Is the Daily Paul anti-science?
Scientists now are understanding the processes of life down to the very atomic level. Everyday, a new and amazing medical discovery or treatment is announced. Replacement organs are now being produced in labs. Blind are being made to see. Diseases that have plagued mankind forever are being cured left and right. The end of many cancers are now in the drug pipeline. Predictions are being made that if you can survive another 15 years you may live to be 150. We are privileged to witness real miracles, Daily.
Yet here at the Daily Paul you would never get that impression.
We are in the golden age of medicine and science, yet at the same time US ranks behind even Turkey in the percent of citizens that believe in evolution. Could America's seeming abandonment of science and rational thought be tied in anyway to our economic decline? Is it coincidence, that the rise of India and China coincides with their rejection of superstition and embrace of the sciences?
I realize that depressions are good for alcohol sales and religion, but neither will be of much help getting us out of this crisis. If we are ever to recover as a country, it will be on the back of Science and Technology not on outdated mythologies.
Someone, please explain to me why Liberty should be anti-science?
output
"believe in evolution" You
You may want to rephrase that...makes it sound like a religion. I don't "believe in evolution". I consider it a possible explanation for how the current species came into being. I haven't found it be in conflict with the Bible, either.
I think if Christians researched this a little more, they'd have more of a problem with abiogenesis (the study of how life on earth could have arisen from inanimate matter) than they would with evolution. I personally don't find it to be in conflict with the Bible, either.
Please show me a human that's rational. I've never met one, seen one, heard of one... Everything you do is based on some subjective value you have. Your value for science is subjective. There's nothing inherent in the universe that says you must absolutely value science. It's nothing more than a personal, subjective value, that some people share, and some people don't. Any "reasons" you have for valuing anything, whether you value science, life, death, money, freedom, tyranny, or whatever, aren't really reasons, but are the sum electrical and chemical reactions occurring in your brain and body and influenced by your environment over the short period of your life, and made possible by all the interactions of matter/energy over the billions of years the universe is suspected to have existed. The individual particles that make up your body do not have rational thoughts. It's made from the same kinds of sub-atomic particles that make up a rock. Rocks do not have rational thoughts...they don't have any thoughts at all. Your thoughts are nothing more than physical interactions between between sub-atomic particles, just like everything in the entire universe (or possibly multi-verse), whether we consider it to be "living" or not.
There's no ultimate reason you value something. There's a innumerable causes for your values, but that's specific to you. There's innumerable different causes for someone else's values, so they won't necessarily be the same as yours.
Now as a Christian, I believe there's something more to the universe than just a bunch of matter/energy. I believe there is a God that created the universe. I believe the Bible tells us about this God. I believe what the Bible has to say about this God. I view God as an absolute in which to base my values on. Otherwise I would have no reason to not change my values as per my convenience. I believe that the universe and life exists because of God, because God chose for it to exist, and that God values that which He created, and that I should also value it. I see no absolute reason for an atheist to value life. Sure a lot of atheists do, but it's no more rational and no less subjective than my valuing of life.
I think alcohol sales decline in a depression as well, just maybe not as bad as a lot of other products. I haven't heard anything about whether it's "good for religion"...
Please explain to me why anyone "should" do anything. Liberty does not require science, and science does not require liberty. You're not suggesting that people shouldn't be free if they believe in God or misunderstand or aren't convinced by some scientific theory, are you? I hope your answer is no, since otherwise you'd be discrediting your supposed valuing of liberty through your recommendation of tyranny.
GC...
"I haven't found it [evolution] be in conflict with the Bible, either."
.
If the bible says that the 1st humans appeared instantly in the garden of eden with a flick of god's magic wand, how can this not conflict with evolution? Is it that you don't take the bible literally, and that is the reason there is no conflict? Or can there be a literal interpretation that still does not conflict?
--------
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
Obviously not everything in
Obviously not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally.
Does the Bible say that the 1st humans appeared instantly? Does it say in minute detail the process of creating them? Or are you just assuming that it was instantly?
I'm not aware of any conflicts between abiogenesis and evolution and the words of the Bible, although it may just be my ignorance. The Bible is a large book, and clearly impossible for any mere mortal human to perfectly understand. I don't know the details as to how God went about creating everything. I just believe that ultimately He did in some manner...even it were through a "big bang" and abiogenesis and evolution. That's the explanation that best matches what my limited experience in the universe and as far as I know so far, doesn't conflict with what I remember learning from the Bible, whether the parts in question are taken literally or not.
"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground..." seems open enough to me to allow for "natural processes". I couldn't tell you how literally "...and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" is supposed to be taken, but I don't necessarily see a conflict there, either. And there are issues with the timing of everything, and the perspective view of that time...it could all be a single instant as far as God is concerned...I don't know. And now that we're here, our perception of time is incredibly slower. Our view of the billions of years of the universe and evolution may just be a limitation of our ability to understand what is merely an instant creation up to this point by God. Something that would be hard for a person to understand, and put into the words of Genesis, for others to understand.
I'm a bit more open to the fact that I don't understand the Bible as well as I once thought I did, since seeing that many of my former understandings were later to be found wrong by myself and others, and after viewing thousands of people sharing different understandings of various parts of the Bible...obviously none of those people are perfect (including myself), and are likely to make mistakes in understanding the Bible (as I have) while being sure they are correct.
As far as I know with my limited imperfect human understanding, there may be an infinite number of variables and ways that God could have created all of existence and us, and still not conflict with what the Bible says about the creation of humans, literally or not.
GC: "Obviously not everything in the Bible is meant
to be taken literally."
That works for me, too. Clearly if you can accept that the bible can be taken figuratively instead of literally, then the arguments about how anything happened, or how long they took, is moot.
The purpose of this site is simply to promote liberty
It is not to be "pro-science" or "anti-science".
If you think science as "all the answers", fine.
If not, fine.
It's called the Market Of Ideas !
Btw, is it "rational" to conclude that consciousness arises from cause and effect ?
Are computers self-aware ?
Even a little bit ?
I don't think the Daily Paul is anti-science
can you list some threads that give you that impression. You are coming across as anti religion and that doesn't seem like a Liberty minded individual. Yes science and technology or important may also be our worst nightmare in the wrong hands. The NWO is ALL about technology to watch and control your every move so how is that working for us? The reason America is behind is we gave everything away to countries that have less confining laws, cheap labor and no pollution laws.
Oh boy,
here is the religious patrol harassing another member. My God, go away.
I'm agnostic and I find
it funny you telling me to go away because I express a different opinion. lol
You
seem to think a lot members here are "anti" religious, etc. It's getting a little old.
In a word, Yup. The DP has
In a word, Yup.
The DP has started thumping on their bibles so much lately that I don't even enjoy coming here anymore.
http://www.lp.org/
http://mises.org/
Illogical, eh?
Just imagine being caught in the middle of that battle, Logic. When I correct an atheist on a point of logic, I'm assumed to be a "Bible thumper" by many atheists. And when I correct a Christian on a point of logic, I'm assumed to be an atheist by many Christians. And few seem to think any further investigation into what I'm saying is to be desired.
Such an unthinking game, it is.
You, of course, seem to be hard at work under the predetermined conclusions that NOTHING about religion is of any value, and that Christian doctrine contains not even ONE truth.
Thus, you shun all of Christianity as worthless. What a bummer it must be when Christians shut you down in the same irresponsible way.
So much energy being expended with so little to show for it. It's because you are hacking at the branches, and not at the root.
You, on the other hand, flatly reject the thoughts of others without entertaining them. And so do a great many Christians. It might gall you to hear it, but I see an awful lot of similarity in your behaviors.
Neither you nor they are fully dedicated to rational thought at all times. This is your problem. Christians are not your enemy; your own irrational thinking is your enemy. And so with them. (And yes, I'm speaking in very general terms, for not everyone is irrational. But you, Logic, have displayed a great number of irrational thoughts, as have many of your adversaries here.)
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
You can bring all the
You can bring all the scripture in the world, basically any argument you want, and it can be shown to be illogical. You theists have absolutely nothing to base your argument on but faith. And your Aristotle quote is very nice, but says nothing about me. I have entertained the thought of religion, and it comes of as nonsense, so I don't accept it.
And christians are an enemy of reason, so that makes them dangerous to me.
I study religion daily, so you cannot say that I haven't entertained the thought. I've gotten to the point that I only study it so that I can have rational reasons to make theists look silly.
http://www.lp.org/
http://mises.org/
Thanks for the admission, Logic!
You don't realize it, of course, but you just admitted my exact charge against you!
There's your predetermined conclusion right there. Therefore, you are open to learning NOTHING new about religion. (And I might add sadly, neither are most religionists.)
By treating all of religion as a monolithic position, you are utterly incapable to giving consideration to the actual tenets of any position. But that's OK because you have already determined that you know plenty from which to judge for the rest of your life that you are right and they are wrong.
Oh, and you have unwittingly proven yet another of my statements when you say:
I had just been talking about how folks from both sides jump to conclusions when I correct somebody, and here you are calling me a "theist". I would like to know whether have found such a statement in my writings, or whether you are merely assuming that since I take issue with your irrational argumentation, I must, therefore, be a theist.
Jack
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
There's your predetermined
There's your predetermined conclusion right there. Therefore, you are open to learning NOTHING new about religion. (And I might add sadly, neither are most religionists.)
There's nothing new about religion. Aside from new religions and the new rules that moderates want incorporate into it. Why aren't they killing gays or stoning kids?
And okay , maybe you're not a theist, so I should have simply said theists. Really not an issue. And you haven't "corrected" anybody.
http://www.lp.org/
http://mises.org/
You have said a true thing, Logic.
"There's nothing new about religion."
Your problem is that you criticize it without even understanding the OLD stuff about religion.
For instance, you say:
"There's nothing new about religion. Aside from new religions and the new rules that moderates want incorporate into it. Why aren't they killing gays or stoning kids?"
Like most Christians, you obviously haven't read the Bible enough to understand well the difference between the New and Old Covenants. You are making a judgment from Old Covenant doctrine and insisting that it should be applied to the New Covenant, if only the Christians were doing it right.
Likewise, lots of Christians fail to understand their own doctrines, too. For example, they don't seem to be able to decide whether the Law of Moses is still in effect or not (Hence, Zionism, which is a politically fabricated game, without any SOUND basis in the Bible.) And rather than investigate the matter, most simply go along with it in one form or another.
Other than their stubborn incuriosity about the tenets of their own religion, most Christians make a couple of really important mistakes:
1. They fail to realize that the Bible simply is NOT an exhaustive account of everything that was said and done along the way in the Judeo/Christian timeline. For instance, there are several things about which we would have no clue at all if it weren't for a SINGLE mention in the Bible texts. For example, Paul mentions the "third heaven", yet nowhere else in the Bible texts is any such thing mentioned. Therefore, we are forced to conclude either that Paul did not mean to be understood, or (more likely) that he thought his audience already knew what he would mean by "third heaven". Yet no document in the Bible purports to explain that to US. (Yes, some extrabiblical documents shed some light on it---but it makes lots of Christians nervous when you discuss that!)
2. The fail to recognize that the Bible was NOT "written to us". As I make clear above, its documents seem to have been written to people who were already in the know about things that are now lost to us. Not one document in the "New Testament" is addressed to "generations to come", or any such thing. Nor is there even so much as a chapter that purports to talk explicitly about God's intentions for "Christianity" in the centuries after the First Century.
This fact alone is of monumental importance, for if any of us were going to start a religion that we intended to last for eons, we would surely write down its tenets in some permanent and organized fashion for the use of all adherents in the future. Yet there is no comprehensive doctrinal treatise in the "New Testament". If the "Old Testament" has a Leviticus---spelling out the Law---then why doesn't the "New Testament" have a corresponding book?
This is one of the most profound questions about the Bible, and yet hardly anybody ever asks it, let alone investigates it. Meanwhile, Christians can't even really define "Christianity". Have you noticed how many of them reply to the abortion question by talking about who is a "real Christian" and who is not?
They ought to be questioning, therefore, why they are left without enough clear doctrinal statements to be able to determine with certainty just what is the official Christian position on this, that, and the other thing. But they don't do this. Instead, they simply press forward, not caring to understand things better.
So I feel your pain at how unthinking is a great deal of the "Christian" position, As unstudied as many of them are, however, they are sometimes right---even if it's right by accident.
There's an old saying that even a blind hog can root up an acorn from time to time. Therefore, I think it's much more advantageous to all parties concerned if we could discuss the acorns, and not the hogs.
It is as if the real fashion in such debate is to say "That can't be an acorn, because you're nothing but a blind hog." And the reply, of course, is "You only THINK I'm blind because you are a blind hog yourself." And so it goes.
But if someone says "Hey, I think I have found an acorn here. Could everyone please examine it and tell me if it is what it appears to be?"....
If that happened, the guy who says "that can't be an acorn because you're just a blind hog" really stands out like a sore thumb. His predetermined conclusion is anathema to the analytical task at hand.
A great deal of all this could be averted if Christians would quit saying "God wants us to..." and "The Bible tells us that we should....". Instead, they should be saying, "It seems to ME that we would be better off it we would...." In other words, make your OWN argument, instead of acting as if God or "The Bible" is actually interjecting itself into the present. (And of course, when you make such a statement, how many other Christians disagree about your interpretation of what God wants? Lots, right?) So it's far better to argue on the merits of reason than of religion dogma, for reason can be obvious to all where dogma may not find a consensus even amongst other believers.
Similarly, it would be very helpful if atheists would not attack the religion but the proposal at hand. If the proposal is bad, the problem is not the Bible, but that the person making the proposal doesn't understand what is bad about it.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
You have said a true thing, Logic.
Your problem is that you criticize it without even understanding the OLD stuff about religion.
For instance, you say:
Like most Christians, you obviously haven't read the Bible enough to understand well the difference between the New and Old Covenants. You are making a judgment from Old Covenant doctrine and insisting that it should be applied to the New Covenant, if only the Christians were doing it right.
Likewise, lots of Christians fail to understand their own doctrines, too. For example, they don't seem to be able to decide whether the Law of Moses is still in effect or not (Hence, Zionism, which is a politically fabricated game, without any SOUND basis in the Bible.) And rather than investigate the matter, most simply go along with it in one form or another.
Other than their stubborn incuriosity about the tenets of their own religion, most Christians make a couple of really important mistakes:
1. They fail to realize that the Bible simply is NOT an exhaustive account of everything that was said and done along the way in the Judeo/Christian timeline. For instance, there are several things about which we would have no clue at all if it weren't for a SINGLE mention in the Bible texts. For example, Paul mentions the "third heaven", yet nowhere else in the Bible texts is any such thing mentioned. Therefore, we are forced to conclude either that Paul did not mean to be understood, or (more likely) that he thought his audience already knew what he would mean by "third heaven". Yet no document in the Bible purports to explain that to US. (Yes, some extrabiblical documents shed some light on it---but it makes lots of Christians nervous when you discuss that!)
2. The fail to recognize that the Bible was NOT "written to us". As I make clear above, its documents seem to have been written to people who were already in the know about things that are now lost to us. Not one document in the "New Testament" is addressed to "generations to come", or any such thing. Nor is there even so much as a chapter that purports to talk explicitly about God's intentions for "Christianity" in the centuries after the First Century.
This fact alone is of monumental importance, for if any of us were going to start a religion that we intended to last for eons, we would surely write down its tenets in some permanent and organized fashion for the use of all adherents in the future. Yet there is no comprehensive doctrinal treatise in the "New Testament". If the "Old Testament" has a Leviticus---spelling out the Law---then why doesn't the "New Testament" have a corresponding book?
This is one of the most profound questions about the Bible, and yet hardly anybody ever asks it, let alone investigates it. Meanwhile, Christians can't even really define "Christianity". Have you noticed how many of them reply to the abortion question by talking about who is a "real Christian" and who is not?
They ought to be questioning, therefore, why they are left without enough clear doctrinal statements to be able to determine with certainty just what is the official Christian position on this, that, and the other thing. But they don't do this. Instead, they simply press forward, not caring to understand things better.
So I feel your pain at how unthinking is a great deal of the "Christian" position, As unstudied as many of them are, however, they are sometimes right---even if it's right by accident.
There's an old saying that even a blind hog can root up an acorn from time to time. Therefore, I think it's much more advantageous to all parties concerned if we could discuss the acorns, and not the hogs.
It is as if the real fashion in such debate is to say "That can't be an acorn, because you're nothing but a blind hog." And the reply, of course, is "You only THINK I'm blind because you are a blind hog yourself." And so it goes.
But if someone says "Hey, I think I have found an acorn here. Could everyone please examine it and tell me if it is what it appears to be?"....
If that happened, the guy who says "that can't be an acorn because you're just a blind hog" really stands out like a sore thumb. His predetermined conclusion is anathema to the analytical task at hand.
A great deal of all this could be averted if Christians would quit saying "God wants us to..." and "The Bible tells us that we should....". Instead, they should be saying, "It seems to ME that we would be better off it we would...." In other words, make your OWN argument, instead of acting as if God or "The Bible" is actually interjecting itself into the present. (And of course, when you make such a statement, how many other Christians disagree about your interpretation of what God wants? Lots, right?) So it's far better to argue on the merits of reason than of religion dogma, for reason can be obvious to all where dogma may not find a consensus even amongst other believers.
Similarly, it would be very helpful if atheists would not attack the religion but the proposal at hand. If the proposal is bad, the problem is not the Bible, but that the person making the proposal doesn't understand what is bad about it.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
Jack
regarding one your comments above, regarding "no" corresponding book of "the law" in the New Testament.
It seems that there is a New Covenant to the New Testament.
Many Christians consider Jeremiah 31:31-34 to be a central Old Testament prophecy of the New Covenant. Here is the key text:
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." — Jeremiah 31:31-34
BigT,
Here's what I'm getting at. The brief passage in Jeremiah 31 is by no means a comprehensive treatise on the New Covenant like Leviticus is on the Old. Is it a hint of the New Covenant? Sure it is. But it is hardly a constitution for it.
Does Jeremiah 31 describe the organization of the ekklesia? No. And yet most Christians hold to the view that "The Church" is a highly-organized institution. Therefore, Jeremiah 31 simply cannot be the "Constitution" of Christianity, just as no other Bible passage or document qualifies as such, either. Thus continues the mystery of why such a document is not in the possession of the churches.
That is the only point I'm trying to make here. Having spent a great number of years in Christian institutions, however, I'm well aware that most Christians think that their churches are "based on the Bible", even if they have no idea how to find the origins of their official practices and beliefs in the pages of the texts in any comprehensive fashion.
In other words, few ever seem to realize the obvious: that the current practice often bears little or no similarity to the specifics we can witness in the texts. And when some DO notice that fact and try to find a remedy (such as did the founders of the "Restoration Movement", they end up proving that far too little information exists to replicate with certainty the exact teachings and practices of the Apostles.
That is to say that even when some split off from the others to try to replicate a more original and authentic version, they, themselves end up divided over certain particulars for which insufficient evidence exists to come to a consensus. (And this has nothing to do with the divisions that arise simply from human vanity.) No matter how many times they search those texts, they will never find a clear instruction on how many elders are required, whether more than one cup may be used, whether they may use musical instruments, etc. There is simply insufficient information for answering such questions in LOGICAL fashion (though, sadly, that doesn't seem to stop them from being answered in ARBITRARY fashion.)
And what remains is the puzzle: Why would an institution that was intended to last as long as the earth should last ("The Church", in this case) be without a comprehensive constitution?
Sadly, this is a puzzle at which most never even try their hands, for they never realize that it exists. A great deal can be learned from trying to figure it out.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
Mods, I have just re-posted this post with the ....
boldface closed properly. Would you please just delete this one (to which I am now replying?)
Thanks.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
Can someone close the bold please?
Thanks
Hey, Jiminy...
Sorry I didn't preview it before I posted.
Hey, how come I can sometimes edit my posts (after posting them) and sometimes I can't? The edit tab is sometimes there (at the bottom next to "reply") and at other times it is not there. (Which is the case now with the post presently in question.)
How aggravating that is.
Any clues for me?
Jack
PS, I just edited this post to close the bold at the beginning of it. But I still don't have an "edit" tab on the original post above.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
When someone replies to your comment...
...the edit option is removed.
That means I just removed your ability to edit your post. Oops. Sorry.
Sometimes someone can post underneath and try the close and it works, but it didn't work for me.
edit- I tried again in this post AND IT WORKED. Woohoo! :)
That's too bad, the way that's programmed.
I've often been frustrated that I can't make a correction or add a new thought to an existing post.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
It's probably a good thing overall.
I understand what you mean, but can you imagine the abuse if everyone had the capability to alter their comments after someone had replied to them?
God and Science
James Rushing:
God and Science are different names for the same force: the Force of Identity. The Force of Identity/God is the source of existence and consciousness. The Force of Identity is also known as the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Universal Constant. The Force of Identity is the source of logic, reason, science, freedom, art, music, philosophy, health and happiness. The Force of Identity is supreme.
Science is supreme and God is supreme, therefore, God is Reason. Science and God are reconciled.
The Force of Identity is also known as the Law of Identity and can be expressed as A=A. A=A explains the Universe and all within since this law is the source of all that exists. The law of identity, A=A, is necessary, universal, eternal and infinite. A=A unifies all the forces and brings together all things in a single mathematical scheme, the equation: A=A. A=A is the name of the God of the Hebrew: I AM THAT I AM and explains every existent and process in the Universe. The Force of Identity is the "elegant simplicity underlying the diversity of the Universe," that Timothy Ferris writes about.
The Identity of man is that he/she must be free for Reason/God to function and come into their life and give knowledge of God, the creator and protector of all that is beautiful and harmoneous and FREE! http://GodisReason.com
Of course not. It's just
Of course not. It's just that in our post biblically governed society, government and other would be oppressors are now using "science" the exact same way they once used "God", in the process giving the whole field a bad reputation. And as a population at least partially selected on the basis of adherence to freedom, DP'ers are naturally more skeptical to this than the average public school indoctrinated Starstruck and Stupid. And thank goodness for that.
Eugenics and various schemes to classify the "intelligence" of races were once considered science, as well. One would hope those dedicated to freedom would call that era's "scientists" out on the carpet, although many did not.
Also, statements such as "Scientists now are understanding the processes of life down to the very atomic level" sure aren't helping, as it's pure BS. Contemporary science has been able to catalogue a few sub cellular processes of life. That's it. It's an improvement over a generation ago, but to claim anyone mortal understands life down to the atomic level, is pure bunk. But unfortunately all too common amongst devotees of "scientism", which in all honesty amounts to little more than childish regurgitation of public school indoctrinated quasi religious dogma aimed at allowing its proponents to pretend they are somehow less superstitious than believers in other religions.
Also, Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with belief, although political hucksters may like to pretend it does. It's merely a rule of thumb for classifying and explaining observed similarities amongst species. The Church originally got involved because it back then derived some worldly power from positioning itself as an arbiter of truths about the material, as well as the spiritual, world. Pure political jockeying. And ever since, for some unfathomable reason, simpletons on either side of that non debate have hung onto this division solely as a matter of reinforcing tribal identity.
In reality, nothing is more scientific than skepticism, and that includes skepticism towards that which is peddled by self described "scientists" as much as anything else.
Are you kidding me?
The Christians have taken over this thread also. Boy, does the Liberty movement have a PROBLEM. Are WE all getting this? Do we really think a SECULAR government is the agenda of some of these members? Just a question.
Here, let me help you see your problem
"when individuals choose to become part of a group and operate like a group, they have chosen to be identified as a member of that group. A Christian" - Fedor
"I made it clear I was a Christian. - Fedor
So, Fedor, bitching about yourself again? 'The Christians' have taken over this thread?
You're a joke.
Science is not infallible.
Scientists once believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun revolved around us.
Scientists also once believed that the Earth was flat.
Scientists and doctors once believed that bloodletting cured disease.
Less than a century ago, scientists and doctors believed that smoking was beneficial to our health, and that women suffered from hysteria.
I'm sure in 100+ years (probably less) people will look back on our current scientific beliefs and laugh at us for our ignorance.
Really, you can't preach about logic and rational thought, and then go on to declare that we're "in the golden age of science and medicine" without looking a smug, ignorant fool. The only rational conclusion you can reach from the history of science is that we don't know everything and probably never will know everything. Since we are constantly learning, discovering, and inventing, it's not very logical to assume that the scientific "facts" and beliefs that we hold dear today will always remain constant.
But the scienctific method is the key to understanding
Scientists predicted and proved that the earth is not the center of the universe, and that the earth revloves around the sun.
Scientists predicted and proved the earth was not flat.
Scientists and doctors through discovery and better understanding of life realized that bloodletting didn't cure disease.
Less than a century later scientists and doctors through the scientific method proved that smoking is harmful to health, and that hysteria was a misdiagnosis based on lack of understanding.
I am sure that in 100 years people will not look back on our current scientific beliefs and laugh, that is, if we abandon science.
I can and did opine that we are in "a golden age"(hopefully there will be many more) of science based on the revolution in the understanding of life and the pace of new discoveries that are being made in science and especially in medicine today.
The sad thing is that many can not because they are not aware of the advances or more sadly because they don't have a sufficient level of scientific education to even understand the basis of these advances.
Obviously, we don't know everything or Science would be irrelevant. Therefore, I admonish that we embrace science and the scientific method of logic, rational thought and inquiry to continue learning, discovering and inventing.
It saddens and alarms me that many supporters of Ron Paul, at least on this site, have such negative and pessimistic views of Science. I feel it is a peril for both the movement and the future of our country.
And another thing...
How smug do you have to be to declare that we are in the "golden age" of anything? Do you know what the future holds for us? If not, then how can you claim that we're in a "golden age"? Compared to future advances in scientific thought and medicine, our current time period may one day be considered the Dark Ages of science. And you know what? I hope we are in the Dark Ages, because if this is the "golden age of science" compared to future generations, then this is a fairly pathetic showing for all humanity is and ever will be.
"It saddens and alarms me that many supporters of Ron Paul, at least on this site, have such negative and pessimistic views of Science."
I'm not anti-science. I'm against the mentality that logic, rationalism, and science are infallible and never have their flaws. History has proven time and again that this is certainly not the case.
"Do you know what the future holds for us?"
"this is a fairly pathetic showing for all humanity is and ever will be."
Sooo... you claim that we can't know what the future holds for us and then you make a statement based on what you know the future holds for us?
Rigggghhhtt...
CHA-CHING!
Tirade...
What you say is true. It takes a long time for science to figure out the closest thing to the truth, and it may never prove the truth 100%. It can only be done with lots of experimentation, sometimes over long periods of time.
But because of science, we know today that the earth is not flat. Those that don't believe that are the fools, who can argue that? We know that the sun is the center of our solar system, which is part a larger universe... because of science. Only a fool would believe otherwise. And science still doesn't know all the answers about space, but we don't discount that the earth is round just because it is still speculative about those far reaches of the universe.
Now for over a hundred years we've observed consecutive layers of rock with the fossils in them gradually changing into different forms. Understanding the most basic geology, the only logical reason is that the living animals/plants were changing through time before they died and were deposited. This is evolution.
Have we found every single missing link between each animal? Of course not. But the fact that animals change through time is as clear as the earth is round.
But because evolution threatens the dogma of creationists, because it doesn't have every answer explained exactly, the entire field is dismissed completely. The baby is thrown out with the bath water.
Instead, creationists cling to ideas like -- posted right here -- that angels mated with earth women and the offspring was dinosaurs. Is this not the least bit embarrassing to you?
Evolution does not try to disprove God. Evolution does not try to explain how life started. It simply shows that living things change through time.
--------
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
Irrelevant
I'm not sure why you tried to change my original post into another useless evolution vs. Creationism debate when I discussed neither. Recognizing the fallibility of science does not make you a "Creationist", "anti-evolution", or "religious nutjob" like some people would have you believe.
"Instead, creationists cling to ideas like -- posted right here -- that angels mated with earth women and the offspring was dinosaurs. Is this not the least bit embarrassing to you?"
No, I don't find it embarrassing because people are free to believe whatever they want no matter how ludicrous it may seem to you.
What I find embarrassing is how people view the entire evolution vs. Creationism debate in such black and white terms. "If you don't support evolution, then clearly you're a Creationist" and vice versa. It reminds of the ridiculous and inefficient two-party political system we have in this country: "If you're not a Democrat, then you're a Republican". Where is the Third Party in this debate? You know, the party for people who believe that neither side is correct? The party for people who recognize that both evolution and Creation are speculation at best, and that it takes equal amounts of faith to believe in one or the other? Because that's the party I'd join.
There's a whole lot of people here proclaiming their love of logic and rationalism, but it's not very rational to put such blind faith into an unproven theory (I'm talking about both evolution and Creationism here), is it? The most logical conclusion you can reach is that we don't know the truth behind our origins and very likely never will.
a small qualification
"But because of science, we know today that the earth is not flat. Those that don't believe that are the fools, who can argue that?"
I think a person can be completely non-foolish and also have serious reservations about the shape of the earth...flat, round, etc.
Science is a method, not a collection of facts.
If a person believes something about the shape of the earth based on hearsay, a children's book, a teacher's lecture, a movie, etc. then they are fully subject to foolish conclusions. Not until you do the experiments yourself have you experienced the scientific method. Do you really know the shape of the earth from your own inquirying experiences? Have you put some sticks in the ground at different locations and measured the angle of the shadows, and so on?
Study nature, not books!
Huck, good points to discuss...
and the Rev also suggested doing the research yourself. But you would spend your lifetime just researching the shape of the earth. Why reinvent every wheel? When things have been studied for a century by thousands of scientists, you can probably agree with most of their research without having to prove everything yourself.
I know what's coming... then you put "faith" into those scientists. What's the difference in my faith in science and your faith in the bible then? Right?
my faith in the bible?!
I have faith that the bible can be used effectively as a paperweight. It's also pretty good at serving as an impromptu saucer for a coffee cup. Or a fly swatter. Or decorative filler material for a book shelf.
Beliefs are just stop gap measures to fill in uncomfortable voids in our actual knowledge. As an alternative to beliefs, a person can learn to manage the psychological discomfort of not knowing.
"I don't know. I haven't experienced that or checked into it adequately yet."
Bugman, I doubt if you are aware.
You seem to be arguing that the "layers" imply vast spans of time. This is a common misconception and it is soundly disproved in this 4-part series, which includes experimentation.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
If you watch this and you want to continue your position, you'll need to be able to show why the video's conclusions are false.
Really? Then why was Darwin's work entitled "The ORIGIN of species?" And why is there so much talk about amoeba and the "primordial slime" or "primordial soup"?
The question is whether you have even found ONE "missing link".
Yes, and we know that NO scientists ever "cling to ideas". In fact, right at this very instance, you probably can't wait to go watch the sedimentology video I just linked to, because you are nothing short of EAGER to cast off your own ideas about the age of the rock layers.
But not all creationists believe this. How, then, do you malign all on account of a few? And if this is fair game, then shall we talk about the evolutionists who believe that "aliens" must have visited the earth a long time ago? And shall we discount the striking similarities between alien visitors and angelic visitors? In both stories, they bring new knowledge and technologies into the world. But no, the one view is "scientific" and the other is full of garbage, right?
You are incapable of dealing with the actual details of any position. Rather, you must resort to claiming or shunning the WHOLE of an argument. There is absolutely no value in this behavior. Indeed, because of this, you are not even capable of improving your own position.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
Interesting theory on layer deposition
was posed in Issac Newton Vale's "Annular Theory of Planetary Evolution" in which he purports that practically all planets are ringed in their development like the gas giants in our system, most notably Saturn. Vale reasons that these ring eventually slowed and fell. The mysterious and uniform "red sandstone layer" deposited world-wide without an obvious (Terrestrial) source would be an excellent candidate for the annular possibility, or else a space sandstorm :-) Vale says the final ring to fall consisted of H2O, a possible explanation for a literal interpretation of the biblical flood.
Here's a perfect example of shameless "science" in action.
Here's an excerpt from a story headlined on Drudge today (****emphasis**** added).
Notice that they admit the first time around that it was "believed" to kill the dinosaurs, but the second time, it's put forth as a pure fact.
And beyond that, what in the world are scientists talking about "belief" for in the first place? I thought that science was NOT about faith, but about proof. Right?
This is no more honest than are most religionists. And I, for one, am against dishonesty, no matter who is using it.
Never mind the hundreds of reports of living dinosaurs over the last thousand few hundred years. No, those reports are not to be taken into consideration because "it is believed" that the dinosaurs vanished 65 million years ago. Is this not the same behavior that gets criticized in church folk?
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
Rule of Law Reverend...
This is pretty incredible. You're taking an article from a political blog written by a journalist, quoting a guy from NASA (who may or may not even be a scientist at all), ABOUT AN UPCOMING MOVIE and discrediting the science of paleontology because this is 'dishonesty'??? REALLY??
Furthermore, the guy wasn't saying that it was "believed" that the asteroid killed the dinosaurs, it was "believed" that it happened 65 million years ago. Then later on he spoke as if the asteroid killing the dinosaurs was the currently accepted 'theory'.
But that's not even the point... you're taking a casual interview about a sci-fi movie and picking out minor inconsistencies in the words used, then twisting them into your own interpretation.
And where are the "hundreds" of reports of living dinosaurs over the "last thousand few hundred years". Better yet, what does "last thousand few hundred years" even mean?
In your self righteousness, you claim to be against dishonesty, but you should perhaps stop lying to yourself about what constitutes dishonesty just to try to push your beliefs on others, while mincing and twisting words to make them sound like lies.
Bugman, point by point.
1. I am no "reverend". There is a limit to the number of letters DP will display in a user name. Mine appears to exceed that limit.
2. I am not trying to "discredit the science of paleontology", as you charge. Rather, I am trying to discredit dishonesty, wherever it occurs. But of course, you don't care about what I actually write.
3. Which scientific "fact" the word "believed" was actually describing is immaterial. The point is that if it is merely a matter of faith or conjecture, than it is not "science".
4. Thanks so much for pointing out the typo, as if that adds anything to your claim.
5. Show me what words I have "twisted" and "minced". Or do you feel no compulsion to substantiate a charge against another person? Did I twist the meaning of "dishonest"? Or "believed"? If so, show how.
6. That the subject matter of the story is about "an upcoming movie" is wholly irrelevant to the discussion. You pretend as if lying only counts when it's done in scientific journals, and not in daily media discourse.
7. As to your assertion that the article later discusses a dinosaur-killing asteroid as the "currently accepted THEORY", perhaps you could cut and paste that section, for I find no such thing in the article. Nowhere in the article is the word "theory"---or any variation thereof--used to describe the supposed association between asteroids and dinosaurs. Rather, it is put forth as one puts forth a FACT.
8. Clearly, there is FACT implied when one says "...there are no threatening asteroids as large as the one that killed the dinosaurs." If it is NOT a fact, but only a theory, then this would have been an excellent time for this "scientist" to have said so. So yes, this IS dishonest and corrupt---and who but a scientist to know better?
9. If I am "self righteous", then what are you? Self UNrighteous? Do you revel in trying to get things WRONG? And if you accuse me of "lying to (my)self", are you not claiming the higher moral ground here? How, then, have you not broken your own rule?
I see very little in your arguments other than blind adamancy.
As to the hundreds of reports of living dinosaurs in these last few hundred years, you will want to start here: http://www.google.com/sea...
You'll have to sort through them all, or course, like a real scientist would do, and determine whether any of the claims seem credible. Please be sure to get back to us. But we understand that it will take you a while, since you are the type never to continue with a theory until you have disproved all claims to the contrary.
My point of course, for those readers who are actually interested in understanding rather than petty game playing, is that rare is the scientist who will take these sightings into consideration before he jumps on the 65-million-year bandwagon. Thus are many of the scientists mere regurgitators of hearsay. (And don't get me started on the 65-million-year part....like that makes any sense, either.)
Jack
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
Rev...
Yes, I'm aware of your handle, but you act more like a preacher, so the title was a fun little jab at that. Nobody would dare debate you, you can beat them down by the shear volume of hot air that you produce!
I'll just summarize... your title (something like) "shameless example of dishonest science", in reference to a journalist quoting a NASA guy about a movie, was a shameless example of a religious zealot pandering to his fellow zealots with "blind adamancy"... which is why the original poster posted his post. You made his point.
"(And don't get me started on the 65-million-year part....like that makes any sense, either.)"
So with a statement like this, you show that your mind is made up and closed, so no need to waste time with a point by point debate is there? By the length of your posts, you clearly have a LOT of time on your hands, but debating you isn't worth wasting mine.
Let's see, Bugman....
You say that most posts are long, that "nobody would dare debate me", my posts are long, my mind is made up, and my posts are long, and that it's a waste of time to debate me.
OK, I think the predominant theme here is that you don't like to read long posts.
Having said all that, let's now turn our attention to your summary, which shows your inability to read what I actually wrote without reading into it the offense you would love to find in it:
1. My reference was not to the journalist, but to the words of the NASA guy. If you dispute that the NASA guy said what he is quoted as having said, then you need to bring some evidence of that to the table.
2. "...was a shameless example of a religious zealot..." Huh? I never call either the journalist or the NASA guy a "religious zealot", so I have no idea what you're talking about here.
3. As to the 65-million-year part, it's very interesting that you summarily dismiss me as closed-minded without ever asking me what I MEAN by that statement. Do you know what I meant? How could you possibly know what I meant, for I haven't said what I meant?
So whose mind is "made up"?
4. Since when is the expenditure of time in discussion an indictable offense? Since when should time management become fuel for an ad hominem fire?
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
Jack
I really must commend you on how you handled this exchange.
I don't normally butt in to comment like this when two people are ‘duking it out’ (so to speak), but this was a fine example of the Proverb "The first to present his case seems right, until another comes and refutes him."
Masters
To be a master, one must command the art of science, or command the science of art.
Granger, that's a catchy phrase.
Can you help me to understand how it relates to my post?
Jack
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.c...
Alchemy
It appearsd to me that significate movements in Art were scientific intepretations. For example, if you go to the Modern Museum of Art, you will find a bic lighter on display.. Why is a bic lighter in the NY MMOA?
Because the best art takes technology of the times and makes it work on a number of sensual levels.
Now look at science... what was once science fiction, imagination seen in comic books, comes to life with science.
Great science and art are one in hte same, and this is what makes one a Master.. when the line between what is science and what is art is the same.
I could go into Alchemy, but YouTube has already pulled all the lectures from Harvard and Yale, both offered Alchemy as part of their philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
All I can add is....
NO...
As long as science is not religion
The more of this Science you speak of...the more I may decide that I should reject it. Science lays claim on the emperical and it does it well. The unquestioned science by definition must include too much analysis les it face more questions.
Einstein died not believing in Quantum Physics...
Science is relative, our brain does not allow us to break past this relativity.