Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Not to worry. I have a list myself. Virtual particles, neutrino oscillations, dark matter, dark energy, not knowing the last digit of Pi.

But they are not magic.
They are just as-yet unexplained to my satisfaction.
your right none of these are magic. they are science. wiether or not they are explained to your satisfaction or not, they are still explained, or at least known of.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
In the course of events DA challenges us:


posted July 06, 2006 01:38

dehammer wrote:
"but there is more to this universe than can be explained by our science"

"Name a single thing of which you are aware that is beyond the reach of science to explain: Be specific."
DA Morgan

One suggested science stumbler:

"Science can not explain why men have nipples"
amoung other things.
jjw

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw004:
"Science can not explain why men have nipples"
amoung other things.
jjw
Sorry Jim, it probably can.

"Extreme stress combined with demanding physical activity and a shortage of food has also been known to cause male lactation. The phenomenon was first studied in survivors of the liberated Nazi concentration camps after World War II. Some American POWs returning from the Korean and Vietnam Wars also experienced male lactation.
The phenomenon of male lactation occurs in some non-human species, and the lactating males may assist in the nursing of their infants. One species of fruit bat, the Dayak fruit bat (Dyacopterus spadiceus), is notable for this reason. According to several sources, male lactation and even nursing have occasionally been observed in humans."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation

Blacknad.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi Blacknad:

You are correct. I used that same argument in response to DA in another post where he was blaming somebodies god for the unnecessary equipment. Your data is much more specific. All I relied on was "believe it or not?".

The point is that DA has always argued as if it could only be god's error to give man nipples- hence science can not explain it. You are giving him an out of his quandry, but well done.

That still leaves open the issue of WHY? The fact that they may work at times is not proof that working nipples had an intended use for men.
jjw

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Evolution has no problem explaining why male mammals have nipples.

Biblical creation has no way to explain it.

And if every they do come up with some nonsense explanation ... we can always discuss a number of human organs that perform no function ... and numerous other examples.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Biblical creation has no way to explain it.
Only if you believe in literal 6 day creation. Most Christians I know are firmly in the theistic evolution camp.

Blacknad.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
On a scientific forum the most important factor for credibility is consistency.

DA you shock me:

"Evolution has no problem explaining why male mammals have nipples.

Biblical creation has no way to explain it."

You have been blaming gods errors for mans nipples and now you say that "religion" can not explain but science can. That is so disjointed that it is unworthy of any of us; even when we are less than sober!
Do you want a replay of your posted arguements?
Very entertaining.
jjw

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Evolution can easily explain why a plant or animal might contain vestiges of earlier development.

"phylogeny capitulates ontogeny"

On the other hand if one believes in a Judeo-Christian-Islamic god one is left trying to explain away mistakes and errors in judgement.

Only a moron would have created human females with a biology leading to an extraordinarily high incidence of death during childbirth.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw004:
That still leaves open the issue of WHY? The fact that they may work at times is not proof that working nipples had an intended use for men.
jjw
actually it does. in early evolution, any tiny thing that would give one species an advantage aided that species in becoming dominate. in early species that did not have it possible for both male and female to nurse the young were at a disadvantage when food was short, which was frequent. likely most species that did not have that advantage died out early, so all the ancestors of todays animals, including the human body, have that advantage.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Evolution has no problem explaining why male mammals have nipples.

Biblical creation has no way to explain it.

And if every they do come up with some nonsense explanation ... we can always discuss a number of human organs that perform no function ... and numerous other examples.
biblical creation cant explain dinasour bones being so old, but does that have anything to do with reality? most people that believe in the bible dont believe that the timing of the book is an exact time, only the hardcore fundimentalist do. fortuantely most other religions dont have a problem with the timing.

Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Only a moron would have created human females with a biology leading to an extraordinarily high incidence of death during childbirth.
IF you believe the bible, you would beleive that the high incidences of death during childbirth, and the various diseases are not the result of gods designs, but of eve's biting the apple of knowledge, then sharing it with adam. THEY (the christians) already have that question answered for them.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Either the bible is the word of god and fact based or it is a fabrication created by falliable humans. You can't have it both ways just because it is convenient and allows you to dodge the implications.

The timing problem exists in all Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology. You either demand the creation of the universe in six days or you say it is untrue. Leaving open the possibility that every other word, too, is untrue.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
roflol. ever heard of parables. the bible is full of them. parables are the word too, just no one expects them to be varifyable facts. many people believe the story of creation was a parable.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
The timing problem exists in all Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology. You either demand the creation of the universe in six days or you say it is untrue. Leaving open the possibility that every other word, too, is untrue.
I am not going to get drawn into lengthy religious arguments but this is simply untrue.

In the 'Out of Africa...' post you said:

Quote:
DA Morgan wrote - "Fascinating really. Astronomers, biologists, physicists, and mathematicians don't teach scripture. But for 25 pence every clergyman on the planet feels qualified to discuss evolution and physics."
And now for 25 pence we have a scientist who feels qualified to discuss what is or isn't allegory in scripture - despite having no real knowledge of ancient literary conventions.

Blacknad.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Yes dehammer I've heard of parables. Ever hear of lies?

Blacknad I am not discussing scripture. I dismiss it as the contrived invention of humans. My point is simply this:

Science:
It either is, as advertised, a useful tool of explaining and predicting the behaviour of natural systems (galaxies to protons) or it is a crock.

Religion:
It is either, as advertised, the divinely inspired word of god or it is a crock.

The standard is the same. I am putting your feet to the fire and saying hypocrisy is hypocrisy. You are holding science to one standard while excusing two thousand years of historical reality.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
science is about improving the body and the world.

religion is about improving the soul.

science has to work only on facts that are known and proven, and theories based on those facts.

religion is not about facts, it about beliefs. beliefs cant be proven. they have to be accepted. that also include parable, which are stories to teach a lesson. the lesson of the creation is that something created the universe, which the bible calls god. by teaching that, it can later teach that god is omnimpotent. how can god be omnipotent if he did not create the universe.

the thing is, as you point out, its the inspired word. meaning that it was actually written by a man based on what he understood of gods word. try to explain the big bang to someone 500 year bc. if they got it visually, it would be written precisely like the bible was. According to one theory, genesis was written over 7 days. which is how the description of it taking 7 days to make the earth came about. If god had given the present scientific understanding of the creation to someone as scientifically backwords as a sheperd of moses's time and then was directed to explain it in his own words, do you really think he would use scientifically precise words?


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
"science is about improving the body and the world."

That is a crock. Technology perhaps: But no serious scientist would sign onto such nonsense. One does not study the spectra of supernovae to improve either.

The rest of what you posted is of equal value.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
either you must not know a lot of scientists or there are not many scientist that you would consider serious scientist. studying the skys, as well as almost every other science (i cant think of any that dont), leads to better understanding of earth. few sciences dont aid our understanding of our planet, or ourselfs. If nothing else, it helps us to understand why we have a drive to go there. why else would they study photos hours on end, knowing that few would ever know what they are doing, and even fewer would understand if they did.

as far as the rest, thank you for noticing how valueable it is.

of course since you did not write it, you dont believe it has any value at all. no one but you can write any truths, :rolleyes: can they?


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
<SARCASM>
You are correct, of course, dehammer. There are no scientists at the University of Washington. Or at Stanford. Or at Cal Berkeley. Or at Argonne National Laboratory. Or at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Or at Batelle.
</SARCASM>

Here's your gold star.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
<sarcasm>
of course your right. none of those scientist have even the slight desire to aid humanity. </sarcasm>

i happen to have met a few of the ones that were at LLNL many years ago. The program i was in at tsti went there to find out somethings about their work with lasers. IF you really believe that those people had no interest in aiding humanity, they you really are as.... im not going down that line. Lets just say you have no idea of what your talking about when you claim they are not trying to improve the world. If you really believe that then i guess there really arent any real scientist in the university of washington for you to have met. Otherwise you would know better. im glad i live in the real world instead of your dark and lifeless one.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I have personal knowledge of what some of those scientists are thinking as I've been to all of them in the last year.

What I have no knowledge or evidence of is whether you are.

Read a book.
Post a reference.
Support a statement.


DA Morgan
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5