to envision things macroscopically. The world you see, is the only world you can see, and you can't seem to link causes and effects.

Yes, there have always been cases of murder. Do you think NOT teaching people that murder is wrong will improve this situation? How could it?


Skipjack wrote: Best way to lower the crime rate is to increase police presence and equipment. If most of the murder cases are solved, there will be less murders.

The best way to lower crime is to teach people that it is wrong, the way it has been taught for much of history. If people were not taught to control themselves, you would never have enough policemen.

Skipjack wrote:
As for the Romans, they practiced all sorts of barbarism and debauchery such as animal sex and necrophilia. And they are GONE.
I am not so sure about the things you mentioned, but they did have very strong homo sexual tendencies there and sex there was generally viewed differently from our western society (with strong christian influences). Extra marital sex and prostitution were a lot more present in Rom.
The Romans were bacchanalian libertines. Noble women would rut with gladiators and pretend to be street whores. The debauchery of the Romans ran the gamut. What possible limit on behavior would be respected by people who enjoyed watching people by the thousands being hacked to death, burned and eaten by animals?




Skipjack wrote: That is why the new testamentaric "Whore Babylon" is actually referring to Rome. Babylon was of no importance by that time anymore (had not been for more than a thousand years). You get the word play though right? Seven headed Snake, seven hills of Rome...
The blood of the saints... christians that had been killed in Rome...and so on.

I'm familiar with that interpretation.

Skipjack wrote: A lot of the bible was politically motivated. Problem is, that today it does not work anymore. It is outdated. People can not believe in something that is so clearly wrong.
You mean except where it is right? Archeological evidence is steadily confirming biblical accounts of events. At least the historical parts of the bible seem to be confirmable, as for the supernatural parts, some of them seem to be confirmable too. I've read several accounts of how the Plagues of Egypt had basis in scientific explanations.

I think there are a lot of people that WANT it to be wrong, and are declaring it so before the fact of having proven it to be wrong. Do you have an example of something in the bible that is wrong?

Skipjack wrote: The problem with religions, like all ideologies is, that it can not adapt to new situations. Ideologies are static..

Now there's a broad statement. Certainly nothing can go wrong with THAT! :)

Skipjack wrote: You can not just go and "update" the bible with the big bang theory and turn the 7 days into a few billion years.

A lot of people nowadays interpret those passages metaphorically. Since Modern physicists are having trouble explaining this same period of time, (The Singularity and instantaneous expansion) you know, CREATION, I would give the religionists the same benefit of the doubt. :) Perhaps "Let there be light." IS an appropriate way to describe the event from the singularity to the universe.


Skipjack wrote: This is why the catholic church, like any religion, will ultimately fail. It may take a couple of thousand years more (worst case scenario), but I think that the catholic church just signifficantly decreased its halflife with the recent scandals.

If it is truly genetic, as many scientists are suspecting, then you are as wrong as you can be about this. I think religion will persist regardless, because there is an innate desire among people to want to believe in something greater than they can see. My assessment is that it is like the old saying. " Man fears time. Time fears the Pyramids." Religion has only lasted among mankind as far back as we can find dead people. Surely you are right that they'll give it up after a million years! :)
Skipjack wrote: I think that of all religions, the jewish religion has been among the most adaptable (some of the factions anyway, there are some that are forever yesterday).
I actually LIKE and have great respect for the ORTHODOX branch of Judaism. They are the ones who attempt to be the most accurate and faithful to their teachings. The other two branches are johnny come lately's.

Skipjack wrote: Anyway, the more "modern" an ideology is, the better it will work at any given time. Depending on how "smart" it has been constructed and how adaptable it is, it will last longer or shorter.
Yeah, like Communism. How's that working out again?


Skipjack wrote: Ultimately though, all ideologies will fail, because they can never keep up with scientific progress. This is why all ideologies try to, one way or the other, slow down or even demonize science (especially those branches of science that could ultimately disprove their dogmas).

I see as much dogma among people of science as that of any religion. Ever hear of Anthropological Global Warming?

Skipjack wrote: Take scientology as an example: They hate psychiatry. Why? Because disproves, or could disprove, anything they believe in.

Really? I have a completely different take on that. I hate psychiatry too. I hate it because it appears to be a completely made up bunch of phoney baloney mumbo jumbo wrapped up in a false cloak of respectability. My observation is that Psychiatry has apparently never cured anyone in the entire history of it's existence, and probably has as much validity as phrenology. I regard psychiatry as being very similar to a religion insofar as a lot of people have a misplaced faith in it's utility, and if it GETS any results, it's a MIRACLE! :)

Skipjack wrote: The chatholics hate stem cells and genetics. Why? Because genetics allow the humans to "play god" and stem cells will bring about biblical "miracles" (you know, the lame will walk and the mute will talk and the blind will see and all that).
I think that is a mischaracterization of their motives. They object to it on the basis of their belief that it is in essence, a human being. Catholics have seen the miracles of modern medicine. They are not opposed to the deaf hearing, the blind seeing, and the crippled walking. They are opposed to attaining those goals by sacrificing a human life.

Skipjack wrote: Of course doing all these things is reserved to god and those that believe in him (or claim to like Popoff, ggggg).
The socialists hate genetics because it disproves Lamarque and teh rest of their dialectic bullcrap.

The socialists hate genetics? Who's doing all the stem cell research then?

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Something went wrong with the website. It gave me an error and posted my message several times.
Last edited by Diogenes on Sun May 30, 2010 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Copy number 2.
Last edited by Diogenes on Sun May 30, 2010 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Copy number 3.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Well, while we're taking cheap shots, I will point out the vast majority of the pederasty by Priests is of the homosexual variety. I.E. molesting young boys. Did that escape everyone's attention?
And that changes what I said in what exact way?
Last I checked, Catholic Charities is the biggest and most extensive charity organization on the planet.
I know plenty of non catholic organizations that do just as much good. SOS Kinderdorf (childrens villages), e.g. This has helped literally millions of children in the entire world. There are no ideologic strings attached to it.

The catholic organizations do work that I often doubt for its usefulness. Caritas, e.g. seems to help all the wrong people.
Just my personal opinion.
Do you think NOT teaching people that murder is wrong will improve this situation?
DID I EVER SAY THAT? Hello?
I just dont see that you need religion for that.
If people were not taught to control themselves, you would never have enough policemen.
The prospect of worldly punishment can be just as much a deterrend as the prospect of otherworldly punishment.
Through SCIENCE, crime fighting and forensics will improve further, increasing the rate of solved crimes to the point where commiting a crime will result in a almost 100% chance of getting cought. That will make the world saver. Giving people a fair chance in life also helps (though to a smaller extent, since a lot of the willingness to comitt crimes is genetical).
Archeological evidence is steadily confirming biblical accounts of events. At least the historical parts of the bible seem to be confirmable, as for the supernatural parts, some of them seem to be confirmable too. I think there are a lot of people that WANT it to be wrong, and are declaring it so before the fact of having proven it to be wrong. Do you have an example of something in the bible that is wrong?
Ok, first I have to ask, which version of the bible are we talking about?
So the world is only 4000 years old, yes? There is scientific evidence for that? LOL
A creator did not create the world in seven days. Of course you can argue that this is metaphorical and I may agree with that, but many die hard christians will tell you that it has to be literal, coming up with all sorts of nonsensical explanations.
There is not even evidence that Nazareth existed at the time that Jesus was supposedly born.
The entire world was definitely not flooded by the biblical flood. So wrong.
It is impossible that Noah was able to fit all animals of the world into a wooden box with the dimensions mentioned in the bible, unless he compressed them somehow ;).
Archeological evidence suggests that Jerichos walls had already been torn down a long time ago, when the jews finally arrived there.
Since evolution is still an angoing progress, the supposed creation never ended after 6 days. So god cant be resting yet.
I've read several accounts of how the Plagues of Egypt had basis in scientific explanations.
There is actually some truth to that.
The "blood" in the rivers was supposedly caused by a kind of algae that is reddish and causes a reddish discoloration.
The biblical manna that fell from the sky is supposedly the excrements of locusts that had and have been roaming the area frequently.
Now there's a broad statement. Certainly nothing can go wrong with THAT!
It may be broad, but it is true.
Since Modern physicists are having trouble explaining this same period of time, (The Singularity and instantaneous expansion) you know, CREATION, I would give the religionists the same benefit of the doubt.
This is non sensical. One thing is a clearly wrong fantasy interpretation. The other is the attempt at a scientifical explanation. Both may be equally wrong, but only one allows itself to be corrected by science.
If it is truly genetic, as many scientists are suspecting, then you are as wrong as you can be about this.
I have not heard or seen any evidence for a religion gene. What chromosome is that supposed to be in?
Yeah, like Communism. How's that working out again?
That is my point. Not well. But then none of the other ideologies are looking to good.
I see as much dogma among people of science as that of any religion. Ever hear of Anthropological Global Warming?
Dogmas are always wrong. Any real scientists will be willing to revert his theories if he is presented with new evidence that contradicts it.
Really? I have a completely different take on that. I hate psychiatry too.
To some extent you are right here. The correct science would probably be neuroscience.
However, you only need low level psychiatry to disprove Scientology.
Proud to be an SP, btw.
My observation is that Psychiatry has apparently never cured anyone in the entire history of it's existence, and probably has as much validity as phrenology.
Maybe not cured, but successfully treated.
It is at least attempting to use scientific methods for explaining the complex happenings inside the brain.
I think that is a mischaracterization of their motives. They object to it on the basis of their belief that it is in essence, a human being.
And? What does that have to do with genetics? I think you are thinking of stem cells, where this argumentation may(!) be applicable to.
The socialists hate genetics? Who's doing all the stem cell research then?
People that do not follow any ideology (or are at least trying to avoid ideologies). You know, people like me.
Also stem cells and genetics are two different disciplines (though closely related).
In any case, both are in strong contradiction to pretty all ideologies on this planet.
Our socialists here in Austria are very much against stem cell research and genetics. Suslov had all the geneticists sent to the Gulac.

hanelyp
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Post by hanelyp »

I see as much dogma among people of science as that of any religion. Ever hear of Anthropological Global Warming?
The AGW hype is pseudo science, not real Science. It wears the cloak of science, but disregards the essential methods. Real Science wouldn't casually dismiss assorted evidence and reasoning that a theory has problems, and brand those presenting the evidence as undesirables.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

hanelyp wrote:
I see as much dogma among people of science as that of any religion. Ever hear of Anthropological Global Warming?
The AGW hype is pseudo science, not real Science. It wears the cloak of science, but disregards the essential methods. Real Science wouldn't casually dismiss assorted evidence and reasoning that a theory has problems, and brand those presenting the evidence as undesirables.
Agreed. AGW is clearly a pop straw man of the denialists. It's their theory, yet they gather *no* data. Without any evidence whatsoever, they'll even say a trillion tons of carbon released into the atmosphere is a good thing.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:
Well, while we're taking cheap shots, I will point out the vast majority of the pederasty by Priests is of the homosexual variety. I.E. molesting young boys. Did that escape everyone's attention?
And that changes what I said in what exact way?


What you said was asinine. If you recall correctly, I mentioned how the Catholic Church did a lot of good in the world, and you said something like "yeah, molesting children", which is just an assholish response. Since the topic of what was wrong with homosexuality came up earlier in the thread, I thought I would point out that it was a bunch of homosexually inclined individuals raping little boys.

Needless to say, none of this is relevant to the GOOD the Catholic church does in the world, but it IS evidence of what *I* was saying regarding how the evil manifests itself.


Skipjack wrote:
Last I checked, Catholic Charities is the biggest and most extensive charity organization on the planet.
I know plenty of non catholic organizations that do just as much good. SOS Kinderdorf (childrens villages), e.g. This has helped literally millions of children in the entire world. There are no ideologic strings attached to it.

The catholic organizations do work that I often doubt for its usefulness. Caritas, e.g. seems to help all the wrong people.
Just my personal opinion.

It obviously IS your personal opinion, and it lacks objectivity. As I had never heard of SOS Kinderdorf, I thought it would be incredible that such an organization could have the reach of the Catholic church, and so I did a little quick googling. SOS KinderDorf started in 1949. That alone tells me it isn't even a footnote compared to the Catholic Church. This tells me that the Catholics have at least a thousand year head start. But wait! There's more! It has over 100 National associations. I dare say the Catholics have over a hundred associations in every country in the world.
I could go on and on about this, but it wouldn't do you any good, so I'm not going to bother. I just find it incredible that you would even suggest that the two are somehow equal either in breadth or depth.

Skipjack wrote:
Do you think NOT teaching people that murder is wrong will improve this situation?
DID I EVER SAY THAT? Hello?
It is axiomatic to what you have said.

Skipjack wrote: I just dont see that you need religion for that.

Obviously.




Skipjack wrote:
If people were not taught to control themselves, you would never have enough policemen.
The prospect of worldly punishment can be just as much a deterrend as the prospect of otherworldly punishment.
Through SCIENCE, crime fighting and forensics will improve further, increasing the rate of solved crimes to the point where commiting a crime will result in a almost 100% chance of getting cought. That will make the world saver. Giving people a fair chance in life also helps (though to a smaller extent, since a lot of the willingness to comitt crimes is genetical).

Such great faith you have in secular authorities. Obviously you believe in that fantasy, why criticize people who want to believe in another and more beneficial fantasy? If the police force is made up of people that don't have an inherent basis for understanding the difference between good and evil, they we shall all be guilty of some crime.


Skipjack wrote:
Archeological evidence is steadily confirming biblical accounts of events. At least the historical parts of the bible seem to be confirmable, as for the supernatural parts, some of them seem to be confirmable too. I think there are a lot of people that WANT it to be wrong, and are declaring it so before the fact of having proven it to be wrong. Do you have an example of something in the bible that is wrong?
Ok, first I have to ask, which version of the bible are we talking about?
So the world is only 4000 years old, yes? There is scientific evidence for that? LOL
Well, the one I am most familiar with is the King James version, and I don't recall seeing that 4000 year figure in there anywhere. If it's not in there, I don't see why anyone should want scientific evidence to prove that it is.


Skipjack wrote: A creator did not create the world in seven days. Of course you can argue that this is metaphorical and I may agree with that, but many die hard christians will tell you that it has to be literal, coming up with all sorts of nonsensical explanations.
Perhaps they know as much about the bible as you seem to know about American History and Political Philosophy? If that is the case, I can see why they make mistakes. :)

Skipjack wrote: There is not even evidence that Nazareth existed at the time that Jesus was supposedly born.The entire world was definitely not flooded by the biblical flood. So wrong.

You really CAN'T see things through other people's eyes. I'm not talking about empathy, I'm referring to the ability to think from a different perspective.

There is an ABUNDANCE of evidence to indicate a Massive and Major flood over virtually every part of the known human sphere in ancient times. Most science minded people associate the evidence with the great melt of the last ice age, or of the breaking open of the strait of Gibraltar, both events which are known to have happened.

To the people recording any such event, it would surely have seemed as if the entire world had been flooded, because THEIR entire world HAD been flooded.

Skipjack wrote: It is impossible that Noah was able to fit all animals of the world into a wooden box with the dimensions mentioned in the bible, unless he compressed them somehow ;).

I believe it says 7 pairs of the clean animals, and 1 pair of every unclean animal. You may be surprised to learn that there were far more animals than this in the world, even several thousand years ago. :)

Skipjack wrote: Archeological evidence suggests that Jerichos walls had already been torn down a long time ago, when the jews finally arrived there.
How could they possibly know that?

Skipjack wrote: Since evolution is still an angoing progress, the supposed creation never ended after 6 days. So god cant be resting yet.
A creationist could argue that once God started the motor, the motor simply kept on running. :)


Skipjack wrote:
I've read several accounts of how the Plagues of Egypt had basis in scientific explanations.
There is actually some truth to that.
The "blood" in the rivers was supposedly caused by a kind of algae that is reddish and causes a reddish discoloration.
The biblical manna that fell from the sky is supposedly the excrements of locusts that had and have been roaming the area frequently.
Both of those notions are new to me. I had read and seen documentaries that the redish color of the Nile was the result of contamination from volcanic and seismic activity which was occurring at this time. This theory has the advantage of being able to explain the Plague of Darkness, The Plague of Blood, the Plague of Frogs, the Plague of Flies, the Plague of Fire and Brimstone, and the Plague of Death of the First born, etc.

It also helps with the pillar of fire and the draining of the red sea.

Skipjack wrote:
Now there's a broad statement. Certainly nothing can go wrong with THAT!
It may be broad, but it is true.

In the minds of some. Whether it be objectively true has yet to be established.

Skipjack wrote:
Since Modern physicists are having trouble explaining this same period of time, (The Singularity and instantaneous expansion) you know, CREATION, I would give the religionists the same benefit of the doubt.
This is non sensical. One thing is a clearly wrong fantasy interpretation. The other is the attempt at a scientifical explanation. Both may be equally wrong, but only one allows itself to be corrected by science.
The funny thing about science. The deeper it goes, the more like fantasy it appears. As Richard Fineman remarked. " How can it be like that? "

Skipjack wrote:
If it is truly genetic, as many scientists are suspecting, then you are as wrong as you can be about this.
I have not heard or seen any evidence for a religion gene. What chromosome is that supposed to be in?

What a silly question! Science has not yet mapped out the functions of all the genes. Aren't you in some sort of Medical field or something, and yet you did not know this? For years, many scientists thought that junk DNA sequences were just junk. Now we know that they do have important functions. Apart from that, we don't even know for sure that everything about being a human is connected to the genes. There is some theorizing going on out there that humans (and other living things) rely on quantum effects for certain functions. For all we know, there is an eerie quantum linkage between parents and offspring that transcends genetics, and we have yet to even fully understand the genetics!

Skipjack wrote:
Yeah, like Communism. How's that working out again?
That is my point. Not well. But then none of the other ideologies are looking to good.
Really? The Christian religion took mankind from an agrarianism condition of mostly primitive towns and huts (predominately) during the Roman times, to develop advanced science and industrialization.

China had basically the same stable system for two thousand years prior to Christianity and nearly two thousand years after Christianity, yet it was the Christian nations that became the major world powers.

Coincidence? People have long remarked that Christianity held science back, but they always fail to notice that it was the most Christianized nations that were the most highly advanced and developed, especially after the Renaissance. The rest of the world was far worse. It wasn't lack of resources, it was lack of the right mindset.

Skipjack wrote:
I see as much dogma among people of science as that of any religion. Ever hear of Anthropological Global Warming?
Dogmas are always wrong. Any real scientists will be willing to revert his theories if he is presented with new evidence that contradicts it.
The History of Science is FULL of examples of prominent scientists refusing to believe something until it was fully impossible for them to shout it down any further. As the saying goes, " Science starts as heresy and ends as dogma."


Skipjack wrote:
Really? I have a completely different take on that. I hate psychiatry too.
To some extent you are right here. The correct science would probably be neuroscience.
However, you only need low level psychiatry to disprove Scientology.
Proud to be an SP, btw..
My observation is that Psychiatry has apparently never cured anyone in the entire history of it's existence, and probably has as much validity as phrenology.
Maybe not cured, but successfully treated.
It is at least attempting to use scientific methods for explaining the complex happenings inside the brain.

And whose word do we have to take for it that the patient has been successfully treated? Why the people GIVING the treatment! Far be it from me to insinuate that they have a vested interest in not telling people that their treatment is a complete failure. Of COURSE the patient is getting better! It's like the government telling me that they are managing my money sensibly! They will NEVER tell you anything else! :)

Skipjack wrote:
I think that is a mischaracterization of their motives. They object to it on the basis of their belief that it is in essence, a human being.
And? What does that have to do with genetics? I think you are thinking of stem cells, where this argumentation may(!) be applicable to.

It was the latest topic of discussion touching on this issue. Beyond that, I know of no other objections that the Catholics have to medical research. What ELSE could we be talking about?

Skipjack wrote:
The socialists hate genetics? Who's doing all the stem cell research then?
People that do not follow any ideology (or are at least trying to avoid ideologies). You know, people like me.
Also stem cells and genetics are two different disciplines (though closely related).
Like bread and butter. In fact, more closely related. Like intertwined. Like virtually the same thing. Like, they are in fact the same thing. :) This just goes back to that discussion i've had with MSimon where I keep trying to point out that such barriers are completely subjective. There are in fact no barriers whatsoever except for the human perception of them.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

hanelyp wrote:
I see as much dogma among people of science as that of any religion. Ever hear of Anthropological Global Warming?
The AGW hype is pseudo science, not real Science. It wears the cloak of science, but disregards the essential methods. Real Science wouldn't casually dismiss assorted evidence and reasoning that a theory has problems, and brand those presenting the evidence as undesirables.

Helius wrote:
hanelyp wrote:
I see as much dogma among people of science as that of any religion. Ever hear of Anthropological Global Warming?
The AGW hype is pseudo science, not real Science. It wears the cloak of science, but disregards the essential methods. Real Science wouldn't casually dismiss assorted evidence and reasoning that a theory has problems, and brand those presenting the evidence as undesirables.
Agreed. AGW is clearly a pop straw man of the denialists. It's their theory, yet they gather *no* data. Without any evidence whatsoever, they'll even say a trillion tons of carbon released into the atmosphere is a good thing.

Out of the entire discussion, that offhand comment is the only thing you thought was worth talking about? Apart from that, you two SEEM to be on opposite sides. Hanelyp seems to agree with me that the Global Warming hype was just a load of crap disguised as science, while Helius seems to be attacking the "Denialist" which is a term commonly used to refer to people who don't buy the Anthropological Global Warming theory.

As for not presenting evidence, *I* have presented what I regard as impeccable evidence whenever I have discussed this issue. I will reiterate the most important part right here.

Whatever it is that Carbon Dioxide is doing to trap heat, Methane does better, and Water Vapor does best. A Spectral absorption graph demonstrates this quite obviously. That being the case, if the Global warming theorists were correct, it would have been impossible for life to have evolved on a planet with a surface temperature of 800 degrees farenheit. The proof that Global warming is BS is the fact that we exist at all.

Post Reply