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
0 registered (), 254 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 8 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#47239 - 01/01/13 11:37 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Ellis]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: Ellis
That is thoroughly disconcerting stuff rede!

Is it, as it seems to me, important that the 'code' is self-correcting? Would not this mean that the 'code' could therefore be everlasting? Would the correcting process change it's destination, or result? (Plus lots of other questions that I would love to ask if I knew how to frame them! I have virtually no mathematical language being very challenged in that area!)

I probably have therefore got the wrong end of the stick here, but the concept is intriguing, and Dr Gates is a very interesting speaker. I shall have to learn more about this challenging idea.

Such a discovery does open the door to all kinds of speculation. My own first thought was that it might explain why the physical constants are constant. As it happens, it's even more esoteric than M-Theory, and the findings could probably be confirmed by no more than a handful of people in the world.

Originally Posted By: Ellis
P S I really didn't like 'The Matrix' - though I liked the bits of Sydney that were in it! I was astonished to find that some people regard it as a documentary. Should I apologise to them!

I'm with you on that score, Ellis. The Matrix was not my cup of tea, to put it mildly. Cyberpunk is obviously over my head.

_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
.
#47240 - 01/02/13 12:06 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
I do so because trolls only agenda is to disrupt discussion between people which is the only reason I come here so to me they are public enemy number 1.


that does explain a lot , and you must get gratification
by becoming a troll in a discussion?

according to your agreement with Rev K's saying you prefer instant gratification as
evidenced below.

Quote:
"reap as you sow"


the meaning of the above is that
as you are planting a seed you immediately harvest the fruits of your labor.

this could also be described as self gratification , or would you call it something else.

people who love to eat cake , love to work in cake factories.

owners of cake factories who hire people who love to eat cake
don't make as much money by selling cake.

but they have workers that are never hungry , as long as
they are at work.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47242 - 01/02/13 12:43 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Paul you keep trying to make it all about me and I am happy to be whatever you say I am.

I can be a troll orac, I can be aggressive orac, I can be taunting orac, I can be gay orac, I can be instant gratifion orac if you like. I can be all of them at once if it takes your fancy.

I have explained why I act the way I do as honestly as I can. Make of it what you will ... the truth, a lie, a trap an excuse I really do not care what you make of it, it is MY ANSWER AND BELIEF and thats all that matters.

Now do you wish to explain and discuss your belief of why evolution is wrong or are you done and this is just going to become trolling excercise?


Edited by Orac (01/02/13 12:46 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47249 - 01/02/13 02:35 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Yep okay that makes sense to me I see how you are defining it I think. Now the check which yes I put in the form of a statement.


So Tigers and Lions can produce a liger so Tiger and Lion are same "kind"?

I guess I should also check the negative of that so if two animals can't produce an offspring are they necessarilly different "kinds" or are there exceptions to this. So can we have two of a "kind" that can't produce offspring?


horse + donkey = mule or hinny offspring ( all same KIND offspring is a breed or partition )
horse + mule or hinny = no offspring ( same KIND )
donkey + mule or hinny = no offspring ( same KIND )

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask225

Quote:
Why can't mules breed? I understand that a horse and a donkey make a mule but why can't 2 mules have a baby mule?

-A middle school student from Michigan

June 20, 2007

You're right, a horse and a donkey can have kids. A male horse and a female donkey have a hinny. A female horse and a male donkey have a mule.

But hinnies and mules can't have babies of their own. They are sterile because they can't make sperm or eggs.


KIND of amazing that mules and hinnies are both sterile
isn't it?

we know that seed companies do this to plants so that
farmers must now buy the seeds that seed companies produce.

farmers used their own seeds for thousands of years , then
science steps in and the farmers seeds are now worthless , if they can even get a plant to go to seed , thanks
to science.

I believe that what we are seeing today is a result of
our scientist playing the role of wannabe gods , and the Bible told us not to.











_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47250 - 01/02/13 02:49 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I understand what you are saying but it therefore takes me to the conclusion that "kind" has nothing to do with reproduction.

So how do you determine "kinds"?

Wikipedia for example extracts all the animals listed in the bible.

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


So I guess what I am asking you is how do you group them into "kinds" is there a set of rules or something you or perhaps your religion have decided?

It is a little hard to discuss "evolution" if we can't agree on what a "kind" is and means so it is sort of essential I understand how "kinds" are classified.


Edited by Orac (01/02/13 02:53 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47251 - 01/02/13 02:54 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Orac, there is a reason why Paul can eat pork although Mosaic law forbids it. In the new testament it is clearly stated, in the Paul's letter to the Hebrews, that God has made a new covenant with the people. This new covenant means that you can be saved without necessarily following Mosaic law. The difference is that Jesus died for our sins and our acceptance of Jesus lets us bypass those requirements. So failure to follow all of the Mosaic laws, including not eating unclean things, is not a problem.

So many Christians still believe that the Old Testament is a true historical account, but the laws no longer apply. After all Mosaic law is very complicated.

I have heard that one reason that Paul was emphasizing the break with Mosaic law was that he thought the second coming of Christ would be soon, and he felt that he needed to convert as many people as he could, so that they could be saved. Many of the gentiles would not accept the requirements of Mosaic law and so he just bypassed it in his teachings.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#47253 - 01/02/13 03:17 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Genesis Chapter 9

Quote:

1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.

2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all wherewith the ground teemeth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered.

3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be for food for you; as the green herb have I given you all.



http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0109.htm
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47254 - 01/02/13 03:21 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Thank you for that Bill I haven't got to new testament stuff yet and being much more familiar with jewish faith from my homeland it was confusing the hell out of me.

Sigh more reading, I wish religious people could just say simple concise things such as you have explained it would make things alot easier to understand and not offend them.

Okay and that explains why jews and christians have issues the idea of overturning gods direct command beliefs I can see would cause issues.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47255 - 01/02/13 03:26 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul

Genesis Chapter 9


Okay I am confused again .. are you saying you accept genesis is correct but not leviticus Paul?

Those versus are very generic but leviticus is the opposite it is very intricate in detail. I am interested in your view of leviticus because it defines "kind" as the bible uses it in detail because of the unclean issue.

My complaint at the moment Paul is I am taking the time to listen and try and understand your beliefs but 20 posts in and I still don't understand how you are determining "kind" classification. There are no right and wrong here classification is in the eye of the person who is doing the classification.

I was beginning to think you might be saying there really where no "kinds" there was only animals as per those listed in the bible but then you group horse, mule, donkey into a "kind" so there are some groupings going on.


Edited by Orac (01/02/13 04:12 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47257 - 01/02/13 04:23 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Some scholars, especially secular ones, have conjectured that the Jewish concept of "unclean animals" arose out of public health concerns by community leaders, since, in the conditions of the times, some of those animals are indeed more likely to cause food poisoning or transmit diseases to people who consume them.


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

I'm going with the first one , in Genesis.

I don't think God would have made a mistake.

and Moses was using passed down history to compose
the written Word of God.

I'm going to guess that the laws about what the Jewish People
should eat were because of health concerns.



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47258 - 01/02/13 04:44 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Paul is I am taking the time to listen and try and understand your beliefs but 20 posts in and I still don't understand how you are determining "kind" classification.


I have already told you , several times , I'm not sure why you keep asking.

I think a KIND is like a species.

you do understand what a species means in science dont you?

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

I believe that what you are in the process of doing in this
discussion is that you are trying to establish that the Bible
contradicts itself , and you think that if you can establish
that the Bible contradicts itself that will prove to you
that evolution is right.

so instead of science leaning on what science has as any
so called evidence of evolution , science will now begin
to establish evolution's validity through the leaning on of
the words in the Bible.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47260 - 01/02/13 05:49 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul

you do understand what a species means in science dont you?


yes I do because the classification has a clear basis

From your link.

=> The similarity of species is judged based on comparison of physical attributes, especially their DNA sequences, where available

That is the basis for science determination for species and hence horse, donkey and mule are different species because there DNA is different.

All I am asking is what basis do you define species if not above so we can get some common ground to discuss things.


Originally Posted By: paul

I believe that what you are in the process of doing in this
discussion is that you are trying to establish that the Bible
contradicts itself , and you think that if you can establish
that the Bible contradicts itself that will prove to you
that evolution is right.


Incorrect on both counts and especially at a science level.

First if the bible contradicts itself what does it matter? Bill from above explained how there is a deliberate contradiction between old testament and new testament and you are sort of saying you don't accept leviticus and it is not up to me to say what is and isn't correct and I don't.

As I have stated in another post for a start there is more than just genesis versus evolution in this argument. There are other religions such as buddism which has re-incarnation, church of latter day saints where we have pre-existant beings as what humans are now and the nutty factor such as aliens mating with apes creating us.

So even if I could somehow show that genesis was wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt that would not prove evolution. The only proof of evolution possible under science is putting it continually to the test about what it predicts and see if it does it. It will take only one failure of a properly organised test for evolution to fall.

As you have ceased trolling and actually started discussing in a fair and reasonable manner I am being up front and fair and reasonable and I do not intend to make fun of or create any attacks on your religion or beliefs.


Originally Posted By: paul

so instead of science leaning on what science has as any
so called evidence of evolution , science will now begin
to establish evolution's validity through the leaning on of
the words in the Bible.


That is not possible is science and is the basis of good science you can not gain validity in science unless an idea is being rigorously tested.

The reason Intelligent Design can not be taught as science is because it does not allow us to put the central principle under test ... that there is no god. As such the outcome is hence preordained and thus not science.

If science treated evolution as preordained and trying to establish some sort of validity through leaning on the bible it would be no better than Intelligent Design. Your speaker in your video identified some statements from scientists that I would indeed classify as unscientific and they made me cringe as a scientist. I was at least happy that most of the quotes were old 1966, 1960 the newest I remember seeing was 1999.

Thus I can guarantee you that is not an argument I or any true scientist could make that evolution is somehow valid because of any biblical leaning or any other sort of reliance. Science validity can only be determined by testing and putting theories to the test with each new bit of information and data.

I actually liked for example one of the jewish Rabbi's answers which I think is quite a reasonable given his belief

Originally Posted By: Torah MiTzion

Evolution that we can observe and measure with our senses is certainly part of the science curriculum that ought to be encouraged. But to extrapolate backwards in time on the basis of circumstantial evidence to so absurd an extent as to supplant the account of the creation of life given by the Torah with that of unverifiable human speculation is not a question of science but rather a revision of history.[14]



Paul the bottom line is if I ever used the bible in the way you fear please feel free to tell me I am being an unscientific hypocrite as it would be accurate.

However it "appears" your issues with evolution and science have something to do with something literal you believe is in the bible because that is what you said not something I created. If you were a later day saint and told me your leader Joseph Smith decoded some gold plates and it said science was bad, or if you were a Catholic and told me the pope made a decree that science was bad then I would at least understand the basis for the opposition and how your religious authority works.

So all I am trying to work out is who in your religion declared war on science and/or evolution and why. If you simply follow church doctrine then it is pointless me trying to discuss it with you because you have no authority to speak for the religion. Up todate you have sort of answered that it is you and what it says in the bible but I am getting a feeling that may not be true and you may not be a classic fundementalist bible lay preacher/believer.

Out of curiousity I just looked up Rev K's religion to see what it says. It appears to have a synod which makes the decisions but it appears they are not binding on individual ministries saying

Quote:

While General Synod provides the most visible voice of the "stance of the denomination" on any particular issue, the covenantal polity of the denomination means that General Synod speaks to local churches, associations, and conferences, but not for them


Rev K's churches synod view on evolution appears to be

Quote:

We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology."


Although if I read all that correct Rev K would have some latitude to decide for himself.


Edited by Orac (01/02/13 09:38 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47266 - 01/02/13 04:02 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Orac]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Orac


The reason Intelligent Design can not be taught as science is because it does not allow us to put the central principle under test ... that there is no god. As such the outcome is hence preordained and thus not science.

Whether there is or isn't is subject to direct experience. Religion goes on faith. And Religion has their own tests to validate their faith as does science have tests to validate their theory.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli described that from within one’s inner center our psyche seems to move outward, experiencing, influencing, and even creating the physical world through the act of participation. Taking into account the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: one cannot observe a phenomenon without changing or affecting it.
Ergo you draw to you those experiences you desire to create to self validate the personal reality.
This is the essence of God/Consciousness as the central principal. Belief colors it, ego defines it, yet IT is what it is, inclusive of what it becomes thru the determination of personal idealism.
Originally Posted By: Orac

Out of curiousity I just looked up Rev K's religion to see what it says. It appears to have a synod which makes the decisions but it appears they are not binding on individual ministries saying

Quote:

While General Synod provides the most visible voice of the "stance of the denomination" on any particular issue, the covenantal polity of the denomination means that General Synod speaks to local churches, associations, and conferences, but not for them


Rev K's churches synod view on evolution appears to be

Quote:

We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology."


Although if I read all that correct Rev K would have some latitude to decide for himself.

Correct. And that determination is constantly changing thru his need to find a universal and acceptable definition to please all, so as to draw absolute resolve to his self validated reputation and the need for attention.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#47267 - 01/02/13 04:58 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
OK , so you would base any finding's you might find
on evolution strictly on any evidence that evolution can find.

you would not therefore consider or concern yourself
with anything that the Bible has written in it , correct?

so why is it that you are so curious about what the Bible say's?

for that matter why do you continue to insist that any
religion play a role in a discussion about the
validity of evolution.

I was thinking that at some point in time you were
going to somehow prove evolution using the different
versions and translation's found in religious text.

Quote:
So all I am trying to work out is who in your religion declared war on science and/or evolution and why.


the declaration of war was presented when science claimed with
no evidence that Creation was false.

it continues this war without evidence.

so your question is backwards.

the answer to your backwards question is science declared war on religion.

that should answer the who and the why.

who will win this war?

I wouldn't bet on science winning this war.

People just don't like being lied to.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47278 - 01/03/13 12:40 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I guess we are done because I suspect it is as I had started to work out you are a follower of a faith and have no religious authority to discuss these things.

Initially I took you at face value and your views were so radical that you could well be a lay preacher/believer and so my interest in how you were reading the bible was based on what logic you were using to mount a war on science.

Most religious authorities publish a short statement basically identifying why they take a particular stance on evolution.

For its part science didn't declare a war on religion it doesn't even care about religion or god or even if they exist or not.

The fact is mans development and advancement through the ages has been done by science, religion has controlled its morality. With our ever growing population and considerable challenges we will face in the years ahead only science will be able to feed,cloth and water the ever increasing population unless your god has a plan he has shared with you.

I guess the alternative is you don't have to worry about all that because we all die in the second coming which is what due soon?

The biggest irony is you using the computer as a medium to mount a war on science ... it really should be a placard in the street you know smile

Anyhow good luck with your war and convincing billions of people to trust you to solve the problems they are facing in the near future, I wish you well.

Yours would actually be the first religion I have heard of that is going to do the feed the masses fish and bread miracle every day in the future after first crushing science smile


Edited by Orac (01/03/13 12:59 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47281 - 01/03/13 02:19 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
we wouldn't want you to tell thing's as you see them that's for
sure , LOL.

I don't think too many people would give a rats ass if we
didn't teach evolution in school's.

Quote:
I guess we are done


sounds about right.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47282 - 01/03/13 02:41 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
My only final serious comment would be.

You and your beliefs go to war over merely teaching that genesis may be wrong you would obviously really go to actual war on other religions and beliefs like has been done throughout mans history.

Therefore to me you represent everything that is wrong and struggle with in accepting religion in one place and one set of beliefs.

Your beliefs are what start real wars and kill real people and to me it is the worst of humanity and could not be anything to do with a god if there was one.


Edited by Orac (01/03/13 02:42 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47285 - 01/03/13 06:23 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
you really never did understand what I said.

science started the war , now your going to blame religions
for what science starts , I believe that science along with their crony courts systems buddies need to butt out of religion.

and quit acting like they know everything because
they don't.

now don't go crying about it if evolution is removed from
the biology book's , after all that would be much better than
starting a real war.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#47288 - 01/03/13 08:33 AM Re: Creationists and People [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
What in the world got you so bitter and twisted?

You hate science and education, did a child leave the faith is this what this is all about?

Really your war is very one sided ... science, courts , politics and most other religions have already ruled and decided and left the battleground you are about 40 years to late Paul.

All I can do is try to be kind and hope time will heal your problems. I shall interact with you as minimally as I can going forward.


Edited by Orac (01/03/13 08:36 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47290 - 01/03/13 02:37 PM Re: Creationists and People [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
You hate science and education


on the contrary orac.

if I hated science and education , I would simply say nothing
about the flaws that I find in science and education.

in fact I would be tickled pink that they are becoming
what they are becoming and doing what they do to society.

and I would defend science as it spouts lies and sets the stage
for the intentional murder of billions of people.

but that would be like becoming like you guys on sagg that
don't really care about science or education or people.

even your thinking is backwards.





_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
Page 8 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

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

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