On The Limits of Human Talent

I just want to point out that just because you cannot handle hearing other opinions does not imply that no one can. My youth leader from my time in a Catholic Church has purchased and read Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens and yet she is still a practicing Catholic. The reason she purchased and read these books is because she knows what she believes and is not afraid to read other information. You, on the other hand, have made up your mind and shoved your head into the sand to avoid reading any further information that may disagree with your worldview.Also, what you are talking about in regards to the "usefulness" of intelligent design is completely misunderstood. What that statement is saying is that as a theory, Intelligent Design can be used to explain anything, because there is an individual (God) not constrained by the laws of physics. If there can be no predictions (Because everything can be an example of something that can break physical laws), then what can the theory be used to test. Similarly, you try to compare it to deep space exploration.....oh, wait, but you are wrong. Predictions have been made consistently throughout deep space exploration, and when they do not pan out, the theory must be adjsuted or discarded. In fact, currently there are some thoughts that we may have something wrong in our theory of planetary formation because we found what is considered an "Impossible" planet. This planet is an Earth sized planet that orbits its parent star at a distance of 1.6 million km. Its entire orbit around the star takes eight and a half hours. Yet, our theories of planetary formation stated that no planet this size could form this close to its host star, nor could it move into this region and be captured this close. This means that there is something wrong with the theories and revision is necessary. Whereas, with intelligent design, one could simply say that the designer planned it that way. No testability anything that disagrees with ID can simply be assimilated under this idea that the designer can change physical laws. SourceSays the man who admits he will refuse any information that forces him to question Genesis.....Pot, meet kettle.Also, your argument about Global Warming/Climate Change is incorrect, it was not worked backwards, it was a slow process of actually understanding the damage that we as a species are capable of causing toward the carbon cycle, and through which, the damage we cause the planet. If we ignore those actually doing science (ie, the scientific community) then how will knowledge in these fields progress? Also, why should we listen to individuals simply because they exist. The right to be listened to and trusted is earned not given. Your opinion means nothing until you have shown me why it should mean something. End of story...Evidence, or get the **** out. Please provide specific examples of how any of the accepted branches of science are not limited, how they are untestable, how they are unfalsifiable, and how they are unpractical? Otherwise this is simply the opinon of someone who has yet to show that his opinion is valid, what with the lack of actual evidence he posts.

Important part I am taking you to task for is bolded......Don't you dare go using the United States as the barometer for the number of individuals that are starving in this world. Science stated that if the Catholic Church continued to urge no contraception our population growth would continue to increase exponentially and we would have a starvation problem. Well, the Catholics did not listen and we do face a starvation problem on this Earth. Maybe not as drastically within the United States, but we are talking about an entire world here.From 2013 World Hunger Education Service: 1 in 8.......I will repeat that one more time......1 in 8And your claim is that there is not currently a starvation problem that exists. Are you completely blind to the rest of the world? Sure, only 16 million of those reside in developed nations, but that does not ease the fact that the problem exists. Also, guess what, it primarily exists in locations where the Catholic Church has been successful in stopping individuals from using contraception. So, you actually pointed out a fact that science was correct on while trying to denounce it....well done.Just for fun, here are a couple of more facts from WHES: So, the problem is also getting worse in developed countries, although not as bad as those where the Catholics have sunk their claws into the population. SourceEdited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

In all your time criticising science and talking about what "real science" should be, you have never heard of one the most basic concepts in science and statistics. A concept that occurs in virtual all sciences that use observation (i.e. all of them) and statistical analysis (i.e. virtually all of them)?
Would this perhaps make you rethink your criticisms of science? Imagine if you criticised historical research but had never heard the words "Primary Source", when you did you'd probably think "I really know nothing about history".What determines the error range is statistical analysis, a science in itself.Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

I do not agree with you about where he has shoved his head.

So now we seem to have two options:1. We can use the first of the methods of knowledge, the scientific method, send someone over to Marc's place and take a picture of where his head has actually been shoved,or2. We can use the second of the methods of knowledge, divine revelation, and schedule a time when we all would simultaneously pray in hopes that one of us would be granted a vision of precisely where he has shoved his head.While #1 would be more definitive, I think #2 would be quicker and easier for us as a group. Besides, then we can do what this #2 method does best and easily arrive at a pre-determined conclusion.We should be able to get Da Moose to organize and coordinate the prayer session for us. After all, he has nothing better to do.Edited by AZPaul3, : shoved.

marc9000,
I was a kid when we landed on the moon. I was backpacking that evening in the coastal redwood forests near Santa Cruz and remember staring up at the moon for quite a while. They used slide rules back then Marc, slide rules. Do you know what those are? Would you know how to use one? Many years later when I finished my first two undergraduate years I picked up a student job at NASA. My job was to input the programs into the computer. A little keyboard entry? Hardly. The job consisted of carrying and feeding stacks of punched cards into the machine.Did you watch the 1995 Apollo 13 movie? Would you want to be an astronaut on board that vessel? There was a deadline to meet and human safety was not highest on the list of priorities although I think we were more concerned with it than the Russians.Why don't we ask Elon Musk if he used a vintage 70's Fiat Spyder as the foundation for the design of his Tesla roadster?message 91: Were you born in Galileo's day perhaps you could have succeeded in destroying that demon possessed telescope altogether and in preserving the practical/useful world view of 16th century religion. No change, that's the goal. 10 years on forums such as these and we can see the practical/useful results.Before a building can be erected there needs to be a foundation laid. Have you considered the possibility of some college coursework? Wouldn't it be beneficial to better understand the enemy you are fighting? 10 years on forums like these? That's quite a chunk of time. What a waste, especially when you are only succeeding at making your opposition look better than they did previously. But you don't even see that, do you?

Keep the 9 side down.

I wondered why you got my job after I was let go.

Ooo, memories.Ever drop a box of 800 and have them waft across the quadrangle? People chasing cards everywhere. I actually got all of them back. That's when I experienced the reason for those last 5 columns.

nope, but once down a staircase from fourth floor during lunch break.

MESSAGE 101 One of the mistakes you're making is that you're reading through this huge onslaught against me, and using it the best you can to distort what I'm saying so that you can mock it like the others.When I say there are other ways of gaining knowledge besides science, I'm saying that other sources can be involved on how to best use science, to best apply it to benefit the society that funds it. You're right, it's only somewhat on-topic here. I think it could be discussed here, but all this atheist rage has wrecked this thread. I could propose a new thread, but it would just turn into a gang-banging like this one. I could propose a one-on-one with anyone who wanted to do it, but I've proposed about 5 one-on-one's here in my few years of membership, and seen nothing but asses and elbows each time. The latest proposal for a one-on-one with to "Pressie" just a few weeks ago, and I got a PM indicating her decline, complete with a dirty word she just had to use to describe me.A one-on-one would probably be possible now, each poster here has a lot of confidence considering all the support they would undoubtedly have, and there would surely be a "peanut gallery" thread along side any one-on-one that I'm involved in, with a raging hatred towards me, and nothing but praise and love for my opponent, no matter what they were saying. I'm just not interested, it's not the best use of my time.
_________________________________MESSAGE 102 Not what I said. I said that science should avoid seeking information about testing God only when that science is acting in the public interest. If science wants to start its own private enterprise, like "The Atheist Research Institute, or "Answers in Atheism", then that privately funded organization can practice all the atheist searches it wants. I'm saying that publicly funded science should STOP when it leaves actual science and goes into non-testable, and non-falsifiable metaphysical searches for atheism, as determined by the political processes. Wrong AGAIN, you're on a roll. It was from MESSAGE 75, you were really riled, and you said this;

quote:

---

So the next time you feel moved to claim something incredibly ignorant, such as that something has to be useful to be considered science, why don't you do a little sleuthing around the Internet first. Maybe scan through the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia article on Science.

---

You italicized the word "useful", implying that I made that word up. So I showed you where is was used as a weapon against Intelligent Design, used in such a way that claimed that Intelligent Design had to prove itself useful to be science. It helps show the double standard against Intelligent Design. Then we see this dance; I'm getting tired of atheist dances. Maybe that I'm getting REALLY tired of atheist dances. You'd have to understand what a test is. You don't test something by just doing the same thing over and over again. Something is tested when it's looked at from a different perspective, and results compared with those of the first perspective. If we subtract 71 from 99 and get 28, we don't subtract 71 from 99 again, get 28 again, and say "hey my test PROVED that my first result was correct". We ADD 28 to 71 and see if we get 99. That's a simple summary of the way testing is done in science, that type of testing was/is demanded of Intelligent Design. It's not possible to test in any meaningful way concerning deep space exploration, because we're only using on one human sense (sight) and we're only looking through telescopes, that all work the same way. Nothing is actually being tested in deep space exploration. Stronger telescopes mean little, concerning testing. And I would love to discuss how past tyrants like Hitler came to power by deceiving people, telling them that he knows what's best for them. He told them that he had the power to cool the planet, oh wait, I guess he didn't. But he would have if he'd have thought it.......maybe not. Even the German people of the 1930's weren't so simple minded that they'd believe that humans could control the temperature of the planet.Uh oh, Hitler, I'm sure most here have never heard that name. Hitler was the dictator of Germany through the 1930's leading from depression style misery in the early 30's, to the hellish misery of war and tyranny in the late 30's and early 40's because of his promises to do what he said and not question his wisdom. Don't believe me because I didn't show links to that? Too bad, I don't do demands for links anymore in this thread.
__________________________________MESSAGE 104 To not take liberty destroying actions until it's clear to almost everybody that they're right. It's not complicated. Limits on its research?? NONE. Limits on restricting its research? Don't let the scientific community and liberal politicians be the only ones who decide to limit it.
___________________________________MESSAGE 106 We do have irony! What do you think about all the people here who are sputtering with rage about MY worldview? They've obviously seldom if ever heard what I say before. If your youth leader read Harris and Dawkins etc. wouldn't that be the equivalent of someone on this thread watching Fox news (top in the news ratings in the U.S.) or listening to any of the many top rated conservative political commentators in the U.S.? They'd be shocked at what they saw, at how much it parallels what I've said in this thread. In the same way, evolution can be used to "explain anything", because there is an unknown process (the origin of life) that as of yet, isn't constrained by anything understood in science.
________________________________MESSAGE 111 I was in high school during Apollo. In 1973, a significant part of my vocational course in drafting involved slide rule use. I've forgotten how. They became obsolete by about 1976. Human bodies work exactly the same today as they did in 1969. Human life support is THE most important part in any human space exploration.It figures that my point would be mocked by comparing 1969 hardware to today's hardware. But my point in unfazed, if the scientific community can be so careless to lose information that cost taxpayers billions of dollars, maybe taxpayers should have some say in how their money is spent by a special interest like science. Unless it's evolution. It has no foundation, nothing for the origins of life. The time was not wasted at all. I've seen the amazing immaturity, the lack of knowledge of other subjects, the almost total link with political liberalism from scientific community leaders, and their followers. The rage, the emotion, from the atheists on this thread makes them look good, according to you? I think I've seen it all. How about if the atheists here took some high school coursework on history, past tyrannies of the world, how the U.S. government was formed, what the intent of the framers actually was?
_____________________________________It's been fun, most of the atheist rage on this thread has come from the perpetual nervousness about the clear double standards the scientific community has. It set up entrance requirements just out of the reach of Intelligent Design, then doesn't apply them to anything else it wants to study. It gets by with it to a large extent, but the questioning of it isn't going to go away, and as time goes by, it may become harder and harder for them to dance their way out of.If there's one thing this thread clearly shows, it's that science/atheism/liberalism DOES NOT CONCEDE POINTS. It is as closed minded as any religion it criticizes. Happy Thanksgiving!

Maybe that's what you mean when you say that, but it's not actually what you're saying. That's an interesting excuse for not defending --- or even explaining --- your position. Do you think it'll deceive anyone? Now when you say "atheist dances" do you mean "people exposing marc's dishonest equivocation on the word "useful""? Only that's the only meaning that would make sense in context. As we can see from the OP, that is not what you said. You don't know anything about astronomy, do you? You don't know anything about evolution, do you? You don't know anything about your opponents, do you?---Well, have we really finished? OK. Scientists will go on doing science and not giving a flying fuck about your halfwitted opinions. And the participants on this thread will go off and do something more interesting than trying to educate an idiot, regretting only that they never finally determined whether the wild inaccuracy of pretty much everything you say should properly be attributed to insanity, stupidity, or dishonesty.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Other than the fact that it is of historical interest only. It also is NOT lost.

Now that you mentioned my pm, it read: I really don't have the patience to partipate in a debate with a person I consider to be bat shit crazy. No offence meant, but that's how I feel.

​

I follow these threads to learn from knowledgable people. For example, in this thread I've learned a lot from people who know a lot more than me about the subject and also know where to get good, reliable references.Where I live the word shit is not a dirty word. It is the word we generally use for the act and the results of a biological process.The people here can decide what they think of that message.Your posts since then have really reinforced my view about you. Actually, I think I was too kind to you.By the way, I'm a him.Edited by Pressie, : Added last sentenceEdited by Pressie, : Added the sentences on dirty words.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

The simple one line summary: Marc hates the truth.Spewing off-topic hate and lies is apparently fine. Catching him at it is a sign of "rage" that "spoils" the thread.Engaging in obvious misrepresentations is fine. Seeing through those misrepresentations is "dancing". Sorry Marc, you may think that you're so great at lying that nobody can see through your deceptions. If you rely on pulling words out of context to make your points you're the one engaging in "dancing" and we can all see that.Investigating issues that MIGHT conflict with his beliefs should be banned on the grounds that he counts it as "testing God". I'm not sure where the fact that we shouldn't be allowed to know that the Earth is warming comes in here, but he's pretty adamant on that. Clearly Marc means that there are truths that must be kept from humanity.Marc even characterises knowledge of truths contrary to the dogma of the "Christian" Right as "lack of knowledge". Amazingly on subjects where he's been shown to be badly wrong in the past, by some of the very people he's been arguing against.let's leave with this quote:

quote:

---

It's been fun, most of the atheist rage on this thread has come from the perpetual nervousness about the clear double standards the scientific community has. It set up entrance requirements just out of the reach of Intelligent Design, then doesn't apply them to anything else it wants to study. It gets by with it to a large extent, but the questioning of it isn't going to go away, and as time goes by, it may become harder and harder for them to dance their way out of.

---

Of course an honest appraisal of the evidence is that Marc took the personal opinions of people who are nowhere near central to the debate and engaged in an obvious misrepresentation even of those. People pointed that out - and this is Marc's response.Like I said. Marc can't stand people telling the truth.