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 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
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.

Scientific belief is based on the principle that the universe obeys certain universal laws and that we can determine what those laws are. For anything to become a scientific belief it must be, at least in principle, repeatable and it must be possible to make a clear statement as to what will occur when certain other events occur. For example if you drop a rock you should be able to describe the motion of the rock, and the principles you use to describe that motion should apply to all cases in which a rock is dropped. Then you can say that that description is a scientific belief. Scientific beliefs are developed by observation and experimentation.

Scientific facts are open to change over time, as new observations and experiments reveal errors in the current beliefs. These changes are normally adopted because they provide a better description of how the universe works.

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. 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 word of these prophets is the final word on any question concerning God or on how the universe works.

Religious beliefs are not subject to change over time, because they are considered to be the direct word of God.

So there is a fundamental difference between scientific belief and religious belief. This has caused a lot of problems for some people over the years. I don't have a solution to this problem.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Bill
remember , your the one who started this by claiming that
it is obvious that life developed on its own so don't get upset.

ie...

Quote:
Since it is obvious that life can develop then I see no reason to suppose that it would only happen once.



Quote:
For anything to become a scientific belief it must be, at least in principle, repeatable


has science repeated the development of life from non life?

ie.. have scientist ever created anything living from non life.

if not then your claim ( it is obvious that life can develop ) is incorrect.

it has not been repeated , not even in principle so
according to your requirements of what a scientific belief
would be , the development of life is not a scientific belief.

any answer such as it could have developed on its
own or maybe it did develop or if certain circumstances
and conditions were present and were correct it could
have happened will not be perceived by me as a scientific
fact but as a belief only , nothing more than a speculation
and a speculation certainly is not a scientific fact.
ie...

Quote:
This is the only response I am going to make to Paul on this thread. He is arguing from the point of a religious belief, not a scientific fact.



which is exactly what I was saying in the other thread when
I said the following.

Quote:


and you would be arguing on a point that is not a belief?

because it certainly has not been proven to be a
"scientific fact" that life developed on its own.


it is not a scientific fact that life developed.

not even in principle.

science does not know nor do they even have the slightest
clue as to how life could have developed.

it is not obvious that life can develop.

you may have missed it , but the cosmos series says
that science does not know how life developed.

therefore its obviously obvious that its not obvious that life developed.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Bill, could your description or religious belief be a bit narrow?

Let's start by reasoning that if the cosmos is infinite, then everything within the cosmos is infinite, and that must include life. This model does require an infinite repository of life, one in which all living things share, but as we are not being scientific we can assume that. Because it is infinite, and because we share in it, it follows that each of us has an infinite share in the life of the cosmos; in other words, each of us is that infinite repository of life, each of us is the cosmos. The cosmos is each of us, and every thing else that seems to us to form part of the cosmos.

The cosmos contains knowledge, wisdom, understanding and consciousness; to mention just a few of its attributes. The cosmos is all these things, to an infinite extent.

Julian Barbour says: .I am nothing and yet everything. I am nothing because there is no personal canvas on which I am painted. I am everything because I am the universe seen from the point, unforeseeable because it is unique, that is me now. He goes on to expand the idea: We all watch and participate in the great spectacle. Immortality is here. Our task is to recognise it.

The infinite sharing I mentioned above cannot be restricted to what we might consider as higher forms of life; it must include all living things, from the top of the evolutionary tree, or the pinnacle of creation, to the humblest life forms, both animal and plant, as well as any possible alien life forms that may exist anywhere in the cosmos. In fact, if you consider the process by which DNA replicates, and compare this with the process by which crystals grow, there might just be an argument for extending the scope of life, and perhaps introducing a Gaia-type view of the Universe.

If the above description of the cosmos sounds like a description of God, then the whole thing might look like the first step towards the formulation of a new religion. Where would such a religion fit into your description of religion based beliefs?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Oh Man.. Ya know the rev.'s gonna bring his G~~D into this thread along with his eight million hits back up singers... eek
Originally Posted By: Bill
I thought I would start a thread here about the difference between scientific belief and religious belief.

Beliefs change, be they religious or scientific. A Universal law, don'tcha know... whistle
Originally Posted By: Bill

Scientific belief is based on the principle that the universe obeys certain universal laws and that we can determine what those laws are.
Religion and spiritual science follows this same thought.
Originally Posted By: Bill
For anything to become a scientific belief it must be, at least in principle, repeatable and it must be possible to make a clear statement as to what will occur when certain other events occur.
I will follow this with the statement:
Originally Posted By: Bill
Scientific facts are open to change over time, as new observations and experiments reveal errors in the current beliefs.
It would appear that scientific facts are always changing, and that, is proven by the repeatability of error in observance.
Originally Posted By: Bill
For example if you drop a rock you should be able to describe the motion of the rock, and the principles you use to describe that motion should apply to all cases in which a rock is dropped. Then you can say that that description is a scientific belief. Scientific beliefs are developed by observation and experimentation.

Spiritual science claims similar principals, however observation is relative to states of conscious awareness, or the evolution of human consciousness, AND that the human is capable of speeding up or suppressing the expansion of awareness and experience.
Religion is based on belief and not so much on direct experience or repeatability of observation but more along the lines of repeatability in making the same statement toward a belief, like the reverend makes (ad nauseum) about his G~~D and his superhuman ability to create an acronym of special importance. Churches then are made up of followers who are willing to listen to a belief, and then adopt the belief, regardless of whether they believe or experience anything relative to a belief.
Science has its own church of peers who accept scientific peer review regardless of whether their field is connected to the belief or repeatable observations of those who specialize in a particular belief.
Originally Posted By: Bill

Scientific facts are open to change over time, as new observations and experiments reveal errors in the current beliefs. These changes are normally adopted because they provide a better description of how the universe works.
Facts being relative to the association of the scientific community. If more than a few observe the same type of experience and it can be repeated using the same methods, it becomes a fact that it was observed, until another scientific study, following a different procedure regarding the same materials of study produces a different observation. Facts then become part of change, which is consistent with belief (no matter what camp the belief comes from).
Originally Posted By: Bill

Religious belief is based on the principle that there is an all powerful God (or Gods) who determines how the universe works.
Depends on the religion. Buddhism does not believe in a God, because it limits the omnipresent reality of creation to singular definitions. It (Buddhism) follows a different idea rallying around a principal which exists in all forms of matter and living organisms.
Originally Posted By: Bill
This God intervenes in the operation of the universe, rather than allowing it to operate under a set of unalterable rules.

Again yer limiting religion to one type. There are many religions and they don't all follow this narrow form of thinking.
You really should get out more..
Originally Posted By: Bill
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 word of these prophets is the final word on any question concerning God or on how the universe works.
Now your are narrowing religion to the Judeo-Christian politics of the church and not necessarily the nature of religion or what created religion in the first place.
Originally Posted By: Bill

Religious beliefs are not subject to change over time, because they are considered to be the direct word of God.

History will show that interpretation of the word of God is not a constant, just the word itself which originally was indicated as the fundamental nature of evolution in creativity as defined within space and time.
Originally Posted By: Bill

So there is a fundamental difference between scientific belief and religious belief.

Only from the stand point of defining ones self by the label of scientist or religionist. Standing outside of both, offers the perspective of similarity in form and function, where changing beliefs are based on levels of conscious awareness, evolution of mind and the ability to observe objectively and without an attachment to defining ones self by a preferred principal of reality where all realities are supported by universal law.
Originally Posted By: Bill
This has caused a lot of problems for some people over the years. I don't have a solution to this problem.

Bill Gill
No problem was ever solved at the level it was created. Your sweeping generalities are a symptom of a lack of understanding beyond the, generalities are us on the shelf, mindset!

Last edited by Tutor Turtle; 05/20/14 10:20 PM. Reason: I had a revelation and God spoke to me!

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




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I agree with that (IAWT) and as a child years ago in
my country (YAIMC) I once fell off the front porch
and had a out of body experience (FOTFPAHAOOBE) as I
soared through the air.

I like to think of this moment in time as my time
to ponder the universe and why it means what it means on
saturday night because it was a saturday night when I fell off the front porch just before my fall was broken by the sidewa
lk.

(ILTTOTMITAMTTPTUAWIMWIMOSNBIWASNWIFOTFPJBMFWBBTS)

it wasnt until I became older in life that I remembered the
time that I like to think about being my time
to ponder the universe and why it means what it means on
saturday night because it was a saturday night when I fell off the front porch just before my fall was broken by the sidewalk.
(IWUIBOILTIRTTTILTIRILTTOTMITAMTTPTUAWIMWIMOSNBIWASNWIFOTFPJBMFWBBTS)

I knew that I had to somehow get back into my body even though
I knew my body would eventually hit the sidewalk.

and I thought about ##('')## and what its meaning could be.
I rewrote it as **('')** and it seemed a little clearer and
so I condensed it and that action improved it even further
as it became *('')* and I thought that this grouping of
symbols has a meaning that means something.

and as I pondered its meaning suddenly it was revealed to me
that I needed to improve it further.

*(')*

I was getting close to something that was certain I thought to
myself.

and then

(*'*)

voila that was it.

but still something was missing.

I needed to add some descriptive text so that others could
revel in my discovery with me but as soon as I though that
I was back in my body again.

it had seemed like years , decades , even centuries , dare I say millenia had passed during my OBE (out of body experience ) that has had such a profound impact on my life.













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
it is not a scientific fact that life developed.

Life exists. At one time (4.5 Billion years ago) life did not exist on this planet. Therefore it is obvious that life developed.

In the last 4.5 Billion years we find fossils of life forms that developed from very simple forms to very complex forms. The complexity of the forms is the simplest in the rocks that are oldest. In newer rocks more complex forms are found. Therefore life has been developing on a scale from simple to complex in a relatively linear manner with respect to time. Extrapolating backwards we find that there must have been a time when there was no life, and then life appeared. So life must have developed from a form of non-life to a form of life sometime in that period. QED

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Therefore it is obvious that life developed.


its not obvious , and you have no more reason to say that
life developed than I do to say that life was created.

neither of us can show any proof that would withstand the requirements of scientific testing.

although science seems to try to make claims that
religion is wrong in its belief that life was created
science has no scientific proof that it could use to defend
its claim and belief that life developed in the absence of life.

therefore it is not obvious that life developed.



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: Bill
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.
Bill, a very good idea!

Have you checked out THE UNIVERSE WITHIN--From Quantum to Cosmos, by NEIL TUROK (2012)--One of world's Leading Theoretical Physicists @ a Renowned Educational Innovator?

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/massey-...niverse-within/
==============
TUROK'S philosophy sounds very much like what PROCESS THEOLOGIANS/PHILOSOPHERS & UNITHEISTS CALL GOD--that is, ALL BEING--mysterious and inviting scientist to explore it, not a being.
======================================
Quote:
Scientific belief is based on the principle that the universe obeys certain universal laws and that we can determine what those laws are.

For anything to become a scientific belief it must be, at least in principle, repeatable and it must be possible to make a clear statement as to what will occur when certain other events occur. Bill Gill


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.

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 word of these prophets is the final word on any question concerning God or on how the universe works....Bill Gill
Bill, what you write is an accurate description of THEISM. Theistic theologians, without any evidence whosoever speak of and write about God as he is a human like and masculine super being with dimensions. Believers are commanded to have a childlike faith and to even blindly believe what they are told to believe.

Quote:
... Scientific beliefs are developed by observation and experimentation.

... Scientific facts are open to change over time, as new observations and experiments reveal errors in the current beliefs. These changes are normally adopted because they provide a better description of how the universe works.Bill Gill


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. 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 word of these prophets is the final word on any question concerning God or on how the universe works.

Religious beliefs are not subject to change over time, because they are considered to be the direct word of God.
Bill Gill
I now invite you to check out the work of a great mathematician:
Alfred North Whitehead--panentheist and, therefore, a unitheist.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/
--a great process philosopher and theologian. He and atheist friend, Bertrand Russell wrote, PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICS. More on this.
Quote:
So there is a fundamental difference between scientific belief and religious belief. This has caused a lot of problems for some people over the years. I don't have a solution to this problem. Bill Gill
The solution lies in our being WILLing to cultivate an evidence-based philosophy of religion--one that Generates, Organizes & Delivers that which is open to truth, encourages questioning, exploring and experimenting. A blind leap-in-the-dark kind of faith is worthless and dangerous.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Saw that one coming...


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
Actually I am going to side with Paul on the create life from nothing claim.

Originally Posted By: Paul
has science repeated the development of life from non life?

ie.. have scientist ever created anything living from non life.

if not then your claim ( it is obvious that life can develop ) is incorrect.

I agree and actually the problem is deeper than that Paul and we have a joke about it and the conversation between GOD and the scientist goes like this

Scientist: GOD we have mastered life creation.
GOD: Really.
Scientist: Yes we can create life from just soil.
GOD: Really and just how did you create your own soil.

Even if science could do the whole create life from soil trick it doesn't settle anything, you know what I am like with my needing evidence thing.

On the converse however Paul I also find no evidence to support that it requires a GOD to make soil etc an therefore life and you accepted that which was a surprise.

Originally Posted By: Paul
neither of us can show any proof that would withstand the requirements of scientific testing.

So I add this into a collection of stuff called no evidence either way.

TT and Bill.S you lost me at your suggestions because it all becomes subjective you can't do any sort of objective referencing to check things. So how would you ever know if you were remotely only the right track without objectivity introduced some how.

I sort of tongue in cheek bought that up with TT when I asked is morality a good thing? I mean whats your reference point for the answer as you reject religion and science so what reference do you have to judge morality?

I know the reference for many religions is bad stuff happens to you if you don't do the right thing so whats your reference point for morality TT? I know RevK and Paul have their reference laid out for them literally in stone and from memory even buddist a sort of don't harm anything reference in their precepts, so how do I judge where to measure my morality from I don't have a religion and so I am very aware of a problem you miss.

The Problem: When you put a gradient on anything you need a reference point and a justification which way is more and less.

Last edited by Orac; 05/21/14 09:15 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Tutor, I was trying to keep it simple. There is no way to provide a complete run down of religion in one post. I don't expect there is any way to provide a complete run down of religion, period.

I realize that the Buddhist world view is a lot different from the JudaeoChristian world view, but it appears to me that it is still to a large extent a revealed religion. The basic tenets were handed down by the Buddha, who therefore takes on the character of a prophet.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
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
its not obvious , and you have no more reason to say that
life developed than I do to say that life was created.

Paul. I gave a brief run down of why I believe that life developed from non-life. Can you give a similar run down of why you believe that life was created?

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


TT and Bill.S you lost me at your suggestions because it all becomes subjective you can't do any sort of objective referencing to check things. So how would you ever know if you were remotely only the right track without objectivity introduced some how.

If you can't be objective, everything is subjective. Objective observance requires the ability to expand the awareness beyond the subjective. That is the foundation of spiritual science, Advaita Vedanta (non duality). Ever read the Upanishads?


Originally Posted By: Orac

I sort of tongue in cheek bought that up with TT when I asked is morality a good thing? I mean whats your reference point for the answer as you reject religion and science so what reference do you have to judge morality?

I don't reject religion or science, they have their place in the scheme of evolving consciousness. Your ability to carry on a conversation regarding morality and the scheme of things would be subject to what you read into the conversation.
Most of what you speak of when referencing past conversations or interactions are pretty one sided. You don't have a grasp of the English language, and you interpret what is said based on what you think you see and think. Being that your thinking is subjective, when it comes to anything you really don't care about, there is no objectivity due to a lack of interest or a willingness to apply yourself beyond subjective reasoning and personal prejudice.


Originally Posted By: Orac

I know the reference for many religions is bad stuff happens to you if you don't do the right thing so whats your reference point for morality TT?

Good or bad is always subjective. It's contrast that pushes the mind to evolve, when the perceived reality doesn't match interest or expectations. Morality as a standard must be universal and apply to all things rather than be exclusive. Even the Ten commandments are misinterpreted by religion to be a rule that threatens the evolving mind. Morality must be experienced rather than dictated, similar in the way an adult leads a child to the experience of Universal laws, thru observances in the reality of the Universe. Neither Religion or Science can get out of their own way to obtain true objectivity in order to become moral. Because of their belief systems (being that they are made thru subjective interpretations and handed down from the aging authority to the up and coming disciples) interpretation is going to be subject to personal influence as well as the sway of democratic pressure. Your yourself made the statement for Science that it is owned by the authority of corporations, the military and government. Then you followed that claim with WE don't care.
Originally Posted By: Orac

Science isn't a public opinion thing no-one gets to vote on it and really we don't give a flying toss what you or the general public think ... we even tell you to you face your all idiots because we simply don't care.



Originally Posted By: Orac

I know RevK and Paul have their reference laid out for them literally in stone and from memory even buddist a sort of don't harm anything reference in their precepts, so how do I judge where to measure my morality from I don't have a religion and so I am very aware of a problem you miss.

Not missed, but rather noted. You don't have a foundation for morality other than your own historical programs which are jaded by your political references to your homeland, it's peoples and it's past. Not my fault or anyone's fault you choose not to rise above that into objectivity and to subsequently sell yourself to the scientific authority for a paycheck, as you have professed.


Originally Posted By: Orac

The Problem: When you put a gradient on anything you need a reference point and a justification which way is more and less.
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).


Originally Posted By: Bill
Tutor, I was trying to keep it simple. There is no way to provide a complete run down of religion in one post. I don't expect there is any way to provide a complete run down of religion, period.

I got that you were drawn to the political references of the past, but this is now, and only a few religions actually follow that policy. There are more religions now, than when the Roman Catholic Church ruled the world.
Most mainstream religions fear the backlash of pressing policy upon the public because of the history you referenced.

My point is that whether it applies to some or most, it does not apply to all, nor do all those who belong to a spiritual organization call themselves religious or a religion.

The policy of making sweeping statements is what everyone seems to be doing nowadays in order to make a point and it dilutes the conversation as well as intelligent thinking.

It would seem that Church and state have no separation between them when making statements to facts that aren't based on truth but rather opinion.
There is always some authority out there whether its a Saint, Prophet, Political figure or entertainer being referenced to set policy.


Originally Posted By: Bill

I realize that the Buddhist world view is a lot different from the JudaeoChristian world view, but it appears to me that it is still to a large extent a revealed religion. The basic tenets were handed down by the Buddha, who therefore takes on the character of a prophet.Bill Gill


Now you are getting into the nature of religion. Interpretation of something not experienced as a belief.

You can apply that to any educational system.

Based on this principal, the authority points toward a direction eluded to as fact and relative to truth, and a man or woman takes it at face value or pursues a path to direct experience.

The foundations of truth rests upon those claiming authority, as well as those giving authority.






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




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Paul. I gave a brief run down of why I believe that life developed from non-life. Can you give a similar run down of why you believe that life was created?

Bill Gill


my reason for belief in creation is simple , its pure logic.

and you want a run down on why I believe that way.

1) I have never ever heard that life just came into being
by mixing the elements together in a bowl. but then you would
need a intelligently designed bowl and a mixer and some type
of intelligence to gather and place the ingredients in the bowl in the first place

2) if scientist ever do gain the ability to create life in
the future then for them to create the most simplest form
of life , they would need to have the ability to place
trillions of atoms at the exact precise point in a area
where the life form would be created then lets not forget
that before they move the atoms they would need to pre program each atom on its function in the life form, and give it a brain to tell all of the individual atoms what they will need
to do in order to survive the next few seconds as a life form.

3) the atomic structure of the simplest life form would alone
look like a complete universe itself , only each and every star in that universe would need to be in a precise location and serve a intelligent purpose.

4) there are no chances that atoms could assemble themselves
in any correct pattern that would cause them to have what
we call life.

5) if by chance atoms somehow found the ability to correctly
assemble themselves together to form life this would mean that the individual atoms had intelligent direction that originated outside the atoms or each individual atom had a brain to think with and the ability to mobilize itself in order to reach the
position that it is required to be in.

6) it is sheer stupidity to not believe in creation.

Quote:
In the last 4.5 Billion years we find fossils of life forms that developed from very simple forms to very complex forms. The complexity of the forms is the simplest in the rocks that are oldest. In newer rocks more complex forms are found. Therefore life has been developing on a scale from simple to complex in a relatively linear manner with respect to time. Extrapolating backwards we find that there must have been a time when there was no life, and then life appeared. So life must have developed from a form of non-life to a form of life sometime in that period. QED


must have is speculation , and a scientific fact is not a speculation.

must have can be a theory , philosophy , hunch , or a guess
but it is not a scientific fact.

I cant prove life was created and you or science cant prove life developed.

to me creation is the logical choice.

to you life developing from non life is the logical choice.

so the difference between scientific belief and religious belief is that science requires speculation on some
grand scale and an immense amount of impossible occurrences
in order for life to have developed from non life elements.

and religion requires intelligent creation.






















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
my reason for belief in creation is simple , its pure logic. and you want a run down on why I believe that way.

1) I have never ever heard that life just came into being
by mixing the elements together in a bowl. but then you would
need a intelligently designed bowl and a mixer and some type
of intelligence to gather and place the ingredients in the bowl in the first place


so the difference between scientific belief and religious belief is that science requires speculation on some
grand scale and an immense amount of impossible occurrences
in order for life to have developed from non life elements.

and religion requires intelligent creation.


Ok, you base your belief in creation on the idea of Intelligent(?) Design. Therefore your belief in creation is directly taken from the book of Genesis in the bible. Therefore it is a religious belief, not a scientific belief, since it has no basis in any observations. Rather it is based on the words handed down from God to his prophet.

And that is probably the last thing I have to say to you on this subject.

Bill gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
TT, I'm sorry but you just flew right straight over my head. I think you should be talking to the Rev. He is the one who is interested in religious speculation.

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
I am sorry TT like most of your posts it comes across to me as mindless waffle.

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.

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.

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.

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

Last edited by Orac; 05/21/14 07:49 PM.

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
Without going into details about the recent posts between Bill and Paul, here is my summary of what I got from what was said:

Bill wrote to Paul,
Quote:
Paul, I gave a brief run down of why I believe that life developed from non-life. Can you give a similar run down of why you believe that life was created?
Bill, in your comment you mentioned, "why I believe that life developed from non-life". But you made no mention of "how".

Question: Are not "why questions" the kind we ask philosophers and theologians? I love the question: How come there is SOME-thing--trillions of them, as a matter of fact; and not just NO-thing?
=============================

Paul responded to Bill,
Quote:
... my reason for belief in creation is simple, its pure logic. ... so the difference between scientific belief and religious belief is that science requires speculation on some grand scale and an immense amount of impossible occurrences in order for life to have developed from non life elements.

... religion simply requires intelligent creation.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
My understanding is that the theory of evolution holds that life has developed from simple to complex forms, but does not tell us anything about the actual provenance of life.

In much the same way, the Big Bang theory offers an explanation for the "evolution" of the Universe without accounting for the origin of the BB itself.

Personally, I have never been able to see any real conflict between the ideas of creation and evolution; unless one insists on taking a particular creation story absolutely literally.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
..... Bill.S you lost me at your suggestions because it all becomes subjective you can't do any sort of objective referencing to check things.


Isn't that at least part of the reason Bill moved this to NQS?

It's a bit like mathematical existence; if you can make a reasonably logical case, on a philosophical level, for it, it might be right.


There never was nothing.
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.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Orac
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.

Seems yer askin more than that since this is the NQS side of the forum that you've been ranting in.

So really, why you so unhappy that you have to come out of the science section to break down the way you have? Things not so good at home? Government and corporate bosses not giving you enough to think about that you gotta come here to flame everyone and everything on a daily basis? Do you actually have a job?

It's ok.. you can talk to unka turtle. smile


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
Government and corporate bosses not giving you enough to think about that you gotta come here to flame everyone and everything on a daily basis? Do you actually have a job?


I actually get paid to flame you and actually a lot more than the average person at least here in USA ... don't you love science now. One day soon I can let you in on the secret why that is but the smarter on here will work it out I know one has on another forum I post on smile

I am feeling generous so I will offer a hint my participation on the forum will end all things being equal in September or October this year for a very obvious reason that my job and reason for being here will end.

So whats your story why do you spend so much time here it seems to serve no purpose either?

Last edited by Orac; 05/23/14 07:10 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


I actually get paid to flame you and actually a lot more than the average person at least here in USA ... don't you love science now.

I feel like I'm not as important as the others you spend so much time on. cry

Originally Posted By: Orac

I am feeling generous so I will offer a hint my participation on the forum will end all things being equal in September or October this year for a very obvious reason that my job and reason for being here will end.

So whats your story why do you spend so much time here it seems to serve no purpose either?
Speak for yourself, just because your participation here lacks any purpose, I can definitely vouch for the validity of my purpose! cool


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




Page 1 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