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 7 of 20 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 19 20
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
"The material things of finite creation are the time-space repercussions of the Universal Pattern and the Universal Mind of the eternal God."

Nothing in that post has any relation to science. Assertions are not facts.


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein,



Science
Sci"ence\, n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis, p. pr. of scire to know. Cf. Conscience, Conscious, Nice.]

1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.

If we conceive God's sight or science, before the creation, to be extended to all and every part of the world, seeing everything as it is, . . . his science or sight from all eternity lays no necessity on anything to come to pass. --Hammond.

Shakespeare's deep and accurate science in mental philosophy. --Coleridge.

2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge.

All this new science that men lere [teach]. --Chaucer.

Science is . . . a complement of cognitions, having, in point of form, the character of logical perfection, and in point of matter, the character of real truth. --Sir W. Hamilton.

3. Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living tissues, etc.; -- called also natural science, and physical science.

Voltaire hardly left a single corner of the field entirely unexplored in science, poetry, history, philosophy. --J. Morley.

4. Any branch or department of systematized knowledge considered as a distinct field of investigation or object of study; as, the science of astronomy, of chemistry, or of mind.

Note: The ancients reckoned seven sciences, namely, grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy; -- the first three being included in the Trivium, the remaining four in the Quadrivium.

Good sense, which only is the gift of Heaven, And though no science, fairly worth the seven. --Pope.

5. Art, skill, or expertness, regarded as the result of knowledge of laws and principles.

His science, coolness, and great strength. --G. A. Lawrence.

Note: Science is applied or pure. Applied science is a knowledge of facts, events, or phenomena, as explained, accounted for, or produced, by means of powers, causes, or laws. Pure science is the knowledge of these powers, causes, or laws, considered apart, or as pure from all applications. Both these terms have a similar and special signification when applied to the science of quantity; as, the applied and pure mathematics. Exact science is knowledge so systematized that prediction and verification, by measurement, experiment, observation, etc., are possible. The mathematical and physical sciences are called the exact sciences.

Comparative sciences, Inductive sciences. See under Comparative, and Inductive.

Syn: Literature; art; knowledge.

Usage: Science, Literature, Art. Science is literally knowledge, but more usually denotes a systematic and orderly arrangement of knowledge. In a more distinctive sense, science embraces those branches of knowledge of which the subject-matter is either ultimate principles, or facts as explained by principles or laws thus arranged in natural order. The term literature sometimes denotes all compositions not embraced under science, but usually confined to the belles-lettres. [See Literature.] Art is that which depends on practice and skill in performance. "In science, scimus ut sciamus; in art, scimus ut producamus. And, therefore, science and art may be said to be investigations of truth; but one, science, inquires for the sake of knowledge; the other, art, for the sake of production; and hence science is more concerned with the higher truths, art with the lower; and science never is engaged, as art is, in productive application. And the most perfect state of science, therefore, will be the most high and accurate inquiry; the perfection of art will be the most apt and efficient system of rules; art always throwing itself into the form of rules." --Karslake.

Science
Sci"ence\, v. t. To cause to become versed in science; to make skilled; to instruct. [R.] --Francis.

The Science of Yoga or Union is the Science of Self Awareness and the study of spirit as the source of all relative reality. Historically it is over 5000 years old practiced and studied by those not exclusively restricted to facts of belief and the study of relative values. Outside of known historic records the Science of Yoga predates human history.

Science has everything to do with knowledge but unfortunately belief divides knowledge into categories of acceptance democratically idealized by trends in perception.

One mans God is another mans superstition and fantasy.
One mans science is a box based on ideals and belief.
Religion then becomes both scientific and spiritual when limited by the mind of human perception in belief and opinion.

.
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
"Religion then becomes both scientific and spiritual when limited by the mind of human perception in belief and opinion. "
More nonsense.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
People reject evolution for one reason - they have a comic book understanding of what science is and how it works, as well as a "knowledge" of evolution that amounts to nothing more than barber-shop gossip. This makes it impossible for them to understand distinguish science from urban legend.

Science has proven itself by far to be the most reliable method for generating useful knowledge about the physical universe. On the one hand it kinda sucks to be an obscurantist. Real science has made obscurantism unappealing. But since most people are too lazy to learn real science, the obscurantists can still afford to quit their day jobs.

Any time scientists can't explain something right away, the obscurantists pounce in with their read-made "explanation." The average population accepts the benefits of science, but rejects it's methods. They are suspicious of science, largely because they don't understand it. It all seems so mysterious to them. As Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." To many people, even very simple and well-understood science might as well be magic.

The obscurantists feed off this ignorance and do everything they can to cultivate it - and they do this in several ways. On the one hand, they point out all the short-comings of "science:"

Science can't answer the 'really important questions.'
Science is materialistic!
Science produces suffering and holocausts!
Science makes people arrogant!

On the other hand, realizing not everyone is going to find this a convincing argument to reject science in favor of the obscure fad of the week, many obscurantists then go about cloaking their own psuedo-scientific opinions in the jargon of science. Advertisers do this a lot. They don't necessarily have to lie; it is sufficient merely to be misleading. Modern day snake-oil salesmen know that that adding words like "scientifically proven" or "space age" or "energy" or "force" to a hard sell will fool a lot of people - especially if they can convince themselves that it's true.

Etymology suggests that science encompasses all knowledge. But many words don't mean (either in denotation or connotation) what their etymologies suggest. Some words have definitions that contradict each other - 'cleave' and 'sanction' for example.

The word 'science' is laden with multiple definitions - and while they are all correct, they are not all related to the activity associated with nuclear physics, advanced medicine, or biochemistry. Obscurantists thrive on the ambiguity. It might be good if people were required to say which version of science they mean when they're talking: Science-1 or Science-2 or Science-N.

Modern science has the de facto status of an Underwriters Lab. But for that to be a useful to society, society needs to learn which version of science is "underwriting" a particular claim.



Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
or maybe its just that its too hard to believe that life came from lifeless matter !!

Did we evolve from rocks?

because if evolution is true then we must have evolved from rocks!

I have heard of people who had pet rocks in the 70's but they were not living - biological creatures , they were just rocks.

its not too hard to see why people dont just allow their minds to be polluted with nonsence such as evolution...

what you call evolution is nothing but adaptation to the environment , and how can the so called evolution claim to
have brought about life from non life?

.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
Your argument is even more rediculous when you consider that even a frothy mouthed, holy-rolling hell-on-wheels knows we came from rocks. The bible describes god shaping man of clay then breathed life into him. When you are buried, the words: "Earth to Earth, dust to dust." are said over your carcass. What is clay, earth and dust? It's dirt. What is dirt? It's rock... broken down to dirt.

If you can't get your head around that, you better tell the preacher, before you kick the bucket, to change his words consigning your body back to the dirt from whence it came. Obviously god didn't breath quite hard enough on your head. It's still full of clay.


When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Originally Posted By: paul
or maybe its just that its too hard to believe that life came from lifeless matter !!

Did we evolve from rocks?

because if evolution is true then we must have evolved from rocks!

its not too hard to see why people dont just allow their minds to be polluted with nonsence such as evolution...

No theory of abiogenesis says that we evolved from rocks. That's comic book science.

Originally Posted By: paul

what you call evolution is nothing but adaptation to the environment , and how can the so called evolution claim to
have brought about life from non life?


Evolution is not a theory that explains how life came form non-life. More comic book science. No theory of science explains everything. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWMIkp8udPg
No theory of science needs to. Evolutionary theory explains one thing: the diversity of life. That's it. Real science is not constrained by the limits of comic book science.



Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Cosmological undirected evolution is disproved by the improbability of the 4 forces being present right after the big bang. How can you realistically reject what I say?"

Dear God! Can you learn to use the quote function correctly? We don't have any idea what the probabilities are. Made up numbers are not real science. This has nothing to do with evolution, though. That fantasy is just more creationist misrepresentation.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Originally Posted By: Iztaci
It's dirt. What is dirt? It's rock... broken down to dirt.

I'm not sure I agree with that ... but it's a very interesting point.

Last edited by TheFallibleFiend; 01/01/09 08:30 AM.
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Originally Posted By: Iztaci
It's dirt. What is dirt? It's rock... broken down to dirt.

I'm not sure I agree with that ... but it's a very interesting point.


Well, when you decide to beg a question, you do it with panache. Maybe I am wrong and dirt is that stuff between the pages of Hustler Magazine... or the technique used in the auctioning off of Senate seats. Maybe it's the soft talk in the backseat after the prom? To me it's the combination of minerals abraded from rocks and the oganics that accumilate through composting of dead biota. Organics had to have had somewhere to grow before it could ever combine and that stuff was silt.

Silt ain't dirt? What's your dirt, FallibleFiend? There's plenty of metaphor out there. Take your pick. Let's see if you can make the word scientific. It's not very, ya know. It's actually pre-Dolby tape-hiss. That's about as sciencey as it gets, methinks. confused


When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
America doesn't believe in Evolution because it doesn't have to.

Simple. It's even a part of their founding philosophy, that no one has the right to kerb one's freedom of speech. Or some such. (wasn't really paying attention during Hollywood crime movie night)

Evolution is as possible as Creationism in the realm of American Law. It may be an injustice, but it is still the law. The nature of the answer will be in legal jargon, not science or religion.

I cant believe that most posts here have missed this point and gone straight for the throat of their opposition viewpoint.

I am not religious, I am not a scientist but at least I am grounded enough to ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 9
A
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 9
I like this site so much I thought I'd register. my post as above:


America doesn't believe in Evolution because it doesn't have to.

Simple. It's even a part of their founding philosophy, that no one has the right to kerb one's freedom of speech. Or some such. (wasn't really paying attention during Hollywood crime movie night)

Evolution is as possible as Creationism in the realm of American Law. It may be an injustice, but it is still the law. The nature of the answer will be in legal jargon, not science or religion.

I cant believe that most posts here have missed this point and gone straight for the throat of their opposition viewpoint.

I am not religious, I am not a scientist but at least I am grounded enough to ANSWER THE QUESTION.


I'd bat for Religion if only the little tykes could form an 'Allstar' team.
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
Originally Posted By: aD2Lxo4
I like this site so much I thought I'd register. my post as above:


America doesn't believe in Evolution because it doesn't have to.

Simple. It's even a part of their founding philosophy, that no one has the right to kerb one's freedom of speech. Or some such. (wasn't really paying attention during Hollywood crime movie night)


Evolution is as possible as Creationism in the realm of American Law. It may be an injustice, but it is still the law. The nature of the answer will be in legal jargon, not science or religion.

I cant believe that most posts here have missed this point and gone straight for the throat of their opposition viewpoint.

I am not religious, I am not a scientist but at least I am grounded enough to ANSWER THE QUESTION.



Speaking from the scientific POV, I don't care diddly for your "nature of the law" bologna. If you are implying that the law side is more natural, you're all wet regardless of how grounded you think you are. Jurisprudence, American or any other, ain't even in this MP4. The prevailing "law" declared Galileo to be in violation of natural law. As you should know, being so grounded, that ultimately didn't pan out so well for the Pope's veracity.

"America doesn't believe in Evolution because it doesn't have to."

No human has ever "had" to believe in anything. They merely had to profess they believed or did not believe to escape the stake, as Galileo did when he decided he wanted to live.

And... what the hell is a kerb?


When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Quote:
America doesn't believe in Evolution because it doesn't have to.

Since I'm an American I guess I can speak for America. We as America believe in both Evolution and Creationism. We believe in alot of things and we also don't believe. So as long as this is the era of blanket statements, make mine nebulous.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Since I am not an American I can speak for all the rest of us!! You state that 'America' (by which I presume you mean the United States thereof, and not the countries to the north and south who also inhabit that part of the world known as America) believes in both Evolution and Creation. And here is where it all gets a bit complicated. You see I 'believe' in neither, and this is where the crucial aspect of 'America's' belief system impinges on scientific fact.

In order to 'believe in Creation' it is necessary to believe in God, or at least a supernatural being who made heaven and earth, or if you are more trendy designed the Universe. Every society in the ancient world had its creation myth and the one that is cherished by those who 'believe in Creation' is the myth of the early Jewish civilisation, via Ancient Egyptian texts-- and bit of general middle eastern legends thrown in too. The thing is that in the US more people believe that this myth really is the way life began than most people in the rest of the world. This difference is, in my opinion, due to the fact that religion and church generally is still important in a way that it is not in for eg, in my country, where politicans are unafraid to affirm an oath of office instead of swearing on a holy text. They do this without fear of offence.

To get back to Evolution. No one 'believes' in Evolution. It maybe that people believe in the ability of the idea to encompass much of the previously unknown facts of life's origin has been sustained, and it is able to absorb the new discoveries without having to invent flights of fancy to explain new discoveries. Until a better theory comes along, this one is doing fine. But it is not a 'belief'. A true belief requires faith, but not necessarily truth.

So some of 'America' does believe in Creation, but some others accept the Theory of Evolution as being a more empirical truth.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Quote:
You state that 'America' (by which I presume you mean the United States thereof, and not the countries to the north and south who also inhabit that part of the world known as America)
America is America North and South.
Quote:
In order to 'believe in Creation' it is necessary to believe in God, or at least a supernatural being who made heaven and earth, or if you are more trendy designed the Universe.

In order to believe in creation one must believe something is created rather than just an accident or comes about haphazard and randomly.
Quote:
The thing is that in the US more people believe that this myth really is the way life began than most people in the rest of the world.
You took a survey or you believe someone has?
Can I interest you in a bridge?
Quote:
To get back to Evolution. No one 'believes' in Evolution.

I do?!!!!??? I think.
Quote:
Until a better theory comes along, this one is doing fine. But it is not a 'belief'. A true belief requires faith, but not necessarily truth.
Theoretically speaking of course.
Quote:
So some of 'America' does believe in Creation, but some others accept the Theory of Evolution as being a more empirical truth.
Theoretically...

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
Originally Posted By: Anonymous
Quote:
America doesn't believe in Evolution because it doesn't have to.

Since I'm an American I guess I can speak for America. We as America believe in both Evolution and Creationism. We believe in alot of things and we also don't believe. So as long as this is the era of blanket statements, make mine nebulous.


I'm an American. I'm a tenth generation American, with an Honorable Discharge, a consistent voting record, no police record, and no tax evasions.

And... YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME. No one does, ever has, or ever will, without my express consent, which you do not have. If you think you can speak for all Americans, you need to get in touch with the Spirit of the word American. Any statement to the effect of you speaking for America is not only oxymoronic but ultimately UN-American.


When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Quote:

I'm an American. I'm a tenth generation American, with an Honorable Discharge, a consistent voting record, no police record, and no tax evasions.

That doesn't give you any more privelage in making a determination regarding American principles and beliefs than any one else does it.?
Quote:
And... YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME. No one does, ever has, or ever will, without my express consent, which you do not have.
So much for any survey regarding beliefs of Americans eh?
Quote:
Any statement to the effect of you speaking for America is not only oxymoronic but ultimately UN-American.

Which is why this topic is fallacious.
By the way do you believe it is American for the President of the U.S. to speak in representation for all Americans?

Perhaps the evolution of America is to return to a government for the people and of the people. Rather than world policy based on fallacious surveys regarding American beliefs and ideals, and the comparisons of foreign ideals in contrast setting any man, or country against another.

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
Anonymous:

That doesn't give you any more privelage in making a determination regarding American principles and beliefs than any one else does it.?
It gives me precisely the right I expressed. To speak for myself. Where the rest of that statement came from, I suspect, is from a place I wouldn't want to see. American principles? What is more American than speaking for one's self?

So much for any survey regarding beliefs of Americans eh?
You're trying to cover waaay too much ground with this nonsense statement. Polls? Polls?

By the way do you believe it is American for the President of the U.S. to speak in representation for all Americans?
You are an American and you are not aware that in the act of voting for a president, you are authorizing him/her to speak for you? You need to deflate yourself a little. I'm not arguing with the president. I'm arguing some guy who thinks he can speak for me. If you are the president, let's see your seal.


When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
It gives me precisely the right I expressed. To speak for myself. Where the rest of that statement came from, I suspect, is from a place I wouldn't want to see. American principles? What is more American than speaking for one's self? Everyone has the right to express ones personal opinion, belief and experience. The point I was making is that when one assumes something that is not their direct experience, or makes the assumption that all of America believes in something, and then compares that with the rest of the world it can only be reduced to personal opinion rather than assumed to be truth in reality.

You're trying to cover waaay too much ground with this nonsense statement. Polls? Polls?
No the subject or topic covers way too much ground and is a statement of nonsense.
Hence those who wish to engage in the subject as if it were real are being nonsensical.


You are an American and you are not aware that in the act of voting for a president, you are authorizing him/her to speak for you? You need to deflate yourself a little. I'm not arguing with the president. I'm arguing some guy who thinks he can speak for me. If you are the president, let's see your seal.
Whether I voted for the President or not does not give the president the ability to assume my thoughts or beliefs. It might give him or her the right to uphold the laws maintaining the freedom of my rights or beliefs.
As it is, the current trend to assume the will of the people is in accord with special interests to loan the corporations money to maintain corporate status, retirement funds and company bonuses for failing companies who make bad business decisions is not something I lend to any politician in America.

If you do, I don't consdider you an American in an America described by the Constitution of the United States, but more along the lines of an American described by radical extremists of foreign countries who describe Americans as fat lazy and out of touch with global events.
You wouldn't be a regular at the Waffle house would you?

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
Originally Posted By: Anonymous
It gives me precisely the right I expressed. To speak for myself. Where the rest of that statement came from, I suspect, is from a place I wouldn't want to see. American principles? What is more American than speaking for one's self? Everyone has the right to express ones personal opinion, belief and experience. The point I was making is that when one assumes something that is not their direct experience, or makes the assumption that all of America believes in something, and then compares that with the rest of the world it can only be reduced to personal opinion rather than assumed to be truth in reality.

You're trying to cover waaay too much ground with this nonsense statement. Polls? Polls?
No the subject or topic covers way too much ground and is a statement of nonsense.
Hence those who wish to engage in the subject as if it were real are being nonsensical.


You are an American and you are not aware that in the act of voting for a president, you are authorizing him/her to speak for you? You need to deflate yourself a little. I'm not arguing with the president. I'm arguing some guy who thinks he can speak for me. If you are the president, let's see your seal.
Whether I voted for the President or not does not give the president the ability to assume my thoughts or beliefs. It might give him or her the right to uphold the laws maintaining the freedom of my rights or beliefs.
As it is, the current trend to assume the will of the people is in accord with special interests to loan the corporations money to maintain corporate status, retirement funds and company bonuses for failing companies who make bad business decisions is not something I lend to any politician in America.

If you do, I don't consdider you an American in an America described by the Constitution of the United States, but more along the lines of an American described by radical extremists of foreign countries who describe Americans as fat lazy and out of touch with global events.
You wouldn't be a regular at the Waffle house would you?


This is crazy. You're all over the place, backpedaling and craw fishing. You're even contradicting yourself. First you presume to speak for America and now you're saying that even the duly elected president can't speak for you.

The nearest Waffle House is at least 500 mile from my house. But were it nearby, I might just have me some nice greasy pork chops and eggs for breakfast. Do you have an insipid stereotype you need to insert into all your crap to make you feel better? Shoot'em up, genius. You badly need some cheap ad hominem here to deflect attention from your pitiful attempts at logic.


When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman
Page 7 of 20 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 19 20

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