Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, the Earth IS 4.5 Billions years old and the universe is a little more than 14 billion years old. Thus sayeth some Mormons.
There is no official doctrine on evolution or creationism.

However, it is known inside the Mormon religion that knowing such things is not necessary for salvation.

If you want to read a nice artcle from a long standing Apostle in my religion, here is a compilation from Elder Henry B. Eyring.

http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolution/EyringReflections.html




If anything, this should show how organic Mormon's are with science. Even if the prophet and leader of the Church holds one belief on science and God, that doesn't mean it is spread as official doctrine or is accepted as offical doctrine. Some hold that this is evidence no divine nature of your leaders. Great.



Edit-I think your idea on the theists refusing to grow because science contradicts them is just plain stupid of the Theists...meaning I agree with your point. As long as the Mormons continue to be receptive to new science, I will be a Mormon. Pretty good article, thanks for posting that. I do have to say that you are one of the most open minded Mormons that I have ever talked to.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Pretty good article, thanks for posting that. I do have to say that you are one of the most open minded Mormons that I have ever talked to.

Thanks man!

Originally posted by Mindship
Ah, the power of intellectualization...why I find psychology so fascinating.

What I often wonder is, why do those who obviously know their science keep on debating with those who obviously don't (yet insist that their "religious" view is as legit as a scientific one)? It becomes apparent right off the bat you're not going to get anywhere, so why expend the time and energy (especially since there are those "religious" folk who debate just to screw with your mind)? Same reason that I like to shove spoons in my eyes.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Same reason that I like to shove spoons in my eyes. It hurts less than using a grapefruit knife?

btw, great avi.

i think we finally got to your guy that was giving you a hard time with his religious science stand point.. he logged off as soon as we started pointing out all his flaws in his argument. :P

bye the bye you stole my daimond example from me in the previous page.. its cool though i dont mind.

Originally posted by Mindship
It hurts less than using a grapefruit knife?

btw, great avi.

Or grapefruits.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i think we finally got to your guy that was giving you a hard time with his religious science stand point.. he logged off as soon as we started pointing out all his flaws in his argument. :P

bye the bye you stole my daimond example from me in the previous page.. its cool though i dont mind. actually, i'm kicking your ass in the other thread. Your common sense was wrong.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
actually, i'm kicking your ass in the other thread. Your common sense was wrong.

Only in your mind. The rest of us are scratching our heads trying to figure out how you got to such a profoundly wrong position.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i think we finally got to your guy that was giving you a hard time with his religious science stand point.. he logged off as soon as we started pointing out all his flaws in his argument. :P

bye the bye you stole my daimond example from me in the previous page.. its cool though i dont mind. Sorry didn't see that post, great minds think alike I guess. Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
actually, i'm kicking your ass in the other thread. Your common sense was wrong. I'm still waiting for you to post something worthwhile.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
actually, i'm kicking your ass in the other thread. Your common sense was wrong.

i posted two qoutes from your scientist and the link page that you have bn using to support your believe and you question the qoute thinking it was mine and called me a dumbass..

calling me a dumbass when it was your scientist and link page arguing against the extreme global warming.. that leads me to believe you did not read the entire artical or you dont seem to understand that your scientist you are referencing dont show the same view as you... and are calling their theories and mathematical equations as you put it "Dumbass".

there is a word called critical thinking learned it in school it is what allowed me to make a similar argument in my previous post similar to what was just mention here with the ice sheets and the equator.. take a look at my last post. i am no scientist but you can see the similar thinking and common sense at play.

oh and you failed to address my calculations because you don't understand basic algebra?

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
oh and you failed to address my calculations because you don't understand basic algebra?

You can't hide behind math.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You can't hide behind math. because you don't understand it? when your opposition's arguement is too advanced for you, its time to concede.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
because you don't understand it? when your opposition's arguement is too advanced for you, its time to concede.

But you have not even tried to communicate your ideas. Now you are coming across as an ego maniac.

Please start over, and keep it simple. If I'm as stupid as you think I am, then you need to show your math step by step.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But you have not even tried to communicate your ideas. Now you are coming across as an ego maniac.

Please start over, and keep it simple. If I'm as stupid as you think I am, then you need to show your math step by step. fine. i will do it here. attached is the mathematics required to figure out how much the north and south poles change.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e114/knightfalll/calculations.jpg

now just a brief estimate, but the distance between the earth of the sun according to the diagram of the orbit appears to be about 1/3 of what it is now. 1/3 of 93 million is about 31 million. now you take the "maximum difference" from the picture above and divide 31 million by it. i got 19. now take your hot temperature summer day and multiply it by that factor. 100 degree's farenheit *19= 1900 degrees when 60million miles closer to the sun.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
fine. i will do it here. attached is the mathematics required to figure out how much the north and south poles change.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e114/knightfalll/calculations.jpg

now just a brief estimate, but the distance between the earth of the sun according to the diagram of the orbit appears to be about 1/3 of what it is now. 1/3 of 93 million is about 31 million. now you take the "maximum difference" from the picture above and divide 31 million by it. i got 19. now take your hot temperature summer day and multiply it by that factor. 100 degree's farenheit *19= 1900 degrees when 60million miles closer to the sun.

So, is that all you going to do?

Now remember, you think I'm stupid. So, you are going to have to brake it down more.

First off: Why should I believe any part of your diagram?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, is that all you going to do?

Now remember, you think I'm stupid. So, you are going to have to brake it down more.

First off: Why should I believe any part of your diagram? this is not a high school. Everything i used in my diagram are widely acclaimed scientific facts. If you don't have the education to understand it, its time to stop debating.

and i'm not calling you stupid. you might have an iq of 300 but if you don't have the education to fathom advanced mathematics, that's not your fault, its a lack of education, not intelligence.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
this is not a high school. Everything i used in my diagram are widely acclaimed scientific facts. If you don't have the education to understand it, its time to stop debating.

"widely acclaimed scientific facts" Like calling Trig, Algebra?

Here is a fact for you: If you truly understand something, then you can explain it to other people, and if you cannot explain your ideas, it is because you do not understand the topic you are trying to explain.

Also, this is not your idea.

and to answer your question, its because we're right.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"widely acclaimed scientific facts" Like calling Trig, Algebra?

Here is a fact for you: If you truly understand something, then you can explain it to other people, and if you cannot explain your ideas, it is because you do not understand the topic you are trying to explain.

Also, this is not your idea. what, the diagram? i most assuredly affirm that it is.

1. its hosted by my photobucket account
2. It was done by me in mspaint.
3. I can send you photos of my paper worked out version.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
1. its hosted by my photobucket account
2. It was done by me in mspaint.
3. I can send you photos of my paper worked out version.

Post away...

in a bit, i g2g.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
in a bit, i g2g.

Then, just link to your publication in a scientific journal.

easiest way is to go to a scientific discussion board and post his question then get an answer and paste it here. :P

its what i do sometimes do to sound smart,,,,

if it seems they are talking down to you dont take it personal its not you who is asking the question/statement..

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
easiest way is to go to a scientific discussion board and post his question then get an answer and paste it here. :P

its what i do sometimes to sound smart,,,,

Please do it.

i dont wanna .. you do it argue


http://www.thescienceforum.com/Astronomy-%26-Cosmology-forum-8f.php

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i dont wanna .. you do it argue


http://www.thescienceforum.com/Astronomy-%26-Cosmology-forum-8f.php

It was not my idea.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you truly understand something, then you can explain it to other people, and if you cannot explain your ideas, it is because you do not understand the topic you are trying to explain.

if i go their and ask the question i'll look stupid.. :P

i have an image to uphold in that community of like minded intellectuals.
they are liable to kick me out and proclaim me the village idiot..
surely someone of my stature cannot be allowed to be viewed in such a manner. i am sure you can understand perhaps with you having nothing to risk can enter said site with your dignity intact.

i like boobs :P tomcat

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Very simple. People like things that make them look right and dislike things that make them look wrong.

Pretty much. Most religions are happy to trumpet their acceptance of scientific findings, up until the point where it starts to seriously challenge their beliefs. Currently in vogue is the practice of finding vague overlaps between religious texts and, say, astrophysics. This is selective interpretation, post-diction, confirmation bias, and probably some other logical fallacies I'm forgetting. Like any good pattern-seeking species, we can find all sorts of "connections" when we look for them. Doesn't mean that they are valid, especially when we must ignore so much that is contrary to our current knowledge in order to find occasional similarities.

Strictly speaking, though, empirical tests cannot comment on the transempirical: that is, they can't say anything about the supernatural (i.e. God, the idea of a soul, etc.). Scientific studies can, however, support, refute, or call into question religious claims of supernatural forces affecting material reality. This includes a wide array of religious and/or paranormal claims, and is what, unfortunately, creates the societal divide between the two camps in many cases.

As to the specific stories mentioned in the opening post like the Arc, flood, and so forth, those are obvious myths. They are pursued as scientific facts only by fringe groups who take a much more literalist approach to all portions of the Bible, not just the New Testament.

so, religion isn't "using science"

for instance, what is a tested hypothesis about religion that these people have produced, what is an experimental paradigm? etc.

It is the same as anyone. You hear things and you interpret it through the way you understand reality. Religious people are more than willing to accept some and disregard other scientific fact specifically because they are not actively involved in science. It is merely some tidbit of information they picked up that appears to have the credibility of the lab coat. They believe it because it conforms to what they already believe, not because of scientific methodology, which makes them just as willing to disregard as accurate and robust findings in other fields.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
if i go their and ask the question i'll look stupid.. :P

i have an image to uphold in that community of like minded intellectuals.
they are liable to kick me out and proclaim me the village idiot..
surely someone of my stature cannot be allowed to be viewed in such a manner. i am sure you can understand perhaps with you having nothing to risk can enter said site with your dignity intact.

i like boobs :P tomcat

Come on... all you have to say is "I'm trying to get information to b*tch slap someone who's argument goes as follows... ...can anyone help me out?"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you truly understand something, then you can explain it to other people, and if you cannot explain your ideas, it is because you do not understand the topic you are trying to explain.


Cosigned

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d133/BrianOfRothgar/CreationistExplanation.jpg

Excellent thread!

FINE. I WILL EXPLAIN.
First of all, I wanted to find how much temperature changes comparatively with the change in distance to the sun, so i needed a calculation for that.

I looked up the earth's axial tilt online and that was my angle

I looked up the diameter of the earth online and that was my hypotenuse. I completed the triangle, making a right triangle.

After this, its very simple to find out the length of the opposite side of my angle. I simply do "trigonometry" Hyp sin A=Opposite. Plug it in and use a scientific calculator with the sin function and you get the change in distance.

Now sin, cos, tan, all of those calculator functions are related to properties that describe a right triangle.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
FINE. I WILL EXPLAIN.
First of all, I wanted to find how much temperature changes comparatively with the change in distance to the sun, so i needed a calculation for that.

I looked up the earth's axial tilt online and that was my angle

I looked up the diameter of the earth online and that was my hypotenuse. I completed the triangle, making a right triangle.

After this, its very simple to find out the length of the opposite side of my angle. I simply do "trigonometry" Hyp sin A=Opposite. Plug it in and use a scientific calculator with the sin function and you get the change in distance.

Now sin, cos, tan, all of those calculator functions are related to properties that describe a right triangle. And how do you get a 2000 degree day out of this when every other article that I've seen posted about this talk about "hot" summers and not "melt your face off and ignite your hair" summers.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
FINE. I WILL EXPLAIN.
First of all, I wanted to find how much temperature changes comparatively with the change in distance to the sun, so i needed a calculation for that.

I looked up the earth's axial tilt online and that was my angle

I looked up the diameter of the earth online and that was my hypotenuse. I completed the triangle, making a right triangle.

After this, its very simple to find out the length of the opposite side of my angle. I simply do "trigonometry" Hyp sin A=Opposite. Plug it in and use a scientific calculator with the sin function and you get the change in distance.

Now sin, cos, tan, all of those calculator functions are related to properties that describe a right triangle. after having this number, i estimated how much closer to the sun the earth would be by studying the diagram of the orbit and then figured out what the ratio was on average of the temperature to miles closer to the sun. Multiply this by the estimate of 1/3 the distance to the sun, and you get your answer. Its hard to explain without actually doing the problem again.

can you go here to this link and explain to them your theory and let us know what they say please.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/Astr...gy-forum-8f.php

no thank you. I've gone through enough hoops explaining my math to you people. If that's not enough, you can go f*** yourself.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
after having this number, i estimated how much closer to the sun the earth would be by studying the diagram of the orbit and then figured out what the ratio was on average of the temperature to miles closer to the sun. Multiply this by the estimate of 1/3 the distance to the sun, and you get your answer. Its hard to explain without actually doing the problem again. However your problem doesn't account for geological changes and atmospheric conditions (if your math is even correct) which is a MAJOR piece of your problem and is one of the determining factors of the temperature on Earth. I could show that a car could drive 500 miles, but OOPS I forgot to calculate that it need gas to go. I have read several articles about this theory and not one shows or even comes close to talking about a 2000 degree day, any temperature change they talk about is more of a 20 degree variety and I'm pretty sure a 2000 would be notable. So please show us someone out there that agrees with this view that has written about this 2000 degree day based on this theory. This should be hard because I have found many articles about this in just a few minutes and if it only takes you a few minutes to do this math problem to show us "retards" then please enlighten us.

I have done the research to verify your claim and so far it is a bunch of BS.

i never understood how a person with limited knowledge of science can use science to support their religious claim, yet ignore the rest of said argument. theory or evidence. just to grasp on to the only part that seems to fit their religious believe.

numerous times, i have seen ppl qoute scientist when they state they believe in a god or call life a miracle.. they qoute the small portion of a scientist lecture as proof that scientist claim in God. igonoring the rest of the lecture qoute or even the religous or philosophical belief system of the person.

also funny how any gap in science or human knowledge, religion is ready to pounce on it with the claim if you cant explain it then it is god..missing fossil records, cellular cell make up the human genome ...ect..ect.. a few years later with science they discover certain truths and they readily slide back into the shadows without a fuss, pretending earlier religious comment that now seem foolish never were made.

Provide an example, please.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Provide an example, please.

Exhibit A

wX1IJ9eSBJ4

should show him the dinosaur and man clip explaining how man and dinosaurs lived together at the same time. explained supposedly by a chemist scientist a point made to somehow validate his claim.

alien1

we should shift everything to this site instead of JIA's thread.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
FINE. I WILL EXPLAIN.
First of all, I wanted to find how much temperature changes comparatively with the change in distance to the sun, so i needed a calculation for that.

I looked up the earth's axial tilt online and that was my angle

I looked up the diameter of the earth online and that was my hypotenuse. I completed the triangle, making a right triangle.

After this, its very simple to find out the length of the opposite side of my angle. I simply do "trigonometry" Hyp sin A=Opposite. Plug it in and use a scientific calculator with the sin function and you get the change in distance.

Now sin, cos, tan, all of those calculator functions are related to properties that describe a right triangle.
I don't think you're allowed to just shave an arbitrary amount off the sun's diameter to make the adjacent form a right triangle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmC4dwCcsUs

geek

and this is how religion explains the dinosaurs and the garden of eden.. i will now take questions from the audience so long as they are not scientific in nature but religious and faith..

this it?

QmC4dwCcsUs&hl

yes!!! why couldnt i embed the video? can you explain the process to me. i will rely on your scientific method and explanation rather then simply pray for it to happen.

confused1

use the following tags:

QmC4dwCcsUs&hl

just delete the spaces, and you're set.

so any comments on the dino/human video?

proof or dismiss it. come on ppl give your opinion.

I have a question!

Do you have like, every Deadpool comic?

no i do not have every deadpool comic, i simply enjoy posting certain scans that i find relevent or funny.

Deadpool= greatest marvel creation.

WAY better than that Atheist freak Spiderman! uhuh

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
no i do not have every deadpool comic, i simply enjoy posting certain scans that i find relevent or funny.

We all think they're shit.

can we get back on track of this thread and talk about some of the religious scientific claims that have bn posted in the last page.

keep your eye the prize.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Deadpool= greatest marvel creation.

WAY better than that Atheist freak Spiderman! uhuh

Why makes you think this???

Spider-man has met One-Above-All, aka God of the Marvel Universe, so I'm pretty sure he's not an athiest.

Originally posted by Placidity
Why makes you think this???

Spider-man has met One-Above-All, aka God of the Marvel Universe, so I'm pretty sure he's not an athiest.

Sufficiently Advanced Alien.

can God be described as an alien?

also meeting TOAA didnt stop spidey from making a deal with mephisto to make the world forget his identity and void his marriage of MJ..

also why cant god be an alien? i mean its not like he is native to the planet if he is real.. some definations of gods and angels have been referred to as celestial being even the term nephilim implies the same thing.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Deadpool= greatest marvel creation.

WAY better than that Atheist freak Spiderman! uhuh

Spidey's been linked to the Protestant religion a few times. Wish I remembered the issues, but I don't.

srug

Originally posted by Placidity
Why makes you think this???

Spider-man has met One-Above-All, aka God of the Marvel Universe, so I'm pretty sure he's not an athiest.

Hard to say if that encounter was remembered by all involved, or what sort of religious information could be gleaned from it. When such things go down, Marvel's been known to have a convenient memory wipe, and was also ambiguous enough that it suggested someone above the writer, in a different universe (ours).

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
can we get back on track of this thread and talk about some of the religious scientific claims that have bn posted in the last page.

Religion's don't make scientific claims, since they aren't using the scientific method to produce results. See inamilist's last post for more details on this. It's just a matter of some religions being ok with scientific findings more than others....they aren't "using" science anymore than any other non-scientific endeavor.

but some creationist have tried to use scientific terms and halve a$$ research to justify there believes.. i dont give it much thought but it is still funny and it can also be annoying when it tries to take crediteability from science..

ixhibit B


QmC4dwCcsUs

"That dinosaur died maybe a few hundred years ago."

you know if they used critical thinking on how early man knew some of these animals they would arise to the most obvious answer..

the reason some civilization knew if they knew and werent using their imaginations to make dragons is that maybe they dug up some fossil bones and it gave them some idea of what they may be. kinda like we do to day to extrapulate certain characteristics of fossils. ppl assume that old civilizations were actually retarted and couldnt add one plus one.

creationist take a field trip to a museum to teach young children biblical facts using science to proof religion and at the same time stating that what doesnt follow the bible is scientifically wrong... *scratch head

okay i found another exhibit C

MptHixZ9ve0&feature=related

Wild Shadow...I'm starting to warm to you.

i am warming up to you too.. so long as you dont answer my questions with philosophical rhetoric and circular logic too old for that... might get an aneurysm when trying to discuss science, history ...ect ect... and having all come back to how the question was asked and not get a single answer of the question itself.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
creationist take a field trip to a museum to teach young children biblical facts using science to proof religion and at the same time stating that what doesnt follow the bible is scientifically wrong... *scratch head

okay i found another exhibit C

MptHixZ9ve0&feature=related

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
but some creationist have tried to use scientific terms and halve a$$ research to justify there believes.. i dont give it much thought but it is still funny and it can also be annoying when it tries to take crediteability from science..


There is a major difference from using the words or findings of science and using a true scientific argument.

The video (I watched maybe 2 min) as far as I could tell, appeared to be a continuous listing of marginally related facts cherry picked or misconstrued from proper scientific literature or just regular pop culture.

The lab coat and "chemist" were items that attempt to make the viewer believe that there is some science in what is being said, but it is the exact same thing. The video was designed not to make a scientific argument, but an argument that looks like it is scientific.

at the very least, from what I saw, the guy isn't testing or proposing a hypothesis to test, he isn't building a model based on facts, he is just putting so many facts out there in the context he wants them to be interpreted in, and hoping people will think it is scientific.

but trust me, there is no science to be found (unless it comes after the 2 min mark)

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
creationist take a field trip to a museum to teach young children biblical facts using science to proof religion and at the same time stating that what doesnt follow the bible is scientifically wrong... *scratch head

okay i found another exhibit C

MptHixZ9ve0&feature=related

I really like that video, rarely do you see reporters even moderately drop that "fair and balanced" bullshit with this issue. I'm glad they gave the scientist more than just a token clip.

K


On the math. I don't know what point is trying to be proved.

Where's the electromagnetic radiation calculations?



Just like Da Pittman pointed out, there is also the entire atmosphere portion, the amount of radiation the surface re-radiates and absorbs, etc.

It would take hundreds or even thousands of variables to calculate what you're trying to do.



And we can reasonably guess how hot it would be. Mercury is slightly less dense than Earth, and how hot does it get? (With no insulating atmosphere because it's too damn close to the sun so any hope of an atmosphere would have evaporated.)

So, anyway. Yeah. It doesn't seem like it would get that hot only moving a third of the distance closer to the sun.

i think fundamentalist creationist think that their is a world wide conspiracy of science in all its fields hiding their incompetence in there findings and data....

seriously anyone considered that to be paranoid mentality

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i think fundamentalist creationist think that their is a world wide conspiracy of science in all its fields hiding their incompetence in there findings and data....

seriously anyone considered that to be paranoid mentality

I think global organisations have hidden things before...

The Catholic Church suppressed lots of things, it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the Scientific Community is forcing out or suppressing people who dispute evolution...they have a huge amount vested in it after all.

Don't take everything they say as gospel.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I think global organisations have hidden things before...

The Catholic Church suppressed lots of things, it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the Scientific Community is forcing out or suppressing people who dispute evolution...they have a huge amount vested in it after all.

Don't take everything they say as gospel.


first off, i dont think scientist throughout the word and research department are the same as an organized government power.

seeing as some of them are government sponsored and privately funded each seeking to prove or disprove one anothers theories in order to push their own individuals theory. how would it be possible for scientist who tried using practical applications and inventions if one side was withholding information that was reliant on the success of their experiments..

it is far more unlikely that scientist are conspiracy against the general population then it is for government organization to do the same thing.

not that i trust all the science without it being thoroughly proven or reasonably explained and even then one has to remain suspect as science is susceptable to change with further understanding and research..

Wow.

There's a real difference between what is possible to loose in the question between creationism and evolution. Creationism has much more to loose than does evolution.

Pointing at other large organizations that have hidden aspects of their mandate and dogma is no justification for hiding anything. It's still an intentional restriction of truth for selfish gain or benefit; be it the Pope or Dawkins.

There is absolutely no question as to which side of the argument has more indisputable fact on it's side. The question is which side is smart enough to be open-minded enough to incorporate those facts (or lack there-of) into their world view. The bible as fact is beyond reasonable question, even the catholic church, the oldest christian organization in the world, admits that. There's simply no way to reconcile the mythology of the bible with the unquestionable facts that discount it as such.

who are you wowing?

Anyone who thinks that creationism is even remotely a threat to science.

It isn't necessarily...however the collapse of evolution is. All biology is based on it...if it was to be found out to be wrong there would be a huge hole in the scientific world...

People have come out and said evolution is wrong and for that they have been ridiculed by the Scientific Elite.

The scientific world is a community, every community has elites. Science is no exception.

(I am not saying that certain Scientific bodies are suppressing facts which might prove to be the undoing of evolution...just that it is possible- not one of those "yeah well everything is possible" kind of possibilities, but a very real one...)

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
Anyone who thinks that creationism is even remotely a threat to science.
You think the form of rationale behind most creationist thinking isn't a threat to science? People often assume science will destroy religion...maybe it will be the other way around...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You think the form of rationale behind most creationist thinking isn't a threat to science? People often assume science will destroy religion...maybe it will be the other way around...

No, I don't think it's a threat to science. I would venture the opinion that most religious people are not as totally irrational as a few of the posters in this thread. I am not a religious person by any means, but I'm not affraid to accept that I don't have all the answers and that anyone who claims to have them all because of a book or a personal belief is operating from a uncontrolable fear that they might not have all the answers.

To some people, admitting that I don't know everything should also imply that they might. But I am no more or less enlightened than any other human being in this world.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
first off, i dont think scientist throughout the word and research department are the same as an organized government power.

And if they were exactly that what do you think they'd want you to think?

Precisely.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
seeing as some of them are government sponsored and privately funded each seeking to prove or disprove one anothers theories in order to push their own individuals theory. how would it be possible for scientist who tried using practical applications and inventions if one side was withholding information that was reliant on the success of their experiments..

By suppressing technology that is reliant on inconvenient ideas and keeping people poorly educated. It's been done in the past.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And if they were exactly that what do you think they'd want you to think?

Precisely.



By suppressing technology that is reliant on inconvenient ideas and keeping people poorly educated. It's been done in the past.

they would want me to think that if i disagree then study science and find my own answer using the scientific method.. science is very easy to check up on with knowledge at our finger tips.


the only one i see keeping ppl poorly educated is religion and its out dated believe system.. i am embarrassed when i here halve of the U.S. believes that man and dinosaurs lived around the same time.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
they would want me to think that if i disagree then study science and find my own answer using the scientific method.. science is very easy to check up on with knowledge at our finger tips.

You own a massive supercomputer and particle accelerator?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
the only one i see keeping ppl poorly educated is religion and its out dated believe system..

Because that's what scientists want you to think. If there is an ancient conspiracy around it would only have lasted so long by not being easy to spot. Everybody suspects religion of it so we know it's not religion. That means science is evil 313

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i am embarrassed when i here halve of the U.S. believes that man and dinosaurs lived around the same time.

All thanks to the work of science.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
first off, i dont think scientist throughout the word and research department are the same as an organized government power.

seeing as some of them are government sponsored and privately funded each seeking to prove or disprove one anothers theories in order to push their own individuals theory. how would it be possible for scientist who tried using practical applications and inventions if one side was withholding information that was reliant on the success of their experiments..

it is far more unlikely that scientist are conspiracy against the general population then it is for government organization to do the same thing.

not that i trust all the science without it being thoroughly proven or reasonably explained and even then one has to remain suspect as science is susceptable to change with further understanding and research..

The only "science" that ever gets beyond the lab is that which is chosen for publication in journals

normally journals have clear standards and are open to new ideas, however, editors and reviews can have biases.

The research I'm involved in is running into a strong bias at the journal we want to be published in. A lot of it, at least we and some others think, has to do with the fact that the person-who-owns-the-journal's thesis are not supported by our stuff.

I think feceman had 1 example of something like this in a biological journal with respect to intelligent design.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You own a massive supercomputer and particle accelerator?



Because that's what scientists want you to think. If there is an ancient conspiracy around it would only have lasted so long by not being easy to spot. Everybody suspects religion of it so we know it's not religion. That means science is evil 313



All thanks to the work of science.



i think its religions fault seeing as some ppl wont look at anything that might contradict their believes system..

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You own a massive supercomputer and particle accelerator?


I may not have a Large Hadron Collider but I have a Large Hardon Colllider

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/f/fd/LHC_Gordan_Freeman.jpg

Who doesn't?

i dont.. i just have my privately build one man space shuttle in my garage..