Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for a Conspiracy of Scientists?
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 85 (204354)
05-02-2005 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Eta_Carinae
05-02-2005 2:40 PM


Re: No what we hear is
quote:
ID=Creationism=Bullshit.
Thanks for prooving my point, bigot!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Eta_Carinae, posted 05-02-2005 2:40 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Eta_Carinae, posted 05-02-2005 3:01 PM Limbo has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 77 of 85 (204355)
05-02-2005 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Limbo
05-02-2005 2:45 PM


Bigot...
how so?
Creationism is bullshit in the way it is presented as a feeble attempt at science.
ID similarly never makes a prediction but is based upon appeal to incredulity.
Hence as science it is bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Limbo, posted 05-02-2005 2:45 PM Limbo has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 78 of 85 (204359)
05-02-2005 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Limbo
05-02-2005 2:35 PM


Re: Time to actually support your assertions.
Limbo writes:
We have. What you say is not true.
I really feel your Christian love here ...
Oh really? You all have? lol.
You are exhibiting ignorance. "We" often, maybe even usually, means "the writer and one or more others". That's the first definition at The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition and is included in the first definition in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Limbo writes:
Where is your evidence? Lets see it.
We don't have any ... and that's your problem.
It's impossible to prove that something does not exist. However, if (as we have) we look for evidence of that something and fail to find any we tentatively conclude that it does not exist. If someone wants to argue that the something does exist and provides evidence for the existence we reconsider. Ball's in your court, as it has been for some time.
Limbo writes:
And you really feel my Christian love eh? Do you feel my Christian anger too? Because its ok for good to be angry at evil, ya'know. Its called righteous anger. Its ok to be angry at closed-minded, rude, lying, hypocritical bigots.
I take umbrage at being called evil, closed-minded, rude, lying, hypocritocal, and a bigot merely because I don't agree with your unsupported claims. Remember when you signed up you agreed to the Forum Rules, which include:
quote:
Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."
While I'm looking at that page, these are also apropos:
quote:
Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.
quote:
Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. ...
Limbo writes:
Its funny how you non-Christians always want OTHER people to live up to moral codes (like Christianity) that you yourself don't observe.
Personally, I think that everyone should live up to an appropriate moral code, and Christianity is one (not the only) source of such codes. You have no idea of what my religious views are, what my moral code is, and whether or not I live up to that code. You assume that I am not Christian and don't observe a Christian moral code solely because I don't agree with you. But my views and actions aren't relevant; all I did was point out that you do not live up to the moral code you profess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Limbo, posted 05-02-2005 2:35 PM Limbo has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 79 of 85 (204366)
05-02-2005 3:41 PM


Temporary "Cooling Off" topic closure
I am going to be away from my computer for quite a while. Other admins are welcome to reopen this topic as they see fit.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 80 of 85 (204694)
05-03-2005 2:52 PM


Topic reopened - Eta suspension lifted
Perhaps it would be a good thing, for all to review the topic, especially the beginning of it.
Adminnemooseus

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 81 of 85 (204758)
05-03-2005 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tusko
04-28-2005 8:18 AM


Re: let's talk about the OTHER conspiracy for a second
appletree grafts ~=
quote:
But in order to regard a thing cognized as a natural product as a purpose also - consequently as a natural purpose, if this is not a contradiction - something more is required. I would say provisionally : a thing exists as a natural purpose if it is [although in a double sense] both cause and effect of itself...In the first place, a tree generates another tree,...individual...Thirdly, each part of a tree generates itself in such a way that the maintenance of any one part depends reciprocally on the ...engrafted....
KANT@64 Critique of Teleological Judgment
in context of
Arithmetical or geometrical analogies, as well as universal mechanical laws- however strange and admirable may seem to us the union of different rules, quite independent of one another according to all appearence, in a single principle - possess on that account no claim to be teleological grounds of explanation in physics. Even if they deserve to be brought into consideration in the universal theory of the purposiveness of things of nature, yet they belong to another@68
Command=x=Divide the union before Mark10(25) quotes my use of Matchette's polarized metaphysics.
Point to some words if you want me to slow up the explanation. It would not be necessarily a rule based computation domain suffiently on my position however. I dont think Quantum Computation (if and when) is GOD. Take minimization by the principle of substance stability obeying Gladyshev's "law" as such a means to do the bookeeping if the dissection of Frolich's work is too particularized.
Frolich also has a rather unique explanation of how microwaves affect enzyme equilibria but Time/Warner, Verizon and Motorolla would not like that to be true. This doesnt mean that we divide away any theoretical ground in biology however in the system by the processed pattern. I am pushing for what deserves attention¬ yet what is true as such necessarily and must be taught. I used to feel like I did not belong. That is past. But evolutionists arguing with creationists about how long biochange MIGHT occur in temporally"" prevents delimitation and defintion of when there is NO contradiction logically generally.
I had gesticulated about this two way directum before @
http://EvC Forum: does it matter which is or not when there is value commercially? -->EvC Forum: does it matter which is or not when there is value commercially?
.
op cit-Postcellualr "polar" control balances neutralizations potentially by a new chemical synthesis that double pressure/voltage effects. Acid/base and or attraction/reulsions may provide a different effect on the surrounding extracellular physico-chemical environment than occurs by external variable within a give cell such that by trajectory or orbit the kinematic necessary to do at least bipolar functionality intercellular torque such is less conservable extracellular than intracellularly but ions flow regardless of adaptive conserverd lesser magnitudes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tusko, posted 04-28-2005 8:18 AM Tusko has not replied

  
Morgolf
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 85 (205609)
05-06-2005 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by nator
05-02-2005 10:19 AM


Re: Evidence for a Conspiracy of Scientists?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is not public ignorance, but public alienation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mauin problem IS public ignorance, and this leads to the alienation, because people are alienated from and fearful of what they do not understand.
Quick, explain to me what the Theory of Evolution is, what it's main mechanisms are believed to be in a few sentences.
Better yet, explain in a few sentences how scientists use the word "theory" and how it differs from the layman's use of the term.
I'll bet you can't without looking it up, and I'm VERY sure that most of the US public couldn't.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason for this alienation is the reluctance of most scientists to be as objective about themselves, their values, their goals, and their intellectual methods as they claim to be about interpreting specific data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's bull. The reason for the alienation is that people see science and technology as something that has an increasing influence on their lives, that they are increasingly dependent upon, but that they are less and less able to understand.
Hi Schrafinator,
I have been enjoying your replies on various posts and boards in this forum, but wanted to inject some points into this post.
Since World War II, and the use of the Atomic Bomb, the trust that the general public has in science in general has slowly eroded due to some of the side-effects of chemicals found out too late, or after massive damage has been done (i.e., DDT, Dioxin, PCB's, CFCs, etc.). Also, certain events (Bhopal, Three Mile Island, etc.)have caused the general population to inherently distrust science and institutes that encourage, participates, and funds said science.
Add into the equation some bad science published in the general Media (example: Cold Fusion in the 1980's...Doh!) and science in general is seen as the dark sheep in the world.
With the mistrust comes the fear of science and some people return to a more secure, warm, and fuzzy belief (intelligent design philosophy, creationism) that a god is involved, thereby allowing them to accept some science, IMO.
All of the scientists (Religious or otherwise) I have worked with have shown only a love of experimentation, of finding more questions to answer, with no hint of a Conspiracy. Perhaps the difference between those who are scientists (including me), scientifically inclined, or have a fondness for science to those who fear science and promote non-scientific "theories" are that those who fear have never known the true love and joy of science/experimentation/research and instead had horrible teachers in Middle and High Schools, and Universities (I had two horrible science teachers in High School, but fortunately overcame them).
Ok, I ramble.

Never play catch with crystallized picric acid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 05-02-2005 10:19 AM nator has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 83 of 85 (206707)
05-10-2005 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Limbo
05-02-2005 12:26 PM


Re: The biggest clue
Sorry about the late reply, I just discovered the 'reply awaiting' page
The vast majority of scientific advances throughout history have been made under the belief that there is a God. Your point is moot.
My point would be moot if my point was that belief in God precludes making scientific discoveries. Instead, my point was that scientists fear poor science becoming accepted. degrading the standards of science.
What they REALLY fear is that if there is ANY validity to the belief in a creator, they will have to change their sinful lifestyle, recognize an authority, and abandon their god-less worldview.
This is the real reason they oppose ID.
I contend that many scientists already believe in a creator and so cannot possibly fear this.
In addition: Speak with scientists, many of them will say something along the lines of "It is possible that God exists, it is just impossible for science to demonstrate that, as such any science which purports to demonstrate God is almost certainly flawed."
This message has been edited by Modulous, 05-10-2005 08:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Limbo, posted 05-02-2005 12:26 PM Limbo has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 84 of 85 (208191)
05-14-2005 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Limbo
05-02-2005 12:46 AM


Limbo writes:
I appreciate the tremendous strides science has made. There is no doubt about the benefits to mankind as a result of science.
Having said that, I’ve seen TONS of blogs, forum posts, articles, and court rulings that go far beyond being critical of the ideas behind ID to committing outright ad hominems and cheap, junior high pot shots.
It's tiring to have to repeat yourself over and over and over again. Thus, "That is idiotic, due to X, Y, and Z," gets shortened to, "You're an idiot." If they want to know how their position is idiotic, they can look it up for their damned selves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Limbo, posted 05-02-2005 12:46 AM Limbo has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 85 of 85 (208214)
05-14-2005 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Limbo
05-02-2005 12:26 PM


Limbo writes:
What they REALLY fear is that if there is ANY validity to the belief in a creator, they will have to change their sinful lifestyle, recognize an authority, and abandon their god-less worldview.
And I REALLY fear that if there was ANY validity to the belief in state and local governments, I would have to recognize their authority, obey their speed limits, and abandon my governmentless worldview.
Doesn't seem to work. State and local governments fit nicely into my worldview; I believe that they exist; but that doesn't mean that I'm gonna change from my 'sinful' "15 over the limit" lifestyle to a legal, "2 under" one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Limbo, posted 05-02-2005 12:26 PM Limbo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024