Evolution? How?

"Good" for what ros?

"Good" for what ros?

Good that more people are educated Spendi; just like it says, nothing more.

rl, most advances in science are made without the input of the population in general. If science were a "poll based" activity, wed still be looking for a socket in which to plug our TVs.
I, for one, am not surprised nor dismayed at the numbers and proportions of those who "want creationism/ID to be taught" After all, thats the way it was in the US less than 100 years ago.You could go to jail for teaching evolution. So in that respect, what ros says is true (sad but true).

Quote:

Respectfully FM, polls would not be so necessary if scientists agreed more on the fundamentals...

Also I find it brave of you to have tried to reason with these religious people/fanatics you have mentioned... But I will give you a hint. They nit pick among themselves... I would have been kicked out too, not because I believe in evolution but because my religion does not follow theirs... So I would say for the most part they are pig headed and unable to communicate "honestly" in a reasonable fashion...

They will learn to communicate when the justice system gets a hold of them...

I do not believe evolution is even a theory, I think it is fact. But that does not disprove God... It just makes "me/us" look at Genesis with more understanding of what "God" is really trying to say...

rl, most advances in science are made without the input of the population in general. If science were a "poll based" activity, wed still be looking for a socket in which to plug our TVs.
I, for one, am not surprised nor dismayed at the numbers and proportions of those who "want creationism/ID to be taught" After all, thats the way it was in the US less than 100 years ago.You could go to jail for teaching evolution. So in that respect, what ros says is true (sad but true).

rosborne979 wrote:

Ok, what blind spot are you talking about?

Simply put?

This so called event horizon...

Who or what is launching these "events"?.............

ρP = Planck mass / (Planck length)3 =

where:

c is the speed of light in a vacuum

is Dirac's Constant
G is the Gravitational Constant

What would a society of 280 million atheists look like?

The Woo-Woo Credo
How to be an Internet Woo-Woo


To be a proper woo-woo, you must follow these rules:

1. Never look for the simplest, most obvious cause of something. Refrain from mentioning Occam's Razor (it's your nemesis).
   
   
2. Always favor the conspiracy angle over the boring angle. Mundane explanations (like saying that Roswell was a balloon) are for dullards and government drones. If you want to sleep with that curvaceous new-age chick, don't tell her you think astrology is bogus! (Non woo-woos may benefit from that advice temporarily).
   
   
3. Don't accept mainstream science unless it's something you've believed in for years (like gravity).
   
   
4. Try to answer as few direct questions as possible. Always obfuscate and try to sound learned. Mimic Richard Hoagland's style and you'll go far.
   
   
5. Use "what if" scenarios to change the subject whenever possible. If you linger on one topic too long you may be asked to provide annoying things like "proof." Don't let that happen! Consult a creationist if you need practice with subject-changing.
   
   
6. If you're cornered and asked for proof of something, always tell the person that they "can't disprove" your claims. Many of them will just walk away shaking their heads, which of course means they agree with you. A side-to-side head shake could be the same as a vertical nod. Anything is possible, after all.
   
   
7. Memorize all the sci-babble terms used in the Star Trek series. They are very useful if you get cornered by a skeptic, and you need to come up with some sort of "scientific" explanation. e.g., Inertial Dampeners.
   
   
8. When all else fails, start asking hypothetical questions that have nothing to do with the actual debate. If your opponent chooses to ignore your pointless questions and remains on topic, repeat your meaningless question(s) over and over. This will make any Believers in the audience think that your opponent is evading the issue.
   
   
9. Accuse your opponent of being a liar, or try some other tactic that will (hopefully) make him angry. If he responds in kind to your endless taunts, change the subject to his anger, and accuse him of name calling. If he accuses you of provoking him, then you have changed the subject of the debate. If he stays on topic, keep the heat up. The Believers in the audience will forgive the worst verbal attacks you use, but they will think even the mildest replies he makes to you are personal attacks that undermine his argument.
   
   
10. Use the word quantum in a sentence, despite not knowing what it means. For a more impressive effect, use it with the name of your favorite superstition - "quantum dowsing" sure sounds mighty serious.
    
    
11. Two more words: Paradigm shift.
    
    
12. Always claim that the other guy is "closed-minded" and that you're as free-thinking as a newborn baby. Other woo-woos love the concept of "open-mindedness" and will take you into their inner circle without question. They have no tolerance for those "mean old nasty" types who demand evidence for everything.
    
    
13. Drink heavily while posting.
    
    
14. You must believe that the word "anomaly" means proof of paranormal activity.
    
    
15. Use the word "anomaly" as often as possible.
    
    
16. When your position appears hopeless, your entire audience is laughing at you, and you've lost all credibility (and perhaps even won a Kook of the Month) threaten everyone within proximity with a lawsuit. You don't need to actually prepare a lawsuit, just make the threat. That will let them know you're a serious person.
    
    
17. Go make your own newsgroup with a group charter drawn up to keep out anyone who doesn't agree with your view of the world. Occasionally crosspost to other newsgroups from that one, then complain when people answer your posts, complain to their system admistrators that they're abusing the terms of your newsgroup and demand their accounts be yanked for abusive spamming. Respond to each answering message with a duplicate copy of the FAQ for your newsgroup.
    
    
18. Open numerous accounts under other names, then post agreeable responses to your own messages from those accounts. Everybody knows that the only reason anybody disagrees with you is that they like the belong to "the group" and have no independent thought of their own. Just manufacture a group of people who agree with you, and the rest of the mindless zeebs will fall into line, tripping over each other to become one of your supporters.
    
    
19. Fix the 'reply to' line of any post you make, to direct responses to your email account - this will automatically mail you a copy of any response made to your posts on usenet. Send copies of these mails to the postmasters and sysadmins of anyone who posts a disagreeing answer to you. Refer to these people as 'internet terrorists' and demand their accounts be canceled immediately for sending you unwanted email spam.
    
    
20. Refer to anyone who doggedly uncovers your latest little scams, time after time as "stalkers." Write to their sysadmins and demand their accounts be removed for net abuse.
    
    
21. Remember to occasionally tell your opponents that you've handed all the information you've collected about them to the local police/Mounties/FBI who were extremely interested and grateful for the advance notice of where to find criminals like you. You don't actually have to collect any information, or send it to anybody, but this will keep your opponents edgy, and make them paranoid. Mention that the police/Mounties/FBI are closing in on them, and that their day of reckoning is just moments away.
    
    
22. Refer to anyone who does not immediately agree with you as being uneducated on the matter, lacking in important information, or just plain too stupid to understand your magnificent statements.
    
    
23. Pretend to write a book. Nothing says "I am beyond reproach" like having written a book. If asked for an ISBN number, just make something up. Nobody ever looks at those anyway.
    
    
24. Pretend to have a degree. Never let yourself be pinned down to what kind or where you got it. Just state repeatedly that you have one, and therefore are superior, and may not be questioned upon any subject by anyone.
    
    
25. Claim that there is no evidence that you are a fraud, kook, net-abuser, spammer, or liar. Refer to any actual proof of this as "spinning" or "disinformation." Post messages that the system administrators of every system your opponents post from are on the verge of killing their accounts for net-abuse, and that you're going to set things right, and get rid of all these cynical lying fact-spinners by sending one final massive complaint against them all.
    
    
26. When all else fails.... SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM.....
    
    
27. When questioned, be sure to exclaim "They laughed at Galileo, too!" or perhaps "They laughed at Columbus, until he proved the earth was round!"
    
    
28. Always bear in mind that The Conspiracy Against You can do almost anything. After all, they've kept those 300 MPG carburetors secret for years.
    
    
29. Keep trotting out the one "respectable" scientist who might possibly have said something that could be construed as perhaps giving a hint that it may theoretically support your position. Even better if said scientist has said it outright. Ignore all complaints that the work is 50 years out of date, the scientist has no experience in the field in question or that other experts in the same field think said scientist is a complete loony (and they can prove it, too).
    
    
30. Dig out one reference that supports your position. Complain when someone presents a reference that refutes yours. Say that this means they can't think for themselves and your reference proves it. Ignore all queries on why you hold this hypocritical position.
    
    
31. Whenever you read something on the Internet, re-post it as fact. Never bother to do even basic research into the matter.
    
    
32. Be sure to repeatedly spam your petty political rants onto lots of unrelated, off-topic newsgroups. (Those folks reading rec.culture.needlepoint are just dying to read about how much you hate a certain politician!)
    
    
33. One word: "Hyperdimensional."
    
    
34. When debating, remember that the best technique to "proving" your hypothesis is to start with a supposition, and when you get to the third point, refer to the supposition as a "fact". This may cause just enough initial confusion to let you escape with a momentary triumph.
    
    
35. Sock Puppets are very useful. If you can't find a weak-minded soul who will blindly parrot you in support of your nonsense, create your own. Then you can refer to your "many" supporters.
    
    
36. Quote Einstein, and do so often. Quote things he said if possible, but Einstein has been dead for ages now and so it's permissible to bring him up to date. Change the odd word here and there to make it clear that Einstein would have supported your argument if only he knew what you know. Act as if any arbitrary Einstein quote supports your position.
    
    
37. Any and all communications problems including satellite failures, bad phone connections, mysterious messages when dialing known phone numbers, busy signals when trying to enter the grassy knoll on AOL, and radios left on during calls must be blamed on the 'Conspiracy' trying to 'silence the truth'.
    
    
38. Use lots of ALL CAPS letters. Use them randomly: "I was posting my URL in alt.paranormal/alt.astrology. Then I was stopped because A MAJORITY OF POSTERS, PSEUDO-SKEPTIC RAVING FANATICS SCREAMED ABOUT IT."
    
    
39. Beware the "goodtimes" virus.
    
    
40. When all else fails, try to redefine what "skeptical", "skeptic" and "skepticism" mean so that you become a 'real' skeptic who accepts your own nonsense at face value.
    
    
41. Refer to yourself in the third person.

ros wrote-

Quote:

Good that more people are educated Spendi; just like it says, nothing more.

Educated to what?

You claimed it was "good" and evidence of a better education that more people now are atheists than 100 years ago.

I do not believe evolution is even a theory, I think it is fact. But that does not disprove God... It just makes "me/us" look at Genesis with more understanding of what "God" is really trying to say...

Respectfully FM, polls would not be so necessary if scientists agreed more on the fundamentals...

While science has no trouble recognizing and acknowledging that some things are and may remain unknown, religionists for some reason find such a state of affairs frighteningly unacceptable

Last night we went to a "Creation Seminar" (all welcome) at a S end Lancaster Evangelical church. Once again, Im proud to say that my other partner and I were(once again) escorted from the premises. As ros and set have always firmly beat into my head
"They are not interested in facts, its dogma they want.

RexRed wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Ok, what blind spot are you talking about?

Simply put?

This so called event horizon...

Who or what is launching these "events"?.............

I think mebbe what Rex is trying to refer to here, without understanding the concept at all, is the Planck Time Horizon ... essentially a wall between what can be observed and that which cannot. While under no illusion those who lack the emotional capability to grasp the concept will suffer any illumination, I'll try to explain it anyway - trust me or not, the math works.

Quote:

ρP = Planck mass / (Planck length)3 =

where:

c is the speed of light in a vacuum

is Dirac's Constant
G is the Gravitational Constant

Simply put, the Big Bang theory is supported through extrapolation of the past positions of the observable components of the universe as derived from their redshift attributes; at some point in the past, all these objects at their current positionings must have occupied the same space, from which point they have expanded into what forms the observable universe. This dimensionless point, or Singularity, would perforce comprise the entire mass of the universe.



Not only is whatever, if anything, which may have preceeded the singularity indeterminable, the nature of the singularity indeterminable, in that the Planck Time Horizon marks the point at which all physics as we understand them break down. The more closely we approach mathematically defining infinite density, the less precise the math becomes. At present, the best we can manage is to describe the conditions extant at a time some 10^-43 seconds following the onset of the singularity's expansion.


While science has no trouble recognizing and acknowledging that some things are and may remain unknown, religionists for some reason find such a state of affairs frighteningly unacceptable, and therefore postulate magical mystery answers to shield themselves from the things that go bump in the darkness of their self-imposed intellectual night, thereby demonstrating nothing more clearly than the fear and superstition foundational to their proposition.

Science, on the otherhand, accepts the conclusions driven by the available math and evidence, and diligently pursues The Grand Unified Theory. While there is no reason to suppose such a development is unachievable, there is no reason to suppose that development will serve in any way to describe the conditions which preceeded, or were causal to, the singularity. For science, that's no problem; there's nothing scary about the night if one does not subscribe to irrational fears of things only imagined.

RexRed wrote:

Respectfully FM, polls would not be so necessary if scientists agreed more on the fundamentals...

Misguided BS, pure and simple. A vast majority of scientists agree on the fundamentals of their field of study. And a majority agree even outside of their expertise.

sysadmins

....If science were a "poll based" activity, wed still be looking for a socket in which to plug our TVs.....

I do not believe in the God of the theologians; but that there is a Supreme Intelligence I do not doubt.

farmerman wrote:

....If science were a "poll based" activity, wed still be looking for a socket in which to plug our TVs.....

Interesting quote from Thomas Alva Edison, who probably is as responsible for that plug in as any one individual could claim to be:

Quote:

I do not believe in the God of the theologians; but that there is a Supreme Intelligence I do not doubt.