RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 08:36 am
Setanta wrote:
Mumbo Jumbo
Deep in the Jungle . . .

Mumbo Jumbo will hoo doo you
Mumbo Jumbo will voo doo you . . .


-- The Congo, Vachel Lindsay


Exactly my point where is the content in your posts?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 08:43 am
That is not your point at all, your responses grow more feeble with each rejoinder.

Your god nonsense is the mumbo jumbo to which i refer--your pathetic attempts to link theology, the mumbo jumbo of superstition, with imperical investigation of our universe.

You can't see the content in my posts, or those of anyone else in this thread, because you blind yourself with your god mumbo jumbo. Not that you need theology to produce mumbo jumbo.

RR wrote:
But I might add that you put science education with theology education and they pull on you and do not let your mind rest till it sees all of the unique common possibilities...


Quite apart from the logic that that which is unique cannot at the same time be common, this condenses your problem into a size commensurate with being transported in a nutshell. That you are trying to warp scientific evidence to make it fit in with your preferred superstition results in your having been "pulled on" and allowed your mind no rest. You need either to seriously revise what it is that you think your theology is telling, or abandon altogether the effort to understand scientific discovery.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 08:50 am
Patio dog I find your post of NASA very interesting I am still studying it.. Unfortunately I am so dumb when it comes to science that I don't know whether if I believe them or not... They just have photographs to prove their theories... although they may be right...

I just thought I might tell you that there are some scientists that don't believe in black holes too.. I myself am not really sure but I think space is pretty clear and free of black holes... Yesterday I was just trying to grapple the relative size of these "black holes". Well your article on NASA placed the size as smaller than a very large sun... Well that answered my question...

http://novan.com/blackhle.htm

This article is not, in my case, presented to refute black holes but to show that all you need to do is look up black holes and myth and you will find scientists on both sides of the fence... I did not make this discrepancy in science... And it frustrates the heck out of christians who want clear cut answers from "science"... We have been taught of these black holes as if they were definitive and today there is still argument among scientists...
Also now science is talking about other dimensions in string theories (scientists make stuff up too)... well that does it! "Beam me up Scotty!"...

Smile
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 08:53 am
Setanta wrote:
That is not your point at all, your responses grow more feeble with each rejoinder.

Your god nonsense is the mumbo jumbo to which i refer--your pathetic attempts to link theology, the mumbo jumbo of superstition, with imperical investigation of our universe.

You can't see the content in my posts, or those of anyone else in this thread, because you blind yourself with your god mumbo jumbo. Not that you need theology to produce mumbo jumbo.

RR wrote:
But I might add that you put science education with theology education and they pull on you and do not let your mind rest till it sees all of the unique common possibilities...


Quite apart from the logic that that which is unique cannot at the same time be common, this condenses your problem into a size commensurate with being transported in a nutshell. That you are trying to warp scientific evidence to make it fit in with your preferred superstition results in your having been "pulled on" and allowed your mind no rest. You need either to seriously revise what it is that you think your theology is telling, or abandon altogether the effort to understand scientific discovery.


Now I like the content of this post and it is worthy of a reply... let me think about it plz...

There are things about God I "KNOW"... I don't ever doubt them and I will take this KNOWLEDGE to my grave with me... Science can never ever cause this knowledge to falter, waver or weaken... But near the things that I know, are things that I wonder about... They can be subject to change...

Like the "law" of gravity.. there are things that scientists "know"... They have made a "law" out of a force they do not even know what it is... Scientists do not even know what gravity is... If they claim to know it has only been a result of the last few years... So for 200-300 years since Newton we have believed in a law pertaining to a force in nature that science cannot even define properly yet...

I do not fault science for their "faith" in gravity and I do not expect science to fault me for mine...
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 08:57 am
RexRed wrote:
...I might remind you AGAIN this is a RELIGION and spirituality thread...


Correct, but judging from your posts, you seem to think that this is the IRRATIONALITY and WILD SPECULATION thread.

You have to be able to form a coherent set of thoughts if you ever hope to be able to discuss real issues with anyone, whether it be science or religion. Nobody appreciates pure babble, and frankly, you're babbling. And understanding science depends on following the scientific method, that's just the way it works.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 09:03 am
Quote:
I just thought I might tell you that there are some scientists that don't believe in black holes too..


I know. I posted a link to one of them.

Quote:
This article is not, in my case, presented to refute black holes but to show that all you need to do is look up black holes and myth and you will find scientists on both sides of the fence...


There are scientists on both sides of the fence for just about any issue. A question to ask is -- how many are on each side? For black holes, I'm sure it's quite a few. For evolution (the topic of this thread), it's very imbalanced indeed -- and yet, it is still possible to find a list of scientists who don't buy it. (Only problem is, it would be buried under the list of scientists who do...)
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 09:06 am
Which is to say -- I am making no claim that black holes exist. My earlier refutations were to your reasoning for why black holes do not exist which was, in fact, holey (if not holy).
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 09:21 am
rosborne979 wrote:
RexRed wrote:
...I might remind you AGAIN this is a RELIGION and spirituality thread...


Correct, but judging from your posts, you seem to think that this is the IRRATIONALITY and WILD SPECULATION thread.

You have to be able to form a coherent set of thoughts if you ever hope to be able to discuss real issues with anyone, whether it be science or religion. Nobody appreciates pure babble, and frankly, you're babbling. And understanding science depends on following the scientific method, that's just the way it works.


That is matter of opinion... Just because I do not believe in black holes on a certain day, I am babbling and you are being unfair and judgemental... How about you laying out a coherent set of thoughts and prove me wrong? I believe rocks are alive and we evolved from plants but no one gives me any solid "science" that I am wrong? You are either bad scientists or I am just clearly more inventive that you all...

Yesterday patiodog gave a good article on black holes from NASA but other than that and farmerman's posts are well studied, their is little to refute anything I have said... I could come in here and say the moon was made of cheese and you would all scramble like cockroaches... I might say this to everyone in this post... Get your science together or no one is going to believe you... I have my scriptures memorized and as long as I am getting wishy washy answers, I am going to babble back...

I am not so proud that if someone makes a point and it registers in my head that I will not admit it...

I alienated all of the creationists with my belief in evolution and then all that is left in this post is scientists and are going to insult me for my belief in God... Well I can handle it... I have a strong constitution and I am proud of my living God...

But back to content...

I have stated my opinion and any point that I have made in this post is up for scrutiny... prove me wrong...
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 09:30 am
patiodog wrote:
Quote:
I just thought I might tell you that there are some scientists that don't believe in black holes too..


I know. I posted a link to one of them.

Quote:
This article is not, in my case, presented to refute black holes but to show that all you need to do is look up black holes and myth and you will find scientists on both sides of the fence...


There are scientists on both sides of the fence for just about any issue. A question to ask is -- how many are on each side? For black holes, I'm sure it's quite a few. For evolution (the topic of this thread), it's very imbalanced indeed -- and yet, it is still possible to find a list of scientists who don't buy it. (Only problem is, it would be buried under the list of scientists who do...)


Not true...

Maybe today, but only a few years ago Hawkins and another physicist(forget his name some french guy) had a bet going because one disbelieved in them.. Also Hawkins himself has doubted that they have existed from time to time...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 09:39 am
RexRed wrote:
There are things about God I "KNOW"... I don't ever doubt them and I will take this KNOWLEDGE to my grave with me... Science can never ever cause this knowledge to falter, waver or weaken... But near the things that I know, are things that I wonder about... They can be subject to change...


The irony here is simply amazing. You claim to know things about God, although such things that you "know" are not demonstrable. And that is the critical divide be science and religious speculation. When a scientist speculates, she then proceeds to test. If the results of her tests are replicable, which is to say that others will obtain the same results with the same methods, and if her results are predictive, then she has the basis for a theory, for which expanded investigation is now possible, and upon which other speculations leading to other theories and discoveries can be based.

"Science" is not an entity bent on making you waver or falter in your religious superstitions. Science is indifferent to what you may or may not believe (such as the existence of a deity, something you believe rather than know, despite your protestations to the contrary.)

The problem with the things about which you wonder, the problem with your speculations, is that they are not tested, likely are not subject to testing--but worse they are, as Rosborne points out, babble. People here pointed out to you that light can be altered in its straight line course by the proximity of a sufficiently large mass. Your response was some nonsense out of nowhere about light not being able to pass through matter (never looked out of window, huh?). So you have offered other, equally ill-considered speculations, and made outright assertions from authority, although possessing no scientific authority, which plainly contradict the observations of reputable scientists. You offer not evidence, other than badly expressed and written descriptions of your musings.

Quote:
Like the "law" of gravity.. there are things that scientists "know"... They have made a "law" out of a force they do not even know what it is... Scientists do not even know what gravity is... If they claim to know it has only been a result of the last few years... So for 200-300 years since Newton we have believed in a law pertaining to a force in nature that science cannot even define properly yet...

I do not fault science for their "faith" in gravity and I do not expect science to fault me for mine...


This is the direct product of your insistence on equating your superstition and its appurtenances with science and its methods. In another thread a joker showed up to post a scientific topic, once again the theory of evolution, and put it in the Religion and Spirituality forum. That is totally inappropriate, and it is revealing about the attitude of the author. First, that they likely fear they couldn't take the heat if they offered their mumbo jumbo in a Science Forum thread; second, that they equate their decision to believe that they "know" a deity exists, and that they "know" things about that deity with scientific theory. But theories don't deal with absolute truth, they deal with probability. As a theory ages, it looses the conviction of those who are familiar with it if it fails to predict, if tests of the theory are not replicable, if the theory contradicts other theories for which the tests are predictable and the terms predictive. As a theory ages, if its predictive ability improves, then it gains a greater measure of probability.

Which brings us to another flaw in the intellectual make-up of those who are willing to sacrifice honest investigation on the altar of their god. Such people are absolutists. Doubt is not commensurate with faithful devotion. To question any parts of a theology is to call into question all of the theology, and theology does not admit of revision, as does theory.

I agree with Rosborne, you've largely come here and babbled. That you are intelligent, and that you read i do not doubt. That you are willfully blind to evidence before you because it might contradict your theology i also do not doubt. You are bent upon belittling science because of the implicit threat to notions which entail burning bushes and walking on water.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 09:40 am
What is not true??!?!?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 09:41 am
RexRed wrote:
patiodog wrote:
Quote:
I just thought I might tell you that there are some scientists that don't believe in black holes too..


I know. I posted a link to one of them.

Quote:
This article is not, in my case, presented to refute black holes but to show that all you need to do is look up black holes and myth and you will find scientists on both sides of the fence...


There are scientists on both sides of the fence for just about any issue. A question to ask is -- how many are on each side? For black holes, I'm sure it's quite a few. For evolution (the topic of this thread), it's very imbalanced indeed -- and yet, it is still possible to find a list of scientists who don't buy it. (Only problem is, it would be buried under the list of scientists who do...)


Not true...

Maybe today, but only a few years ago Hawkins and another physicist(forget his name some french guy) had a bet going because one disbelieved in them.. Also Hawkins himself has doubted that they have existed from time to time...


Responses like this make me seriously doubt your reading comprehension skills.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 09:41 am
Ok I am going to babble for a bit...

When you look down train tracks what do you see? You see two parallel lines meeting somewhere in the distance... One may surmise that you know that the tracks do not meet out of experience because you have walked down the tracks and found they are the same distance apart...
Now when a scientist looks out into space in a telescope what is he seeing, train tracks? Can they walk out and see if the lines meet somewhere out in space? No... so they have to rely solely on what they see...

My point is? That the eyes lie... The senses can fool the mind. Science is based on not only observation but also logic... and where the two meet up is at the discretion of the observer...
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 09:43 am
Setanta wrote:
RexRed wrote:
patiodog wrote:
Quote:
I just thought I might tell you that there are some scientists that don't believe in black holes too..


I know. I posted a link to one of them.

Quote:
This article is not, in my case, presented to refute black holes but to show that all you need to do is look up black holes and myth and you will find scientists on both sides of the fence...


There are scientists on both sides of the fence for just about any issue. A question to ask is -- how many are on each side? For black holes, I'm sure it's quite a few. For evolution (the topic of this thread), it's very imbalanced indeed -- and yet, it is still possible to find a list of scientists who don't buy it. (Only problem is, it would be buried under the list of scientists who do...)


Not true...

Maybe today, but only a few years ago Hawkins and another physicist(forget his name some french guy) had a bet going because one disbelieved in them.. Also Hawkins himself has doubted that they have existed from time to time...


Responses like this make me seriously doubt your reading comprehension skills.


another insult and no content... are you an idiot?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 09:43 am
I will follow my own advice. This guy is hopeless, and not worth the effort.

Bye, y'all . . .
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 09:43 am
Setanta wrote:
I will follow my own advice. This guy is hopeless, and not worth the effort.

Bye, y'all . . .


No you are bye...
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 09:45 am
Aw, set. You and a few others are all that makes reading a thread like this worthwhile.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 09:48 am
I don't care if Setana leaves or not. They have not made it on my favorites list... He/She does not seem to want to discuss the subjects at hand but only toss insults... how immature...
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 09:54 am
Setana I am here to talk about subjects relating to evolution and God... Not how much of an idiot I am... How about if we all change it to how much of an idiot you are? Would you want to remain in this post? That is what you have done when you came into this post. Insult. I can post everyone that you have typed if you would like... I can also tell you that this post was not like that before you came in... We stuck to the issues. If you even bothered to take the time to read back...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 10:02 am
Oh, i read it, and the contention that you "stuck to the issues" is an absurdity. There is an "issue" with scientific theory as truth (which no theory ever purports to be) only on the part of the superstitious whose cherished illusions are challenged by a disinterested theory, the tenets of which are in direct contravention of the fairy tales at the heart of all theology.

All you've done in this thread is pump out your babble. It is your inability to adequately judge the value of supported, theoretical speculation, and whatever pops into your head that leads you to make such ludicrous assertions about the nature of the universe--such as that light cannot pass through matter (and by the way, no one here had said anything remotely resembling such a statement). Just because you can imagine something does not make that something a plausible basis for making the kinds of statements from authority you have been making.

Your obvious object is to demonstrate that science is not in possession of the truth. No scientist ever claims that it is. It's only the religiously superstitious who are frantic to demonstrate as much, because they desparately cling to absolutes, and project that onto others.

I finally chipped in here because i'm so sick of seeing the religious try to foist their crackpot ideas off on others, while attempting to slander science and scientists.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 66
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 01/23/2025 at 09:47:17