[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
My ‘backwater’ is the industrial heart of the world. I suspect that Ohio has a bigger GDP than all of England. Backwater? That’s hilarious!!
Ohio GDP: $US 419,866,000,000
UK GDP: $US 1,782,000,000,000
…not even a quarter of the way there.
Are most of your opinions based on similar suspicions?
[/quote]
p0wnage!
That’s why you shouldn’t assume.
[quote]miniross wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
vroom wrote:
That’s a bit of a stretch, but regardless, how could transportation get SLOWER, and knowledge DECREASE?
Well, if we reject science and try to replace it with religion, knowledge will certainly decrease…
Strange how fundamentalism is now a force for regression instead of enlightenment and progress.
Vroom, I think you have that backwards. Religion came first and science. Now many reject religion in favor of science to answer the unanswerable questions. Yet, as I have posted before, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Science has verified the existence of the supernatural, while not being able to explain the mechanisms involved in the process.
So using science in an honest unbiased way will bring you full circle back to that fact that there are forces and processes at work in our universe that do not fit in the scientific means of understanding, but exists just the same.
Where has “science” verified the supernatural. What Phenomenon have been scientifically varified, yet no mechanisms have been uncovered?
Also, for me they are muually exclusive, for one is about faith and the other reason. They are diometrically opposed positions.[/quote]
While there are many other examples, here is one where science has varified the existence of healing through prayer. Prayer that the sick people new nothing about, I might add.
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=61047
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
miniross wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
vroom wrote:
That’s a bit of a stretch, but regardless, how could transportation get SLOWER, and knowledge DECREASE?
Well, if we reject science and try to replace it with religion, knowledge will certainly decrease…
Strange how fundamentalism is now a force for regression instead of enlightenment and progress.
Vroom, I think you have that backwards. Religion came first and science. Now many reject religion in favor of science to answer the unanswerable questions. Yet, as I have posted before, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Science has verified the existence of the supernatural, while not being able to explain the mechanisms involved in the process.
So using science in an honest unbiased way will bring you full circle back to that fact that there are forces and processes at work in our universe that do not fit in the scientific means of understanding, but exists just the same.
Where has “science” verified the supernatural. What Phenomenon have been scientifically varified, yet no mechanisms have been uncovered?
Also, for me they are muually exclusive, for one is about faith and the other reason. They are diometrically opposed positions.
While there are many other examples, here is one where science has varified the existence of healing through prayer. Prayer that the sick people new nothing about, I might add.
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=61047
[/quote]
No study EVER done under scientific blinded conditions have found any hocus pocus to work.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
miniross wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
vroom wrote:
That’s a bit of a stretch, but regardless, how could transportation get SLOWER, and knowledge DECREASE?
Well, if we reject science and try to replace it with religion, knowledge will certainly decrease…
Strange how fundamentalism is now a force for regression instead of enlightenment and progress.
Vroom, I think you have that backwards. Religion came first and science. Now many reject religion in favor of science to answer the unanswerable questions. Yet, as I have posted before, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Science has verified the existence of the supernatural, while not being able to explain the mechanisms involved in the process.
So using science in an honest unbiased way will bring you full circle back to that fact that there are forces and processes at work in our universe that do not fit in the scientific means of understanding, but exists just the same.
Where has “science” verified the supernatural. What Phenomenon have been scientifically varified, yet no mechanisms have been uncovered?
Also, for me they are muually exclusive, for one is about faith and the other reason. They are diometrically opposed positions.
While there are many other examples, here is one where science has varified the existence of healing through prayer. Prayer that the sick people new nothing about, I might add.
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=61047
[/quote]
Also, has it been recreated, and proffered reasons for this?
It was interesting, but not many patients over such a long time, and in one center. It would be increadible if it was fully controlled (socio economic factors, standards of care, treatment.) For example, the best way would be to offer no treatment what-so-ever, and the randomise it.
Then i would be half way to seeing something in it.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
“Did man and dinosaurs live together?” Carter asks.
A timid yes comes from the students.
“How do we know that to be true?” Carter says.
There’s a long pause.
“What day did God create dinosaurs on?” he continues.
“Six,” says a chorus of voices.
“What day did God create man on?”
“Six.”
“Did man and dinosaurs live together?”
“Yes,” the students say.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4476836,00.html
Can anyone else remember America being so aggressively stupid and anti-intellectual? [/quote]
I actually thought this was a joke, till I clicked on the link. Dear lord.
[quote]Not for now, but after that remark about Isalm being “enlightened” you betray your lack of knowledge of their religion or the Koran. You really need to do more homework Vroom before you post and especially before you try to tear others apart.
Enlightened religion…yeah, tell that to all the Jewish lives that have been lost in the name of Mohammed and the trouble that Europe has been in due to the unchecked Muslim immigration. Perhaps you don’t mind unchecked Muslim immigration into the US Vroom, because you live in that “enlightened country” up North, but I guess that will be your problem as well some day…
[/quote]
Steveo,
I’m talking historically you clown. Where do you think a lot of original concepts and ideas came from that the entire world adopted.
For example, the numbers we use today, they are known as arabic numerals. A long long time ago the Arabic world was fairly advanced and enlightened, when compared to the rest of the world at that time.
However, due to their religion, as you have pointed out, they have become static and are now laughably a force for regression in the world. I don’t think the troubles today are an example of enlightenment, and if you weren’t an idiot you’d not try to cast my comments in such a silly direction.
My point, if you had enough sense to realize it, is that any fundamental religion will have this progress halting effect. Christianity, when applied in a fundamental manner, also seeks to stop society changes and certain areas of scientific study and advancement.
An example here might be stem cell research. An example in the past was claiming men of science were heretics when their results differed from religious dogma at the time.
So, yes, back when the rest of the world still treated women like second class citizens and the concept of terrorism through Jihad had not been conceived, things weren’t as they are today.
–
Fuck, what is it about being a literalist that requires one to be actively stupid? Does it simply force people to reject reality in the world around them?
[quote]MODOK wrote:
You guys make me exhausted. I simply won’t engage in this debate. Science will simply not accept an explanation that has the word “religion” in it. When we begin arguing origins, specifically origins of life, the field of play shifts completely to the side of religion. Whether you like it or not, no one was keeping records back then, which makes EVERYTHING speculation, and the theory of evolution a de facto “religion”.
There are highly intelligent people on BOTH sides, and as a scientist myself, it makes me absolutely sick to my stomach to hear one side belittle the other. No Christians aren’t stupid, or blind to evidence, or stuck in the 18th century, or backwards. They simply believe that one set of evidence outweighs another set, just as evolutionists do. I dare say there are countless professionals, doctors, people with advanced degrees who believe in the intelligent design model and don’t care for intellectual belittlement. I am one of them. So even though this is one of my favorite points of sudy, this is my only contribution. Maybe someday we can discuss these issues on their merits.[/quote]
But Many are that stupid. Seriously, sit down and listen to them, preaching away. I am with Dawkins on this one, and the sooner the age of reason kicks in the better.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
“God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son…”[/quote]
And he also gave us bubonic plague, cancer, emphysema, Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, Parkinson’s, Creutzfeldt-Jakob’s disease, influenza, malaria, cystic fibrosis, ebola, leprosy, AIDS, asthma, autism, leukemia, ADD and ADHD, bipolar disorder, Hurler Syndrome, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, spreading melanoma, Tay-Sachs disease (great for kids) and much, MUCH more.
Good thing he loves us so much.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
I dare say there are countless professionals,[/quote]
Countless? From most account, those “countless” professional represent less than 5% (and I’m being generous) of all scientists. Not to mention those “doctors” with phony diplomas, like “Dr.” Kent Hovind.
Yes, but not relevant degrees. Very few (in fact, I’d be hard pressed to name five) biologists and geneticists put any stock in creationism and ID. Who cares if lawyers, engineers, pharmacists or medical doctors back ID? They’ve got no relevant expertise to compare the two theories and determine the merits of each.
You can state that 2 ideas exist and that both have supporters; that doesn’t mean that both ideas have the same merit or that they should be taught in school as “equals” as far as science goes.
As the physical chemist Peter Atkins puts it, we should be agnostic about the “theory” that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto. We can’t disprove it. But that doesn’t mean the theory that there is a teapot is on level terms with the theory that there isn’t.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
What I’m saying is that to be called “ignorant” and “backwards” is quite insulting.[/quote]
What shall we use then? Confused? Dishonest? Uninformed or misinformed? You can be quite knowledgeable in your chosen field and very smart, but still be “ignorant” when it comes to evolution theory and the evidence backing it up.
In their respective field of expertise. They can be quite ignorant in other fields. You can be an expert at computers, for example, and be completely clueless when it comes to music theory. It doesn’t make you stupid, you simply didn’t study music well enough to be able to follow experts in the field.
Compared to the remaining 95%? Said 95% which also happens to include 99.99% of those who do have relevant expertise in evaluating evolution vs. the alternatives… You “giant portion” is not very convincing.
[quote]miniross wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
miniross wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
miniross wrote:
That was weak, dude, very weak. Most of my students would come back with better than that.
Who’s more likely to have been to Kent, you or I?
Your done. Back to lusting after the Queen, Sir Smokey McCracken.
Alright g’vnor me old mate, after buggering the queen i ill now deal with your comment, god bless the queen g’vnor.
Deary Deary me, sorry my previous comment WAS edited by the mods, so there you go, you will never feel the full extent of my wrath!
Anyway, you as a teacher? (i guess), now that IS weak. Better teach tour students better next time, as you prove yourself complicit in their ineptitude.
Kent is only a flight away, and frankly it is very possible that you could have been ther, like i to your backwater.
Teaching tour students? I teach Physics and Calculus.
I know you meant ‘your’, btw. So, where’s the famous British stoicism, stiff upper lip and all? You got so angry you couldn’t type? Shame. Winston must be indeed spinning in his grave.
Inept? I’ve placed students at Notre Dame, Michigan, several Ivy league schools, West Point.
My ‘backwater’ is the industrial heart of the world. I suspect that Ohio has a bigger GDP than all of England. Backwater? That’s hilarious!!
You are making a real jackass of yourself on this thread.
Again, see drinking thread for my poor typing.
Angry, no.
Loaded, yes.
And again, BRITAIN, not ENGLAND.
I doubt Ohio has a GDP larger than the UK. After changing uo to pounds, i am sure the NHS swallows all of that.
At least your not teaching biology or geology. Now that would be a worry.
Also, i am pleased that you have successful students, but are you implying that it is all your doing. I am sure you are not, but it could be taken as such.
Anyway, enough trash talking.[/quote]
Agreed. Peace, bro.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
My ‘backwater’ is the industrial heart of the world. I suspect that Ohio has a bigger GDP than all of England. Backwater? That’s hilarious!!
Ohio GDP: $US 419,866,000,000
UK GDP: $US 1,782,000,000,000
…not even a quarter of the way there.
Are most of your opinions based on similar suspicions?
[/quote]
Give me a break, Rookie…I was just pulling the guy’s chain a little. Actually, it is interesting that (1) Ohio produces 1/4th approx of the entire UK and (2) that you can read. Fascinating and unexpected!!
Having education in these fields does not mean you are a specialist in evolutionary theory, geology or other related areas…
Anyway, the bullshit put up as proof of creation is in fact stupid, ignorant and insulting of the intelligence of anyone who has any understanding of science.
It’s great that some people want to believe, but they shouldn’t make a mockery of science in order to pretend science supports such crap in any way.
[quote]miniross wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
miniross wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
vroom wrote:
That’s a bit of a stretch, but regardless, how could transportation get SLOWER, and knowledge DECREASE?
Well, if we reject science and try to replace it with religion, knowledge will certainly decrease…
Strange how fundamentalism is now a force for regression instead of enlightenment and progress.
Vroom, I think you have that backwards. Religion came first and science. Now many reject religion in favor of science to answer the unanswerable questions. Yet, as I have posted before, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Science has verified the existence of the supernatural, while not being able to explain the mechanisms involved in the process.
So using science in an honest unbiased way will bring you full circle back to that fact that there are forces and processes at work in our universe that do not fit in the scientific means of understanding, but exists just the same.
Where has “science” verified the supernatural. What Phenomenon have been scientifically varified, yet no mechanisms have been uncovered?
Also, for me they are muually exclusive, for one is about faith and the other reason. They are diometrically opposed positions.
While there are many other examples, here is one where science has varified the existence of healing through prayer. Prayer that the sick people new nothing about, I might add.
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=61047
Also, has it been recreated, and proffered reasons for this?
It was interesting, but not many patients over such a long time, and in one center. It would be increadible if it was fully controlled (socio economic factors, standards of care, treatment.) For example, the best way would be to offer no treatment what-so-ever, and the randomise it.
Then i would be half way to seeing something in it.
[/quote]
Dude, the question was has science researched the supernatural and the answer is clearly yes. The question was also has it found it to be credible, and the answer would also be yes. You quibbling about methodology among scientists is a separate issue.
First, it’s not “my side”. However, I do have to admit that pissing you off is kind of fun.
I find it VERY humorous that you think science is thin on facts, when religion has no facts. Hell, at least science attempts to use the facts as they are found to create theories.
Once again, it is great that you have your faith and belief. However, this doesn’t mean you should mangle science in order to support it.
Creationists have abso-fucking-lutely nothing to stand on. There is no supporting evidence. There is only faith in the bible and some unexplained areas in scientific theories.
Unfortunately, over time, unexplained areas generally get filled in as more facts become available… a good case in point was showing that the world was not the center or the solar system nor was it the center of the universe.
Cling to your unexplained areas all you want. Just realize as they shrink to nothing, whether in our lifetime or not, that they are few and far between at this point already.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Give me a break, Rookie…I was just pulling the guy’s chain a little. Actually, it is interesting that (1) Ohio produces 1/4th approx of the entire UK and (2) that you can read. Fascinating and unexpected!![/quote]
Oooh. Nice pun, Headgiver.
As for Ohio, I don’t see what’s particularly interesting about it. With a population of 11 million to the UK’s 60 million, the GDP per head is pretty similar. Slight advantage to Ohio, but nothing to write home about.
And I can’t read at all. It’s my mom who reads to me and then writes back all my answers.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
Oh, I see what you mean. Kind of like a guy who has expertise in, say “computer stuff” telling some folks who have masters and doctorates in biology and biochemistry that they are ignorant on the theory of evolution and origins?[/quote]
I doesn’t have to be computer stuff, anyone with the slightest familiarity with the actual theory can see how ignorant those “folks with degrees” are when they attempt to discredit the theory by setting up straw men after straw men and attacking those.
Those folks might not appear so ignorant if they could actually critic the real theory of evolution and not the one they learn from retarded creationists.
Oh, so you have relevant expertise now? Please, give us references to peer reviewed papers you’ve published. Or, failing that, what was the subject of your doctorate thesis? At what university was it done? What exactly is you “relevant” degree in?
It’s also interesting to learn that you get your opinions from the people you hand around with. If you hung around with people with different opinions, you’d change yours to match?
Here’s a concept for you: Thinking for yourself. Look it up.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Give me a break, Rookie…I was just pulling the guy’s chain a little. Actually, it is interesting that (1) Ohio produces 1/4th approx of the entire UK and (2) that you can read. Fascinating and unexpected!!
Oooh. Nice pun, Headgiver.
As for Ohio, I don’t see what’s particularly interesting about it. With a population of 11 million to the UK’s 60 million, the GDP per head is pretty similar. Slight advantage to Ohio, but nothing to write home about.
And I can’t read at all. It’s my mom who reads to me and then writes back all my answers.
[/quote]
My pun was clean and in good fun – yours shows your true nature. But still, pretty good, Punkie!
In your research, done by your mom, how does Ontario stack up against Ohio? How’s the GDP? Just curious.
BTW: You should be proud that you were the only one to sign my ‘Jaws of Satan’ oath. That took real balls, consigning yourself to Hell.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
My pun was clean and in good fun – yours shows your true nature. But still, pretty good, Punkie![/quote]
My true nature? You discover my true nature from a pun? That’s a neat trick, Deadhunter.
Ontario, let’s see: $CAN 518 billions, which gives $US 398 billions. With a population of around 12 millions. Ohio seems to win here too, but Ontario is Cleveland free, thus claiming 1000 bonus points and taking the honors.
If you want to see a pitiful GDP, you should ask for the one for Quebec.
Proud? I’d rather be proud of real accomplishments. Signing contracts involving fictional characters doesn’t take much balls. I’ll sign a contract agreeing to fight both the Hulk and Superman together if you want. Hell, throw in Jesus while you’re at it.
Still, that thread was interesting. For one, it was yanked by T-Nation, something I don’t remember seeing done with any other thread (I guess offering visitors to sign away their soul is bad for business or something…); and two, for all the self-proclaimed atheists who somehow had to pussyfoot around your original wording to avoid signing it directly. A lot of people lack the courage of their convictions, it seems.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
My pun was clean and in good fun – yours shows your true nature. But still, pretty good, Punkie!
My true nature? You discover my true nature from a pun? That’s a neat trick, Deadhunter.
In your research, done by your mom, how does Ontario stack up against Ohio? How’s the GDP? Just curious.
Ontario, let’s see: $CAN 518 billions, which gives $US 398 billions. With a population of around 12 millions. Ohio seems to win here too, but Ontario is Cleveland free, thus claiming 1000 bonus points and taking the honors.
If you want to see a pitiful GDP, you should ask for the one for Quebec.
BTW: You should be proud that you were the only one to sign my ‘Jaws of Satan’ oath. That took real balls, consigning yourself to Hell.
Proud? I’d rather be proud of real accomplishments. Signing contracts involving fictional characters doesn’t take much balls. I’ll sign a contract agreeing to fight both the Hulk and Superman together if you want. Hell, throw in Jesus while you’re at it.
Still, that thread was interesting. For one, it was yanked by T-Nation, something I don’t remember seeing done with any other thread (I guess offering visitors to sign away their soul is bad for business or something…); and two, for all the self-proclaimed atheists who somehow had to pussyfoot around your original wording to avoid signing it directly. A lot of people lack the courage of their convictions, it seems.
[/quote]
Fighting with Jesus, whom you believe is a fictional character? How do you fight with a fictional character? And if he’s not fictional, then you want to fight with a man of peace, who tells people to love one another, treat each other as you wish to be treated? Hmmm… does your mommy read bedtime stories from Nietzsche to you or what?
You seem to be intelligient. It is a shame that you condemned yourself on that other thread. The world needs more intelligient men, but not those who’ve condemned themselves for eternity.
I truly hope that God will forgive you. Your life on earth is an infinitesimally small part of your journey, and I wouldn’t wish you spend it in Hell. You are not evil, just lacking God in your life.