Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-03-2012, 02:27 PM
 
3,598 posts, read 4,955,084 times
Reputation: 3169

Advertisements

Case in point:
New Dinosaur: Part Parrot, Part Porcupine | Science and Space | TIME.com

How cool is that! It's REAL!

No myth, no dogma, no "faith", no telling you how to think or act... it's just truth. It's unlike anything we've ever seen before and you can't deny its existence because it's right there in front of you. Amazing stuff!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2012, 02:44 PM
 
6,222 posts, read 4,020,091 times
Reputation: 733
Quote:
Originally Posted by logline View Post
Case in point:
New Dinosaur: Part Parrot, Part Porcupine | Science and Space | TIME.com

How cool is that! It's REAL!

No myth, no dogma, no "faith", no telling you how to think or act... it's just truth. It's unlike anything we've ever seen before and you can't deny its existence because it's right there in front of you. Amazing stuff!
1.)Science is simply a tool 2.) There is faith in science or at least some generous liberties taken with certain theories ie "what scientist think (no proof/out on a limb) happen was that...." 3.)There will always be someone telling others what to think and believe, remember we do have a big brother/gov..
I do not think we want a complete number crunching society because at some point we would all need to justify our individual existence less we be labeled a useless eater.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2012, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,932,455 times
Reputation: 3767
Wink Hey Mystic. Need you here!

Scientific processes being what they are, everyone and anyone is always openly invited to counter any claim, any published results, to review the research protocols and to duplicate the experiment. Else, if the study does not provide such critical information, it immediately falls outside the established protocols of The SM and is thus neither respectable nor credible science.

but nonetheless, no matter how well a study was conducted, it then falls upon the doubting and frantic religious to always make up generalized and broad-brush accusations about how unreliable "science" per se, is (as if it were an individual or an entity).

We hear, as above, "There is faith in science or at least some generous liberties taken with certain theories ie "what scientist think (no proof/out on a limb) happen was that...."

So. What percentage of published (i.e.: peer-reviewed and accepted by other educated professionals who do deeply understand the subject at hand) results? Ever been a part of any peer-review process of, well, anything? Say... the blueprints for a new garage addition? Or where you'll go with the family for summer vacation?

Care to forward your educated estimate on true science-based research, gabfest? DO you assume it's all acknowledges as right, all the time? Question No. 2: how many papers have you had published after they have been scrutinized by that peer review board? Any?

and do you say, just so I'm fully understanding you, that they make their claims with no proof orvevidence whatsoever? On a general all-encompassing basis? Or only when it involves, say, Evolution or other [as you'd see it] anti-Christian mythology facts that have grown up with our ever-improving technologies?

I know! Let's ask MysticPhd! I know he's had to have had a number of papers published, as have I, but let's keep this unbiased, shall we? I'll stay out of the picture on this one.

Hey Mystic, is journal publication just a quick little run-through for appearances and self-aggrandizement amongst an old-boy's happy-hour back-patting club? With the lot of them telling all of the unlucky world just what to believe, with no chance for any discussion or debate? You know, as gabfest has depicted it here with such authority!

Next, he states...

"There will always be someone telling others what to think and believe, remember we do have a big brother/gov.."

I agree. Let's listen to the pope for a bit shall we? Or gabfest's local minister or pastor or priest. They NEVER lie or present a bias or work the truth a bit to make a point. Or just quote a biblical story as being literally true. nope. Never happens. Theyz all be quite reliable, I tell you! And as well, there's an absolutely reliable policing & validation process for whatever they or the bible tells us, isn't there?

We see it often in the various Christian Universities (...or so they call themselves.. All self-policing. Quite an interesting setup. Like "Doctor" Kent Hovind, who first granted his best friend a Doctorate from Kewnt's newly minted "University", and then an administrative position in his personal university's regency, and then had that guy grant Kent his very own Doctorate!

Wow, and to think I went through all that work for mine... and Mystic the same way as well. When we could have gotten ours out of a cerel box and with a little donation of, say, $100, payable to Kent's personal fan club!

Yup; Sorta makes a mockery of true science, I'll agree. Best we NOT ever allow this scenario to ever evolve (small :e:e, no need to panic, gabby!):

"I do not think we want a complete number crunching society because at some point we would all need to justify our individual existence less we be labeled a useless eater."

Q: A "useless eater"? What is that pray tell? I musta missed that important lecture!

"The Debilâ„¢ Scy-Yunss does not demand that anyone justify their own existence. It only serves it's masters, the humans who "Ask Simple Questions of Mother Nature, One at a Time!" (a little definition of science one of my more intelligent and erudite professors told me about 40 years ago...)

Yes, best we not ever have a society who can understand logical trial and error testing, or critical thinking and open-minded thought, some of which might (horrors!) run counter to the established, hardened-like-concrete thinking of any organized agenda-driven group! Heaven help us from THAT! Quickly now: Let us pray, and immediately! On thy knees, oh sheeple!
__________________________________________________ _

I must admit gabfest: you've brought a whole new enhanced and enlightened perspective to my love and understanding of science as the only process that is reliable enough to make rational conclusions once the undeniable results are in and peer-reviewed.

And then (1) completely denied, (2) allowed with limitations, or (3) full-on accepted, possibly even as a new theory (in the scientific sense, not in the Luddite schoolyard bully version of science hating that Christians happily love to trot out and yowl at!).
__________________________________________________ _
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2012, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,932,455 times
Reputation: 3767
Wink And Next!!! The Missing Link unveiled! Voila!!!

BTW, this cute little nicely evolved species is "living proof", as if we needed it, of a "Missing Link" type of organism, since he represents a true cross-over of several different species' abilities and characteristics, and he settled into a phenotype that met the always changing challenges of the day.

It borrowed "some of this" and "a little of that", the obviously specialized carnivorous dentition, the head and beak shape, the abilities to possibly fly up into the trees (to get to food resources others could not! A very successful strategy the smaller dinosaurs found useful!) and so on.

A true mixing bowl of abilites, but eventually (and obviously, or they'd still be here!) lost or refined as necessary over the millennia to make a more modern parrot or well-adapted lizard or predatory hawk-like bird, specializing into ever-more refined organisms. Secure in their own (but always transient, and thus "inking"...) niches.

"Missing"? You betcha, until we searched for him/it, and obviously in all the right places, because we then found it/them, and placed them into a very likely chronology and functionality! Now if we could have found some DNA in fossils, we then also then could have far more accurately placed them into that evolving intellectual chronology.

Unfortunately for modern paleontology and anthropology, time and the elements, volcanoes, floods and shifting plate tectonics did not conspire to politely lay out all the various species over all of primordial time, placing them gently into quiet fine-sand sedimentary layers, to be neatly toe-tagged and left un-eroded or chemically un-tampered with, for future junior scientists to marvel at. Didn't happen that easily.

Sorry; but still; given those natural impediments and destructive elements, we relentless and objective scientisits, with our reproducible methods and documentation have, yuppers indeeddee-doo-right, done a fricking amazing job, don't you think, to get it all right so far?

And to arrive at such accurate revelations and startling but well-supported and unbiased conclusions about our truly interesting and ancient past? All without magical mystical but now fully disproven mumbo-jumbo Creationism?

Ain't sy-yunss wunnerphul?

Awh shucks: You're welcome!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2012, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Space Coast
1,988 posts, read 5,390,701 times
Reputation: 2768
What I love most about science is how it's always growing as new data comes instead of dogmatically clinging to the dark ages. Then there's all the technology that stems from what has been learned through science: tv, phones, cars, microwave, etc. And then there's all the medical applications: antibiotics, vaccines, MRI, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2012, 06:46 PM
 
6,222 posts, read 4,020,091 times
Reputation: 733
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Scientific processes being what they are, everyone and anyone is always openly invited to counter any claim, any published results, to review the research protocols and to duplicate the experiment. Else, if the study does not provide such critical information, it immediately falls outside the established protocols of The SM and is thus neither respectable nor credible science.

but nonetheless, no matter how well a study was conducted, it then falls upon the doubting and frantic religious to always make up generalized and broad-brush accusations about how unreliable "science" per se, is (as if it were an individual or an entity).

We hear, as above, "There is faith in science or at least some generous liberties taken with certain theories ie "what scientist think (no proof/out on a limb) happen was that...."

So. What percentage of published (i.e.: peer-reviewed and accepted by other educated professionals who do deeply understand the subject at hand) results? Ever been a part of any peer-review process of, well, anything? Say... the blueprints for a new garage addition? Or where you'll go with the family for summer vacation?

Care to forward your educated estimate on true science-based research, gabfest? DO you assume it's all acknowledges as right, all the time? Question No. 2: how many papers have you had published after they have been scrutinized by that peer review board? Any?

and do you say, just so I'm fully understanding you, that they make their claims with no proof orvevidence whatsoever? On a general all-encompassing basis? Or only when it involves, say, Evolution or other [as you'd see it] anti-Christian mythology facts that have grown up with our ever-improving technologies?

I know! Let's ask MysticPhd! I know he's had to have had a number of papers published, as have I, but let's keep this unbiased, shall we? I'll stay out of the picture on this one.

Hey Mystic, is journal publication just a quick little run-through for appearances and self-aggrandizement amongst an old-boy's happy-hour back-patting club? With the lot of them telling all of the unlucky world just what to believe, with no chance for any discussion or debate? You know, as gabfest has depicted it here with such authority!

Next, he states...

"There will always be someone telling others what to think and believe, remember we do have a big brother/gov.."

I agree. Let's listen to the pope for a bit shall we? Or gabfest's local minister or pastor or priest. They NEVER lie or present a bias or work the truth a bit to make a point. Or just quote a biblical story as being literally true. nope. Never happens. Theyz all be quite reliable, I tell you! And as well, there's an absolutely reliable policing & validation process for whatever they or the bible tells us, isn't there?

We see it often in the various Christian Universities (...or so they call themselves.. All self-policing. Quite an interesting setup. Like "Doctor" Kent Hovind, who first granted his best friend a Doctorate from Kewnt's newly minted "University", and then an administrative position in his personal university's regency, and then had that guy grant Kent his very own Doctorate!

Wow, and to think I went through all that work for mine... and Mystic the same way as well. When we could have gotten ours out of a cerel box and with a little donation of, say, $100, payable to Kent's personal fan club!

Yup; Sorta makes a mockery of true science, I'll agree. Best we NOT ever allow this scenario to ever evolve (small :e:e, no need to panic, gabby!):

"I do not think we want a complete number crunching society because at some point we would all need to justify our individual existence less we be labeled a useless eater."

Q: A "useless eater"? What is that pray tell? I musta missed that important lecture!

"The Debil™ Scy-Yunss does not demand that anyone justify their own existence. It only serves it's masters, the humans who "Ask Simple Questions of Mother Nature, One at a Time!" (a little definition of science one of my more intelligent and erudite professors told me about 40 years ago...)

Yes, best we not ever have a society who can understand logical trial and error testing, or critical thinking and open-minded thought, some of which might (horrors!) run counter to the established, hardened-like-concrete thinking of any organized agenda-driven group! Heaven help us from THAT! Quickly now: Let us pray, and immediately! On thy knees, oh sheeple!
__________________________________________________ _

I must admit gabfest: you've brought a whole new enhanced and enlightened perspective to my love and understanding of science as the only process that is reliable enough to make rational conclusions once the undeniable results are in and peer-reviewed.

And then (1) completely denied, (2) allowed with limitations, or (3) full-on accepted, possibly even as a new theory (in the scientific sense, not in the Luddite schoolyard bully version of science hating that Christians happily love to trot out and yowl at!).
__________________________________________________ _
1.)rifleman I do not know how you managed to find offense with that post but oh well you desire nothing short of personal worship so I shouldn't be surprised.

2.) I know that you need to classify me as your enemy (I'll never qualify as anything but a useless eater in your sights) though we probably vote exactly the same way just for different reasons (I believe adults should be able to do whatever they please that includes a mother marrying her son if they are both of sound minds) I 'am pro-stem research etc. but none of that matters does it? Nope. It goes back to bedroom, all theist are prudes.

3.)Even if you could prove absolutley there is no God zoophillia etc. would remain taboo.

Last edited by gabfest; 10-03-2012 at 06:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2012, 08:39 PM
 
16,294 posts, read 28,562,684 times
Reputation: 8384
The very clear difference between science is religion, is that when science finds new evidence that shows a previous conclusion to be incorrect, science will step back, take a serious look at the evidence, and if appropriate re-evaluate its position.

Religion will either out right deny the evidence, say it is the work of another imaginary deity, a.k.a. the devil, or just declare the evidence flawed, of course without any rational, and declare that "it can't be" because the buy bull says otherwise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2012, 12:15 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,932,455 times
Reputation: 3767
Wink Whaaaat???

Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest View Post
1.)rifleman I do not know how you managed to find offense with that post but oh well you desire nothing short of personal worship so I shouldn't be surprised.

That's funny. Always go for the ad hominems when you can't take the debate, huh?

My desire for personal worship? What, of me? Why on earth would I want that? I'd rather be left alone, but Christian evangelicals are everywhere, from Fred Phelps to a tearful Jimmy Swaggert to Pat Robertson. I have yet to see a TV atheist show, but then, what would he/she ramble on endlessly about, after all?

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/...Jimmy+Swaggart

I'm only a logical realist with a realist's viewpoint of the lackluster performance of all of us hominids, including my own contributions. It's the stubborn glory-seeking Christians that I can't tolerate; their endless self-aggrandizement and dreams of a perfectly designed world by their imagined super-Creator. The one for which there's no evidence, remember?


2.) I know that you need to classify me as your enemy (I'll never qualify as anything but a useless eater in your sights) though we probably vote exactly the same way just for different reasons (I believe adults should be able to do whatever they please that includes a mother marrying her son if they are both of sound minds) I 'am pro-stem research etc. but none of that matters does it? Nope. It goes back to bedroom, all theist are prudes.

A "useless eater"? There it is again. What does that mean? Honestly! You got me stumped there.

As for my voting, I generally don't vote now for either party, esp. after witnessing the vacuous intellectual performances of the available POTUS candidates on tonight's TV debate. Noe if we started a new libertarian/slightly leftist, slightly rightist, fiscally conservative ecologically oriented party of limited fresource consumption and open-minded education starting @ about 5 years of age, then I'd sign on. Otherwise, it's all just the same stuff, but with different colored hats. Ours would be tinfoil, probably

As for tonight's (Oct 3, 2012) intensely intellectual [] repartee, I saw far too much of this...

"I said such and such..." "No you didn't!" "Yes, I did, and you're wrong!" and so on. (<sigh... snore...>)

I guess Rush Limbaugh, the Magnificent Communicator will straighten it all up for the average American conservative tomorrow morning. I can hardly wait to be correctly informed...

Help us, lord; we'z about to have big-time societal & fiscal & trust-in-government problems in this grand country!

3.)Even if you could prove absolutley there is no God zoophillia etc. would remain taboo.
Please explain this last line to me. "no God zoophillia"... means? Have I suggested that humans should or did have sex with sheep? Is that what you think "sheeple" means? Nope. It means people whose vapid brains direct them to act like brainless follow the leader sheep, (as I showed with the Youtube vid of those sheep circling the car... funny!) we see in their unthinking response to Christianity's antique directives!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2012, 03:40 AM
 
6,222 posts, read 4,020,091 times
Reputation: 733
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Please explain this last line to me. "no God zoophillia"... means? Have I suggested that humans should or did have sex with sheep? Is that what you think "sheeple" means? Nope. It means people whose vapid brains direct them to act like brainless follow the leader sheep, (as I showed with the Youtube vid of those sheep circling the car... funny!) we see in their unthinking response to Christianity's antique directives!
Yes. Historically, on your public profile page you've stated on a cold night a sheep would do (for you).


Sexual orientationHumans, generally... (tho., on a cold night, a nice warm sheep...)
https://www.city-data.com/forum/membe...an-415910.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2012, 04:22 AM
 
Location: South Africa
5,563 posts, read 7,222,719 times
Reputation: 1798
Lol you really think this was serious? Boy humour/satire is something US xians do lack don't they have a course for that somewhere, "How to know when someone is kidding" Now if Rifleman was Australian then.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top