A War On Science
- Thread starter ThaG
- Start date
Are you serious? This comment comes from a complete lack of understanding about the theory of Intelligent Design.. Who said anything about religion, and where do you see the atheistic point of view in those quotes? This also comes from an ignorance of the teachings of Baruch Spinoza, who was by lineage a Jew, but started to question religion..
"Spinoza's 'God or Nature' provided a living, natural God, in contrast to the Newtonian mechanical First Cause or the dead mechanism of the French "Man Machine."
Please man, I'm tired of arguing with people..
"Spinoza's 'God or Nature' provided a living, natural God, in contrast to the Newtonian mechanical First Cause or the dead mechanism of the French "Man Machine."
Please man, I'm tired of arguing with people..
He wasn't ready to debate, that was "drive-by" criticism.. He just felt like poking his chest out for no reason but that's not gonna work, especially when you hop in at the end of the conversation and have no idea what you're talking bout.
Grow up, Biology has nothing to do with evolution.. What does a doctor need to know about evolution? Fuck outta here, lol.. Any scientist in any biological field can survive with out evolution, believe that because evolution is not a science! Stop repeating everything off of discovery channel and come with some real science..
Grow up, Biology has nothing to do with evolution.. What does a doctor need to know about evolution? Fuck outta here, lol.. Any scientist in any biological field can survive with out evolution, believe that because evolution is not a science! Stop repeating everything off of discovery channel and come with some real science..
biology without evolution is natural history
evolution is the fundamental idea that ties all the fields of biology together
BTW doctors are not true biologists and no scientist in any field of biology can survive without evolution, even if only becasue more than half of biology research is dealing with evolution in one way or another
just to remind you: 95% of the great discoveries in the last 30 years were made on model organisms like Caenorhabditis elegans, Drosophila melanogaster, Mus musculus, Saccharomyces cerevisae, Schizosaccharomyces pombe, Danio rerio, Xaenopus laevis etc.
none of these discoveries would be possible if ti wasn't for evolution for the simple reason that BECAUSE OF EVOLUTION we know we're not that different at all from these organims, and lesson learned in modle systems can be directly applied in humans
the molecular revolution was based on evolution
LMFAO...
Hahaha, that really is ironic though.. Every time I quoted his ass he had at least 17 typos, yet he's trying to explain to me the order of nature? My 12 year old nephew types 60 words per minute with hardly any.. Bro is a basket case, I only entertain this because I like picking on closed minded atheists and pseudo-scientists..
For the record, I never said Doctors were Biologists.. But ok bro, if you believe at first glance that all this is clear cut evidence for evolution (random chance) then that's you, it's all good.. I don't, and plenty of other people agree and choose to lead astray from the mainstream's interpretation of natural causes. Eventually this theory will be proven wrong like all of the others..
Edit:
Check this out,
Beyond Intelligent Design - the Scientific Case for a Creator
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4065080646891971315&q=Intelligent+Design&hl=en
For the record, I never said Doctors were Biologists.. But ok bro, if you believe at first glance that all this is clear cut evidence for evolution (random chance) then that's you, it's all good.. I don't, and plenty of other people agree and choose to lead astray from the mainstream's interpretation of natural causes. Eventually this theory will be proven wrong like all of the others..
Edit:
Check this out,
Beyond Intelligent Design - the Scientific Case for a Creator
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4065080646891971315&q=Intelligent+Design&hl=en
proven wrong basedon what?
the tons of evidence supporting it?
relativity is also a "theory" so according to your way of thinking it is also uncertain and probably wrong...
do you realize that no credible scientist in the last 100 years has argued against evolution theory - it is an accepted fact
who told you it's random chance that's driving evolution?
so far you have demonstrated such a total lack of understanding or, to be exact, misunderstanding of what the theory says, and not only that, but a stubborn belief you are right, despite understanding nothing about it, that I am starting to think something's seriosuly wrong with your brain
The last think a person who's too dumb to understand a scientific theory, should do, is to claim the theory is not true - what gives you the right to do it? You're the same type of punk as the president of this country - science is good only as long as it doesn't conflict with your views - if it does, then science is wrong
there are many scientific theories I don't understand, but I don't reject them because of that, I go and ask people who work in the field and know more than me
BTW - which theories were proven wrong? Lamarckism? Creationism?
the tons of evidence supporting it?
relativity is also a "theory" so according to your way of thinking it is also uncertain and probably wrong...
do you realize that no credible scientist in the last 100 years has argued against evolution theory - it is an accepted fact
who told you it's random chance that's driving evolution?
so far you have demonstrated such a total lack of understanding or, to be exact, misunderstanding of what the theory says, and not only that, but a stubborn belief you are right, despite understanding nothing about it, that I am starting to think something's seriosuly wrong with your brain
The last think a person who's too dumb to understand a scientific theory, should do, is to claim the theory is not true - what gives you the right to do it? You're the same type of punk as the president of this country - science is good only as long as it doesn't conflict with your views - if it does, then science is wrong
there are many scientific theories I don't understand, but I don't reject them because of that, I go and ask people who work in the field and know more than me
BTW - which theories were proven wrong? Lamarckism? Creationism?
a great example of how ID proponents misuse facts:
I'm 5 minutes into the video and it already had a feq lies in it:
this person has graduated from MIT, he's not there (here) now and it says "Biology and physics" while he's actually a nuclear scientist who doesn't understand shit about biology
I'll try to watch the whole video and give you my opinion
BTW what's that on his head???????????????????????????????
I'm 5 minutes into the video and it already had a feq lies in it:
this person has graduated from MIT, he's not there (here) now and it says "Biology and physics" while he's actually a nuclear scientist who doesn't understand shit about biology
I'll try to watch the whole video and give you my opinion
BTW what's that on his head???????????????????????????????
OK, enough is enough:
WTF?????????????
the reason organisms reproduce is that those who didn't obviously didn't survive - thus only those who reproduced could evolve into mroe complex forms
another example of total lack of understanding of basic biology principles
just to add: the current paradigm is that reproduction is more ancient than life itself as it was self-replicating molecules (RNA, PNA, or some other derivative) that probably appeared first; not only that - the process can be observed and reproduced in vitro in modern labs
for more info:
Muller UF. Re-creating an RNA world.
Cell Mol Life Sci. 2006 Jun;63(11):1278-93. Review
Paul N, Joyce GF. Minimal self-replicating systems.
Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2004 Dec;8(6):634-9. Review
WTF?????????????
the reason organisms reproduce is that those who didn't obviously didn't survive - thus only those who reproduced could evolve into mroe complex forms
another example of total lack of understanding of basic biology principles
just to add: the current paradigm is that reproduction is more ancient than life itself as it was self-replicating molecules (RNA, PNA, or some other derivative) that probably appeared first; not only that - the process can be observed and reproduced in vitro in modern labs
for more info:
Muller UF. Re-creating an RNA world.
Cell Mol Life Sci. 2006 Jun;63(11):1278-93. Review
Paul N, Joyce GF. Minimal self-replicating systems.
Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2004 Dec;8(6):634-9. Review
Science NEVER rules out all possibilities. DO YOU UNDERSTAND the scientific method? How can it be wrong? IT IS BASED ON NOTHING BUT OBSERVATION. But you would want them to all take a leap of faith wouldn't you? Absurd it's the 21st century my friend, there are 6 billion other people in the world all with different views, at least we can ALL agree on what is observable and tangible. Be rational.
Science is not synonymous with atheism, if anyone says this they don't mean it literally, come on. As if all scientists got together and decided to make science synonymous with atheism. If anything it's agnostic but there is no faith synonymous with science.
At what level of education did you drop out of school? Do you understand a damned thing about science? NO obviously not. ID DOES NOT EVEN QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY BY DEFINITION, MUCH LESS A LAW OF SCIENCE. NOTHING ABOUT ID IS SCIENCE.
And I'm more than delighted to inform you that the ONLY place in the developed world since the 19th century where Creationism holds any credibility is in the U.S. (and mainly in the South, fucking rednecks). And there are NO I repeat NO SCIENTISTS that back any of this up. The idea of ID itself was written up by an evangelist/lawyer, not a scientist.
You have NO idea what you're talking about my homely friend.
Science is not synonymous with atheism, if anyone says this they don't mean it literally, come on. As if all scientists got together and decided to make science synonymous with atheism. If anything it's agnostic but there is no faith synonymous with science.
At what level of education did you drop out of school? Do you understand a damned thing about science? NO obviously not. ID DOES NOT EVEN QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY BY DEFINITION, MUCH LESS A LAW OF SCIENCE. NOTHING ABOUT ID IS SCIENCE.
And I'm more than delighted to inform you that the ONLY place in the developed world since the 19th century where Creationism holds any credibility is in the U.S. (and mainly in the South, fucking rednecks). And there are NO I repeat NO SCIENTISTS that back any of this up. The idea of ID itself was written up by an evangelist/lawyer, not a scientist.
You have NO idea what you're talking about my homely friend.
the sad truth is that they got so far in their hypocrisy and attempts to distort the objective scientific truth that they found some scientists to support them (I think you can judge by yourself how real these scientists are) - for example Michael Behe
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ol=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term="Behe+MJ"[Author]
who is responsible for the "irreducible complexity" "argument"
the thing is that not all scientists are equally good, not all of them are well trained in applying the scientific method, and not all of them are equally honest so you can always find somebody with a PhD degree who has one or two JBC/NAR/PNAS papers to back up your claims
For general public there's no difference between an MIT professor and an Oklahoma State one; neither it can distinguish between an MIT alumni working in a no-name univeristy in Israel and a MIT professor (check the video that was posted), they're all "scientists" for the average person, so you can easily make peopel believe whatever you want
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ol=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term="Behe+MJ"[Author]
who is responsible for the "irreducible complexity" "argument"
the thing is that not all scientists are equally good, not all of them are well trained in applying the scientific method, and not all of them are equally honest so you can always find somebody with a PhD degree who has one or two JBC/NAR/PNAS papers to back up your claims
For general public there's no difference between an MIT professor and an Oklahoma State one; neither it can distinguish between an MIT alumni working in a no-name univeristy in Israel and a MIT professor (check the video that was posted), they're all "scientists" for the average person, so you can easily make peopel believe whatever you want
exactly, I also edited my post meanwhile:
the problem is that what the scientific community thinks doesn't really mean shit because it is a small minority and it is notoriously incapable of effectively communicating with society
right now we're really losing the battle for the public opinion, ParkBoyz is a pefrect example; neither is the image of science positive nor is the general public trusting scientists (especially biologists) the way they should
the problem is that what the scientific community thinks doesn't really mean shit because it is a small minority and it is notoriously incapable of effectively communicating with society
right now we're really losing the battle for the public opinion, ParkBoyz is a pefrect example; neither is the image of science positive nor is the general public trusting scientists (especially biologists) the way they should
I find it hard to believe the U.S. has back tracked the middle-ages.
What the scientific community says doesn't mean shit? Since when? I'm calling your bluff.
It doesn't matter, Americans are notorious for being under edu-ma-cated anyways, LOL.
Then it's just further proof that your outdated public school system is still and will continue to be a failure like it has been since the BEGINNING OF TIME, LOL.
What the scientific community says doesn't mean shit? Since when? I'm calling your bluff.
It doesn't matter, Americans are notorious for being under edu-ma-cated anyways, LOL.
Then it's just further proof that your outdated public school system is still and will continue to be a failure like it has been since the BEGINNING OF TIME, LOL.
wow i remember school.
a total failure like you said^
especially the teachers are the main idiots in the whole system. I was gettin E after E in 6th, then 7th, then 8th i got all Es n Ds in the core classes except for a A in math.
then highschool was a total waste of time for me.
but that A, did i *suddenly* do my hw and all of my work? or was there a certain aspect to that class?
yes, the math teacher was the greatest teacher i had encountered, and even tho i was already unmotivated to put effort into anything that had to do with school, that teacher had turned the class into a real life situation dealing with life and the like.
i felt obligated to do my work to prove myself to this real guy and i did without tryin my best.
the rest of the teachers were idiots and had never connected with me or with reality.
it was just do this do that, read this, write that.
fuck school.
EDIT: Oh yeah,
ps. im going to start college soon because even tho with the events that are about to take place on earth make college completely useless, i still know that whatever years this phd is going to take me are going to still pass me by if i dont go to school.
And i aint wantin to 10 years from now be like "shit if i went to school 10 years ago id be rich as hell and id have a backup plan to fall back on if some shit happens"
i aint gonna miss my chance while im still young enough.
a total failure like you said^
especially the teachers are the main idiots in the whole system. I was gettin E after E in 6th, then 7th, then 8th i got all Es n Ds in the core classes except for a A in math.
then highschool was a total waste of time for me.
but that A, did i *suddenly* do my hw and all of my work? or was there a certain aspect to that class?
yes, the math teacher was the greatest teacher i had encountered, and even tho i was already unmotivated to put effort into anything that had to do with school, that teacher had turned the class into a real life situation dealing with life and the like.
i felt obligated to do my work to prove myself to this real guy and i did without tryin my best.
the rest of the teachers were idiots and had never connected with me or with reality.
it was just do this do that, read this, write that.
fuck school.
EDIT: Oh yeah,
ps. im going to start college soon because even tho with the events that are about to take place on earth make college completely useless, i still know that whatever years this phd is going to take me are going to still pass me by if i dont go to school.
And i aint wantin to 10 years from now be like "shit if i went to school 10 years ago id be rich as hell and id have a backup plan to fall back on if some shit happens"
i aint gonna miss my chance while im still young enough.
Yep.
I think I know quite a bit about on the subject manner.
Einstein and myself.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Please, show us how this is related to Intelligent Design, comrade.
The second quote, also lacks any link to ID.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
Spinoza was a pantheist, which literally means "God is All" and "All is God." Pantheists do not believe in a supernatural God, but use the word "God" as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe. Einstein uses the word 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense, as do many atheistic scientists.
Again, show us how this quote is related to ID.
I think I know quite a bit about on the subject manner.
Einstein and myself.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Please, show us how this is related to Intelligent Design, comrade.
The second quote, also lacks any link to ID.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
Spinoza was a pantheist, which literally means "God is All" and "All is God." Pantheists do not believe in a supernatural God, but use the word "God" as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe. Einstein uses the word 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense, as do many atheistic scientists.
Again, show us how this quote is related to ID.