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 (), 56 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
you may not respond , but you will read this. LOL


Quote:
Therefore your belief in creation is directly taken from the book of Genesis in the bible.


not hardly Bill , I used to think that science was right
about creation not being an option for the reason there is life.

during that time period of my life the information that
I had on creation was slight if any and was purely based on
faith.

in other words I questioned what was said in the Bible
about creation.

then , I started thinking about it from a logical viewpoint
and logic is what changed my mind about questioning what is said in the Bible about creation.

logic tells me that the only logical reason there is life
is because of intelligent creation.

Quote:
Therefore it is a religious belief, not a scientific belief, since it has no basis in any observations.


I had no way to test creation.

so I based my study on the possibility of the elements gathering together
and forming a complete life form in the absence of life
all by themselves and with no direction or mechanism of
mobility or intelligence to guide and instruct each
individual atom on its precise location and function
in the life form.

logic flat out told me that it is not possible to
pile atoms up in a big pile in any arrangement that
could suddenly come to life.

Quote:
Therefore it is a religious belief, not a scientific belief, since it has no basis in any observations.


what basis in any observation does science have that
causes science to believe that life developed?

has science observed life developing from non life?

can I ask my barn to paint itself red?

would it ever get painted if I wait for it to paint itself red?

wouldnt I have to buy the paint and the paintbrushes for my barn?

or should my barn create the paint and paint brushes?

first it will need a mind and really long arms to paint with.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Orac
I am sorry TT like most of your posts it comes across to me as mindless waffle.
Oh I'll bet you're not really sorry at all.
Originally Posted By: Orac

To show you what I mean I was dealing with the fact you have to have a reference point for any observation and you respond with this

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
True objectivity doesn't give more or less to anything but rather notes the outcomes following certain choices that are repeated over and over again with the same results, regardless of any changes in the political, or religious climate over several hundred years (inclusive of certain immutable standards).

At best I can guess that was dealing with the direction thing which is actually secondary to the main issue. You have outcomes you so you are measuring so you had to have a reference point IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE OUTCOMES OTHERWISE.
Let's look at the idea, that the observer affects the outcome. If that is true, then what is being measured is not the outcome but the nature of the observer, and what the outcome becomes according to the observer.
Originally Posted By: Orac

You can try and dance around the word measure and talk about noting, recording, monitoring, scrutiny, examination use whatever word you like it has to have a reference if it doesn't you can't observe and can't have outcomes.

Objectivity is about looking at something without placing preconceived ideas upon that which is observed.

Take ten people who witness an accident, and not all of them see the same thing. It is not the accident that creates the differing observations, but rather the subjective programs of the individuals in affecting how they look upon the incident and make their own relative measurements.
Originally Posted By: Orac

Lets leave the directionality aside the issue is with the reference on morality. Hitler for example may have considered himself to be a very moral man because he was good to his dog and that is how he rates morality, I have no idea how Hitler saw his morality but we judge him based on our morality as being evil.

There is no universal rating on morality it is very much a point of reference issue and as I said as far as I know all religions have a point of reference for it and for example for christian it is 10 commandments and then the church may add some other thoughts in on top, I know for example Rev K would go big on love etc.

You can sit there and make your millions of objective observations (yawn) and now you have to put a spot somewhere on those observations and say that there is the most moral and that is my reference point.

That is what you would expect of all those that take a position relative to a standard.
When it comes to objectivity and morality, the universe doesn't take a position, rather it supports all positions.
Based on the idea and experience of expansion within the universe and evolution, religion and science agrees expansion means that everything is moving into greater or evolving conditions relative to what science and religion give meaning to as a beginning.
Morality is relative to levels of consciousness, in that greater awareness or expanded awareness (enlightenment) leads to greater intelligence and understanding of universal law in principle.
Originally Posted By: Orac

So the question being asked directly to you is what is your point of reference of judging morality.

Observation of differing levels of conscious awareness exemplifies superior intellect and expanded moral understanding based on universal principles. Point of reference is Universal mind.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
So how do you reconcile the above pile of waffle which almost says you don't make judgements with this judgement you passed

Originally Posted By: TT
I suppose it might begin (since this is a science forum) with some or any communication, with one of those greedy, non caring scientists, in hopes of finding a sliver of humanity in them. Then, they (the scientists) might grow a pair and rise above the sock puppet, take it up the behind from the governments, corporations and military ass jammers mentality, and begin to live their lives like they were part of humanity rather than outside of it.


Look pretty much like a judgement based on a moral reference point to me or maybe you have split personality issues. Perhaps you would like to go thru the in depth observations and thinking that went into those judgements smile

I know the Dalai Lama does not like to make judgement at all and even he concedes you must make some and he tries to keep it to the bare minimum.

So perhaps a more simple question for you what is you view on the morality of Hitler?

Last edited by Orac; 05/22/14 03:50 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Orac
So how do you reconcile the above pile of waffle with this judgement you passed

Originally Posted By: TT
I suppose it might begin (since this is a science forum) with some or any communication, with one of those greedy, non caring scientists, in hopes of finding a sliver of humanity in them. Then, they (the scientists) might grow a pair and rise above the sock puppet, take it up the behind from the governments, corporations and military ass jammers mentality, and begin to live their lives like they were part of humanity rather than outside of it.


Look pretty much like a judgement based on a moral reference point to me or maybe you have split personality issues smile

Perhaps a more simple question for you what is you view on the morality of Hitler?

No judgements.. Just referencing what you wrote and put into terms you are familiar with.

If you want to get into more of a discussion regarding the above, we can begin to analyze the statements you made based on value systems of your choice, yours, what you think are mine and what you think are those of others.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
No judgements.. Just referencing what you wrote and put into terms you are familiar with.

If you want to get into more of a discussion regarding the above, we can begin to analyze the statements you made based on value systems of your choice, yours, what you think are mine and what you think are those of others.


ROFL sure and so it's not a judgement because you declare it not to be, yep you have cemented what I thought smile

That was almost as funny as trapping Paul into having to put his belief in GOD on the line.

Last edited by Orac; 05/22/14 04:06 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Bill, You tell us,
Quote:
Since Paul indicated that he believes in creationism I thought I would start a thread here about the difference between scientific belief and religious belief....
Thanks for posting this thread with your comments to Paul about creationism. Paul, have you read about the following idea: EMANATIONISM? It bridges the gap between the creationism and evolution!
Quote:
... Religious belief is based on the principle that there is an all powerful God (or Gods) who determines how the universe works. This God intervenes in the operation of the universe, rather than allowing it to operate under a set of unalterable rules.
You describe traditional theism with its omni-everything Lord-and-Master kind of personal God with dimensions--not for me. May I ask Paul: Where was God, before the so called BIG bang?
Quote:
The knowledge of this God is presented to humanity in the form of revelations to certain people (prophets) who then pass the information on to everybody else.
The Prophets do not all agree with one another.
Quote:
The word of these prophets is the final word on any question concerning God or on how the universe works.
For example, the prophet Isaiah (chapter 13) advocated holy wars against all Gentiles. God is presented as a god of war and revenge, over and over again.
Quote:
Religious beliefs are not subject to change over time, because they are considered to be the direct word of God.
Jesus sure changed many of the old teachings. So did Paul. The Bible has several kinds of gods. Read what Jesus says, about the role of people, in John 10:34: Jesus made the bold statement: "YOU ARE GODS."
Quote:
So there is a fundamental difference between scientific belief and religious belief...


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
what basis in any observation does science have that
causes science to believe that life developed?

There was a time when there was no life. Then there was time when there was primitive single celled life. Over time more complicated life forms developed from the early single celled life forms. The first life forms must have developed from something, so they must have developed from non-living chemicals. This is a simple and easily understood progression.

I notice that you did not provide any basis, even a simple progression, for your belief that life was created. You just waved your hands and said it was impossible for life to have developed without the intervention of Intelligent(?) Design.

As far as being able to create life. We can't do it right now, but just because we can't do something now is no reason to say we will never be able to do it. There was a time when it was know that organic chemicals could only be produced by living organisms. Then we found out we could do it in the laboratory, then in factories. Researchers are constantly finding ways to create more complex chemical forms. Extrapolating the results of current research I figure it is just going to be a matter of time until they figure out how to repeat what nature managed to do within 1 billion years of the formation of the Earth.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Orac


ROFL sure and so it's not a judgement because you declare it not to be, yep you have cemented what I thought smile


No, what I said, is I have no judgment regarding the summary of what you claim science to be. The Hitler reference was in tune with what you made reference to as what morality is based on subjective ideals, (using your Hitler and dog example).

The Sock puppet reference was an elaboration to what you said scientists like yourself do. Take orders with the idea that you can't make changes within the authoritative system of rule, and receive the money for behaving yourself. I suppose I could assume you do care and just don't wanna admit it, because you feel helpless. But your being insistent to having no care for what anyone within the general public feels or says, leads me toward the idea that you want to make the "WE (speaking for all scientists) really don't care!"

In any case the ongoing conversations are just revealing more of the "YOU PISS US OFF" claim that you made previously, and maybe none of these conversations are really going to lead to anything productive.
So we're just mutually yanking chains?

As I elaborated upon the conversation, I figured you would either claim it to be false, or true.

Since you didn't make any claims to any of it being other than what I summarized, I'll assume you're turning the conversation toward the idea of me being judgmental.
Also being that you reference Paul, I'll make another wild assumption that you are choosing to spend time finding ways to play with me in the same way you do Paul, by releasing the stress you feel for being helpless in your position as a scientist without moral choices, and finding ways to pull others into your boat. whistle

Certainly, I can make a judgment call, but I can also do it objectively. In this case I just did.

We having fun yet? wink


Last edited by Tutor Turtle; 05/22/14 02:46 PM. Reason: Uh.. gee I can't know!

I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Sorry I was trying to work out if that was a comment or not or perhaps it is a post or not one never knows with you laugh

Sorry TT you simply aren't worth wasting time on smile


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
ok , let me write that same progression.

There was a time when there was no life. Then there was time when there was primitive single celled life. Over time more complicated life forms developed from the early single celled life forms. The first life forms must have been created by intelligence , so they must have been created. This is a simple and easily understood progression.


you see when I change the words around to exclude the concept
or theory of evolution being involved in the development
of the first life form , you find that there is a distinct
gap between non life and life.

BTW , a gap is a gap it is not progression.

ie...

Quote:
There was a time when there was no life.
the distinct gap
Then there was time when there was primitive single celled life.


that gap is exactly what we find in the geological
records of life.

once again logic says that creation is the preferred
and only possible conclusion for the existence of life.

if there was progression from non life to life it would
have already been found and duplicated and documented.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: Orac
Sorry I was trying to work out if that was a comment or not or perhaps it is a post or not one never knows with you laugh
Orac, my heart (PNEUMA) goes out to you. And take note of the suggestion I make to you after what you say next,
Quote:
Sorry, TT you simply aren't worth wasting time on smile
Orac, I truly agree with the point you make to TT, but may I suggest what I think could be a better way to put it: "TT, whoever you are, I assume and hope there are those who value you as a person. However, regarding what I call a pile of "waffle" , which you write in response to me and others at SAGG, I must say: What you write and how you write it is so boring and meaningless that I refuse to waste my time wading through this pile just in the forlorn hope there may be one meaningful point. BTW, Orac, if you choose to make a motion to this effect, I will be happy to second it, okay!

As one who thinks the Golden Rule is a good one and that it is Good, Optimistic & Delightful, I will be glad to add: AGAPE, Orac, TT and to all at SAGG. We must not forget ALL and who read what gets their interest, eh!


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
That was almost as funny as trapping Paul into having to put his belief in GOD on the line.


I must have missed that part , it almost sounds as though
you have accomplished something.

and that would be a first time event in the history of orac.

I wont ask where your proposed accomplishment occurred
because frankly I think your just trying to erroneously puff your ego up a little before it becomes completely deflated
by TT.

convincing yourself that you have achieved something seems to
be your greatest asset.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: paul
ok , let me write that same progression.

There was a time when there was no life. Then there was time when there was primitive single celled life. Over time more complicated life forms developed from the early single celled life forms. The first life forms must have been created by intelligence , so they must have been created. This is a simple and easily understood progression.


SNIP


once again logic says that creation is the preferred
and only possible conclusion for the existence of life.



You say that only intelligence can create life. That implies that some intelligence that is much greater than humanity created life. Such an intelligence could only be God. Therefore your belief that life was created by an intelligence is definitely a religious belief, not a scientific belief.

By the way, that is not just my opinion, it is also the belief of the United States Supreme Court. They have ruled on this matter more than once and lower courts have agreed with them a number of times. And some of the judges who ruled on those cases were conservatives.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul
I wont ask where your proposed accomplishment occurred because frankly I think your just trying to erroneously puff your ego up a little before it becomes completely deflated
by TT.

convincing yourself that you have achieved something seems to
be your greatest asset.


EGO is a very western and Chinese disease it gets beaten out of you in other places. I think you and TT think to much about it, I am far more familiar with working for the collective good and I am not sure I would ever worry about my ego being deflated smile

However since you seem to be getting "the bottle up" as they say, care to put your GOD on the line on the result of the HMS Titanic? So do you have faith in your GOD and his physics or not Paul?

That is probably a situation I imagine Rev K could give you advice about under challenging GOD. If you are going to try and create a new physics based on your GOD you had better be very careful because it makes your GOD and his physics testable smile

Last edited by Orac; 05/23/14 02:46 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Orac
Sorry I was trying to work out if that was a comment or not or perhaps it is a post or not one never knows with you laugh

Sorry TT you simply aren't worth wasting time on smile

At least you're being honest this time about what you were doing. I didn't think you had any intention of being serious.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
At least you're being honest this time about what you were doing. I didn't think you had any intention of being serious.


It took you that long to work that out smile

I was just doing a TT back to TT didn't you recognize it, it's a really simple formula you just create a different value under everything. I created a different value under morality wasn't hard, you seem to think what you do is clever laugh

Last edited by Orac; 05/23/14 02:54 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Orac
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
At least you're being honest this time about what you were doing. I didn't think you had any intention of being serious.


It took you that long to work that out smile

It was pretty obvious from the get go. It just took this long for you to admit it. Regardless, its been entertaining to see science represent itself.
Originally Posted By: Orac

I was just doing a TT back to TT didn't you recognize it, it's a really simple formula you just create a different value under everything.

You haven't been serious, so there really is no value system when nothing is serious, unless you have a quality system to measure wasting time. I'll bet governments pay big money to find ways to perfect a method tho. Maybe you're on one of those test programs and that's why you spend so much time at Saggo flaming? shocked

Originally Posted By: Orac
I created a different value under morality wasn't hard, you seem to think what you do is clever laugh
Not when something is that obvious. wink

Clever would entail having an honest conversation, rather than just wasting time.

As a government/corporate/military employee, you probably have a lot of time on your hands to waste, since much of it is spent here flaming Paul. Be honest.. Paul is a secret scientific project and you're in charge. Right? whistle


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
So this would be like asking why Paul and TT spend time as religious nutters on a SCIENCE FORUM I think the religion forum with people remotely interested in your discussion are elsewhere.

No you have to come onto a science forum where most of the inhabitants are there to discuss SCIENCE because you are drop kick stupid trolls.

The deeper question dropkick is why you would expect me to answer you truthfully to your garbage it's hardly on topic.

Oh wait haven't you worked out your on the wrong forum?

It's always interesting to see the trolls posting on the wrong forum complaining of "flaming" and "flame wars" I thought that is what you were here for to get a reaction, what it wasn't the one you expected laugh

Last edited by Orac; 05/23/14 04:00 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Orac
So this would be like asking why Paul and TT spend time as religious nutters on a SCIENCE FORUM I think the religion forum with people remotely interested in your discussion are elsewhere.

That might be relevant if I were religious.
Originally Posted By: Orac

No you have to come onto a science forum where most of the inhabitants are there to discuss SCIENCE because you are drop kick stupid trolls.

Actually there is a NQS section which is where I originally came upon the invite from the rev., who is religious.
Originally Posted By: Orac

The deeper question dropkick is why you would expect me to answer you truthfully to your garbage it's hardly on topic.

The Topic is Scientific and Religious belief. If you weren't going to be serious or scientific, why are you here?
Originally Posted By: Orac

Oh wait haven't you worked out your on the wrong forum?
I think the forum is ok, but I question whether a few who participate can be objective enough to have a formal discussion without losing themselves in their personal beliefs.
If you are as you say the spokesman for we the forum, then I imagine that you have difficulty with any objectivity due to your religious and scientific beliefs, seeing as you have a need for speaking for everyone else and the way you lose yourself in a rage of ad hominem attacks like the rev.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Cool so long as this stuff stays out in NQS and we don't have religion and science is bad, science is evil garbage dragged into every post in the science sections I am a happy person and all I really ask.

Whether science is bad, evil etc may interest people fine take it out to NQS and discuss which is the purpose for this thread I believe.

Got me why the moderation doesn't just adopt that standard they have had to take that tack with Newton(Marosz) or at least make him keep his spam in his own threads and so it should be with these other things. Objectively it is actually unfair on Marosz at the moment because he is the only one moderated even though technically it is more science than say some of Paul's posts.

I don't wish to silence either of them it just needs control so discussion occurs if people wish to discuss but I think that is against what Paul wants. I have that relationship with Rev K and that is why he causes little issue as far as I can see.

If people want a flame war then so be it because it seems to be the only way to clear the air because if you try and ignore it you just get more and more posts. I had Marosz at one stage up to 3 posts back for every post. You had to go over an entire page to get back to what you were discussing with others and at that point Rose finally decided to act.

Last edited by Orac; 05/23/14 04:38 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

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 UsokW
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