Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1    3
Author: Subject: The Responsibility of Scientists as fellow Human Beings
hissingnoise
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3939
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

[*] posted on 23-12-2011 at 05:21


Quote:
Something that is sure to stick firmly in the Darwinian craw is the historical account of at least some ancient humans having natural lifespans of many centuries duration. And for those who dismiss that as being simply Hebrew legend, the same curious report of unusal longevity of some ancient humans is not exclusively a biblical source.

What total, utter balderdash - how any adult can give credence to something so risible does indeed stick in my craw!
And I must assume you believe the Earth to be no more than six thousand years as well . . .
Ordinary facts seem to have no significance to you!

View user's profile View All Posts By User
hissingnoise
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3939
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

[*] posted on 23-12-2011 at 05:47


Quote:
To discover what level of understanding you have achieved explain why Styrofoam is an important component in a multi stage radiation implosion device of Teller-Ulam design.

Oh yeah, asking a question, the answer to which is available to anyone with an internet connection, is real fucking significant . . .
Top of the class, IrC?

View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
Banned





Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 23-12-2011 at 08:45


Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote:
Something that is sure to stick firmly in the Darwinian craw is the historical account of at least some ancient humans having natural lifespans of many centuries duration. And for those who dismiss that as being simply Hebrew legend, the same curious report of unusal longevity of some ancient humans is not exclusively a biblical source.

What total, utter balderdash - how any adult can give credence to something so risible does indeed stick in my craw!
And I must assume you believe the Earth to be no more than six thousand years as well . . .
Ordinary facts seem to have no significance to you!



Instead of making dumbass straw man arguments that are farcical non responses, why don't you respond or try responding to what I actually said?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Bot0nist
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1559
Registered: 15-2-2011
Location: Right behind you.
Member Is Offline

Mood: Streching my cotyledons.

[*] posted on 23-12-2011 at 09:40


The claim that a man or woman lived two centuries, especially without any modern medical advances( or even with) seems just as farcical as the belief that the earth is only several thousand years old, IMO.
Just because somebody wrote something down thousands of years ago does not make it true. On the contrary, the older a proclaimed "fact" is, the more it should be scrutinized and its validity questioned based on things like what intellectual tools did the source possess(scientific method, etc.)




U.T.F.S.E. and learn the joys of autodidacticism!


Don't judge each day only by the harvest you reap, but also by the seeds you sow.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
Banned





Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 23-12-2011 at 09:45


There are many artifacts that indicate ancient people were certainly able to notice what period of time was one year and were also able to count, and read and write. Not everything recorded should necessarily be in doubt simply because it was recorded long ago. Science does not even have accurate longevity information on several currently existing species of seabirds, sharks, and turtles .....it is unknown how long some animals may actually live because they have outlived the scientists who tagged them for study.

[Edited on 23-12-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Bot0nist
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1559
Registered: 15-2-2011
Location: Right behind you.
Member Is Offline

Mood: Streching my cotyledons.

[*] posted on 23-12-2011 at 09:51


There are also many outlandish claims made throughout history that would be considered laughable in light of what we know today. I wasn't meaning that old knowledge can't be factual, only that it can't be assumed factual based on its age and endurance through time alone.



U.T.F.S.E. and learn the joys of autodidacticism!


Don't judge each day only by the harvest you reap, but also by the seeds you sow.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
Banned





Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 23-12-2011 at 09:56


What seems outlandish today may not have been outlandish five thousand years ago. There is plenty about the ancient world that is a complete mystery, and some evidence that those ancients were a lot smarter than it would seem they should be. It would not be entirely preposterous to hypothesize that during human history there may exist an altered timeline, whether that was accidental or deliberate.
Maybe Dr. Who scraped his knee on a progenitor paradox :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrs2iDsccw Out Of The Blue - APP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj3PWUF7zAw Musings on the Origins of Darwin and other dubiously intelligent Life ....the theory of supernatural election :P

[Edited on 23-12-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Bot0nist
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1559
Registered: 15-2-2011
Location: Right behind you.
Member Is Offline

Mood: Streching my cotyledons.

[*] posted on 23-12-2011 at 10:04


Ever see the series, ancient aliens? lol. Thus thread is now way of topic, but what the hell. Merry Christmas Rosco!

{The Bot succumbs to frustrated, hair-pulling, maniacal laughter and logs off.} :D




U.T.F.S.E. and learn the joys of autodidacticism!


Don't judge each day only by the harvest you reap, but also by the seeds you sow.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
quicksilver
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline

Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~

[*] posted on 23-12-2011 at 12:37


Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
I would say the innocent most at risk, and those most able to judge. This eliminates all politicians right off the bat.



Yes, ideally.

But what about a "domino" chain of events? Example:
Methods are devised to cure a great many illnesses; yet the world cannot support a population that would result. Does anyone have the right to withhold a cure for disease?

On another level:
-=Merry Christmas=-

drive safe!

[Edited on 23-12-2011 by quicksilver]




View user's profile View All Posts By User
DerAlte
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 779
Registered: 14-5-2007
Location: Erehwon
Member Is Offline

Mood: Disgusted

[*] posted on 23-12-2011 at 12:44


Rosco wrote above:
Quote:
It also reveals why any secular ethics are simply rationalizations of men which may or may not be valid, and become the basis of a man invented religion amended whenever need arises as a situational ethic having no absolutes other than being absolutely presumptuous that man decides what is right for man, rather than that God declares what is the law.


(1)ANY ethics, whether secular or ordained by any religion whatsoever, are "simply rationalizations of men which may or may not be valid." There can be no absolute standard valid for all place and time.

At the basis of morals lies the ability to distinguish 'right' from 'wrong' actions. This appears to be innate in mankind and even dogs and other mammals, or if not learned very early. Nearly all areas of the globe have completely independently evolved very similar moral codes, regardless of religions or ethnicity. The difference between the meaning of the words moral and ethical is slight, but ethical has more to do with external social interactions and moral with the internal sense of correstness. One can, in any given case, be ethical without being moral.


In the secular case, they are rules of civilized behavior (the Buddist view as well): they are the generally accepted rationizations of humanists et alia for the well being of society. In religions (especially to fundamentalists who rely entirely on ancient writings purported to come from their chosen God) they are fixed rules of conduct established by whatever priest, prophet or whoever wrote the authorized version of local tribal customs at the time of writing.

Ethics in Greek means the character or behavior of a man; the plural means manners, sadly lacking in today's society. They are rules of conduct applicable to certain certain situations and groups of humans.

(2)"...and become the basis of a man invented religion..." Since all religions are man made efforts to explain the inexplicable at the time of their adoption they will naturally be "amended whenever need arises as a situational ethic having no absolutes other than being absolutely presumptuous..."
- as indded the Jewish religion was modified by the Christian, for example.
There is nothing more presumptuous than religious dogma that assumes the absolute veracity of ancient writings.

(3)On to the main theme of this thread.

Since Watson, Crick et alia were resposible for elucidating the structure of DNA, are they therefore in any way resposible for the development of gene altered bacteria? Obvious BS. Then who is? Or are the researchers into nuclear structure in the 1930s in any resposible for the blast over Hiroshima? If a scientist hides his original discoveries you can bet someone else in the field will not and get the credit. Getting a bit closer to those responsible, are the applied scientists (engineers) who use these discoveries morally responsible? The management, or the politicians guiding or employing them? Or, in the case of deadly weapons, is it the military, GI Joe or his superiors?

I worked for DOD contractors (and MOD in the UK) for a good part of my career. I regarded this work as a useful part of the effort in the defense of the realm and never had any moral qualms about the ultimate use of such weapon or intelligence gathering systems. Enemies were engaged in the same pursuit - should we turn the other cheek? I leave the business of selecting enemies to the politicians.

Man evolved just one thing superior to all mammals. A brain. Without it he is a ridiculous bipedal animal (these can sometimes be seen on our local beaches!). If he does not use it he is nothing more than an ox behind a plough. And he is an ox behind a plough if he accepts, without reason, the precepts of antique prophets without thinking. He is then brainwashed, usually by his elders. Of course, the 'born again' faction also sufferd a delusion due to auto-suggestion implanted by some charismatic preacher, ill interpreted. Or maybe they are slightly psychotic, hearing non-existent voice of angels and speaking with the deity on some private line - a circuit within their brains.

Religion does serves a purpose if it is a comfort to the perplexed as Maimonides wrote. A priest can be as helpful as a psychiatrist.

Yet all teaching is actually brainwahing - if it gets rid of the dross or accumulated lumber of the mind and supplies clarity, it is worthwhile. Otherwise it is regression.

Religion is a product of ancient man's fear of the unknown. As time passes, parts of the unknown become known: as St. Paul said: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." Science and knowledge cleans off the dirt and permits us to view the world as it is, not as
some visionary or prophet imagines it.


Rosco seems to imply that if we do not believe in his version of creation and redmption, etc., we have no souls. The soul, like everything else, is a development of the personality. New borns have none - mere instinctive survival is their mode - but not for long. Within a week the stimulus of the enviroment and especially the fellow humans around causes it to begin to develop its own soul or psyche. In time the child picks up its morals from its parents and associates. He models himself on them. Today's parenting in my mind lacks many things in the frantic materialstic quest for goods or even gaining the simple requirements for life. Thank god I have lived for the most part in a kinder if not gentler time.

All have souls, Rosco, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, Taoist, Atheist, Agnostic or what have you. And to all I send Season's Greetings, and may they celebrate in their own chosen way.

Der Alte



View user's profile View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 23-12-2011 at 14:35


Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote:
To discover what level of understanding you have achieved explain why Styrofoam is an important component in a multi stage radiation implosion device of Teller-Ulam design.

Oh yeah, asking a question, the answer to which is available to anyone with an internet connection, is real fucking significant . . .
Top of the class, IrC?



Yet you failed to answer it. In fact I do not see any relevant scientific information you have ever added to this site. All I see is the endless sucking of every person in every thread you respond to into an ever devolving topic wrecking petty fight of words. I am not going to further your goals any longer.





"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
View user's profile View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 23-12-2011 at 15:24


Quote: Originally posted by quicksilver  
Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
I would say the innocent most at risk, and those most able to judge. This eliminates all politicians right off the bat.



Yes, ideally.

But what about a "domino" chain of events? Example:
Methods are devised to cure a great many illnesses; yet the world cannot support a population that would result. Does anyone have the right to withhold a cure for disease?

On another level:
-=Merry Christmas=-

drive safe!

[Edited on 23-12-2011 by quicksilver]


While I do not like double posting I did not want to taint this topic with the reply to the 'special needs' member.

I would have to say no they do not have the right to play creator. Everyone should always do what is right. They did not add to the population since the ill person was already here. You are connecting two different things. If there are too many grasshoppers they eat all the grass. Or whatever it is they eat. Problem solved. Nature has a way of running things quite well if left alone. There is no moral ambiguity as to right and wrong. If a thing is something you do not want done to you then do not do it to someone else. Quite simply the golden rule. The ill person who through age and knowledge gained may be doing more good for others than 50 healthy young people. It could be an old Einstein writing books from their death bed adding to the enlightenment of mankind. I value this one person far more than ten thousand healthy 20 year old gang bangers out robbing and murdering the innocent for drug money and/or fun. Quality is of more value to me than quantity. One ill person of quality is of greater value to me than any number of the gang bangers. Or I would rather be in a world of kind sick people than one full of healthy evil maniacs. So maybe part of the answer to your question includes a judgment of each individual based upon their past actions. Yet this seems to be getting back to playing creator so I suppose your question is actually very complex and not easy to answer.

Why should the single ill person who has no family be worth less than the healthy person who has 14 kids and refuses to stop breeding if the question is about simple numbers and over population? If I were a pure humanitarian I would make the cure and spend the profit on advertising for birth control if numbers was my worry. The way I see it refusing to make the cure is playing God while weaponizing the flu is playing the devil and I do not think we have the right to play either. If North Korea was not spending their wealth on weapons of war, but instead spending it on crop growing and other needs of the people there would be no starvation in prison camps going on over there.

Likewise the same is true for every other nation. Look at the land area of the arctic regions. What if all the money invested in war was invested in nuclear power and greenhouses. Enough food to feed twice the current population. As to this number getting out of control at some point survival kicks in and the world will be forced to take measures to control the increase. Such as allowing a family only so many children. This may be in opposition to values in free nations such as in the west yet at some point a rethink will have to be done to gain control. What I actually see looking at the world is amazingly it is mostly the un-free nations which seem to have out of control population growth. Don't ask me to explain why but there it is for whatever reason.

I really cannot say what the true morally correct answer to your question is other than I stay with my first thought, make the cure and let nature take care of itself. The ill have the same right to live as the healthy and if numbers is the problem then stop making them.

Yes, Merry Christmas.




"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
Banned





Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 23-12-2011 at 15:25


@Der Alte The standard for what is survivable or not at a given time may not be absolute but it is close enough. You are operating on the assumption that rationalizations of men, that is human thinking is the origin for all ideology.
There is historical commentary that such is not the case.
Religion is not something which I believe was simply dreamt up by humans in order to please whatever imaginary gods were likewise just dreamt up by ancient humans.

So instead....what if religion is a product of ancient man's reckoning not at all with fear of the unknown, but rather a rational response to the demonstrable and decisive certainty of what was absolutely clearly and universally known? Why do you rule out such a possibility? It would seem that you have decided that ancient humans were all hysterics whose responses were irrational superstitious reaction to mass delusion induced by the trickery and magic of shamans and wizards who held everyone in awe. Is it really so far fetched that in the alternative just occasionally a classroom of stone age students may be graced by the appearance of their teacher? And it would seem your view of modern Christendom is an extension in tradition of what you think is simply a modernized form of the origin in ancient tribal superstitions which then had no factual basis. I don't believe that mere illusions and superstitions are nearly so enduring as your theory would suppose.

And Paul was speaking of his own experience with an increasingly clear view and understanding of God through spiritual growth and trust ......Paul was not saying that as a child he believed in God but now he was an older and wiser man he would be necessarily putting aside such childish things as faith. Actually, Paul had become a Christian after he became a grown man, following his personal experience with meeting God in person while on the road from Jerusalem to Damascus and being struck blind at the meeting......if you believe Pauls own account. Before that educational meeting, Paul was formerly Saul a Roman citizen who was a persecutor of Christians, the equivalent of a "witch hunter" who actively hunted and killed Christians, including the martyr Stephen, until Paul met in person the risen Christ who issued him the new name Paul and different orders.

There is no moral equivalency between souls and religions when there is one redeemer, that singularity is decisive as a spiritual genetic marker for who is family and who is not. Sure it may be a kinder gentler philosophy to indulge the idea that salvation is more "diversified" and tolerant of differing beliefs, but there really isn't any authority as basis for such belief which is a non Christian concept. Quite explicitly Jesus stated exclusive status was His alone.

There is no having things both ways about this kind of definitive subject.

From the BBC, the longest running broadcast program on earth, ....... Songs of Praise

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J5YIZQ6bgY Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1mMcZO3xa4 Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq1RK2BH-AQ Part 3

[Edited on 24-12-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Ephoton
National Hazard
****




Posts: 463
Registered: 21-7-2005
Member Is Offline

Mood: trying to figure out why I need a dark room retreat when I live in a forest of wattle.

[*] posted on 23-12-2011 at 18:29


one example of a human who has ment to have lived beyond 200 years of age is Li Ching Yuen.

it was documented in the chinese archives through his military service that he reached 256.
he was a true chinese master of martial arts and qigong "for thouse who dont know qigong is a breathing
meditational exercise thats focus is on chi movement hence the name chi mastery :)"

he has also been stated to live a meer 197 beating the longest living person in the west Jeanne Calment
who reached a ripe old age of 122 and was from the frog land of france.

now having had lung damage my self from using aqua regia and now studing a course in instructing wing chun
and qigong I would have to say that qigong will extend some ones life.

if it will reach 256 is another thing all together and this is under hot debate in some circles as is stated on
the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ching-Yuen

it was said that Mr Li died when he came down from his "mountain" to visit the current emperor and recive
a tribute to his age. the enviroment he came back too effected his health so badly that he could not recover.

Now if I start using qigong in any kind of religous group "which I am not normaly part of but hey im open minded
and kind to those who burnt my past belivers" they instantly call it witch craft and tell me to stop or leave.
Especially when I explain how to go about practicing it which is normally asked. Which trust me is only the
tip of the iceberg as far as what our wonderfull gifts can intail.

I can understand that some one may feel that buy saving ones soul that they are doing the right thing.

But what if ......
one was to fall pray to an mass orchastrated drama that was based on some dude Akhenaten becouse
polythasim was to hard to dictate too.

truly if I were a leader I would probably use history to learn how to run the people I am responsible for
rather than try and let the people run me.

What if I could tell you there is a true way to extend your life and explain why it works. I could even
in a short period of time teach you and give you an Austudy grant wail showing you the "ropes"

Would you look around the corner or would your beliefe in monothaistic system hold you back from progression.

What if by learning the truth of Tao and Chi as far as we can "prove it" today would show you the path to your
spirit and "maby" give you the strenght to be strong enough to continue this spirit after death.

Would I then under your system be responsible for saving "YOUR SOUL"

Naaa it dont work that way dude.

something given something lost something stolen something tossed.

YA GOT TA EARN IT BROTHER.

and even then sometimes were just not strong enough.




e3500 console login: root
bash-2.05#

View user's profile View All Posts By User
DerAlte
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 779
Registered: 14-5-2007
Location: Erehwon
Member Is Offline

Mood: Disgusted

[*] posted on 23-12-2011 at 19:21


Rosco wrote:
Quote:
There is no having things both ways about this kind of definitive subject.

Newton wrote:
Quote:
Quicquid enim ex Phænomenis non deducitur, Hypothesis vocanda est; et Hypotheses seu Metaphysicæ, seu Physicæ, seu Qualitatum occultarum, seu Mechanicæ, in Philosophia Experimentali locum non habent.


Peace, Bro, and the compliments of the season.

Der Alte
View user's profile View All Posts By User
hissingnoise
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3939
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

[*] posted on 24-12-2011 at 02:44


Quote:
To discover what level of understanding you have achieved explain why Styrofoam is an important component in a multi stage radiation implosion device of Teller-Ulam design.
Quote:

Oh yeah, asking a question, the answer to which is available to anyone with an internet connection, is real fucking significant . . .
Top of the class, IrC?
Quote:

Yet you failed to answer it.

Choosing not to bother with your juvenile question is hardly failure to provide any answer (there are more than one, you know?), but in connection with your question, will you tell us if you've actually swallowed the energy step-down hypothesis?

View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
Banned





Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 24-12-2011 at 11:57


Quote:
There are two ways of acquiring knowledge, one through reason, the other by experiment. Argument reaches a conclusion and compels us to admit it, but it neither makes us certain nor so annihilates doubt that the mind rests calm in the intuition of truth, unless it finds this certitude by way of experience. Thus many have arguments toward attainable facts, but because they have not experienced them, they overlook them and neither avoid a harmful nor follow a beneficial course. Even if a man that has never seen fire, proves by good reasoning that fire burns, and devours and destroys things, nevertheless the mind of one hearing his arguments would never be convinced, nor would he avoid fire until he puts his hand or some combustible thing into it in order to prove by experiment what the argument taught. But after the fact of combustion is experienced, the mind is satisfied and lies calm in the certainty of truth. Hence argument is not enough, but experience is. Roger Bacon, On Experimental Science, 1268


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/bacon2.asp

Maybe the portrait of Friar Bacon should also have graced Einstein's wall. But I suppose when Einstein was choosing scientists of note, there was sensibility about not having too many portraits of scholarly Christians on the wall, and Maxwell was sufficient :P

Bacon in the article mentions Pliny (the elder) author of a 160 volume encyclopedia which was the "World Book" of its day or a sort of "Encyclopedia Roma" if you will. Of course with any mention of Pliny is sometimes an elder/younger - uncle/nephew confusion possible, so for convenience in making distinction here is more interesting reading in bios of both.

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

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

As for the gift of life offered by Jesus Christ, consider
this all you doubters about that bargain, consider now the
economics thereof. For when the Almighty gives unto
the world of humankind a Christmas gift of love,
and for reason of love alone ....the giver has already paid the cost for the gift, and therefore to you the price is right in the receiving of what it is yours as a gift of love for free.

Sometimes it is good to fear the Greeks when bearing gifts ......but not always :D

Merry Christmas


View user's profile View All Posts By User
hissingnoise
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3939
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

[*] posted on 25-12-2011 at 03:04


Quote:
Sometimes it is good to fear the Greeks when bearing gifts ......
Merry Christmas.

Yes, it was a lovelt present, and so lifelike and unexpected!
It must have taken tns of wood to make such a fine horse thing - is it presume its solid timber, or perhaps it's hollow inside . . .
Shhh! I thought I heard a hissingnoise coming from it.
Cheers Everyone, and thanks for all the fun.

Oh, It' my tinnittis...




[Edited on 25-12-2011 by hissingnoise]

[Edited on 25-12-2011 by hissingnoise]

[Edited on 25-12-2011 by hissingnoise]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Suspicious

[*] posted on 25-12-2011 at 14:10


Yes, Rosco, approximately 2000 years ago on this day, God sacrificed himself to please himself and to offer atonement to humanity for sins committed by people he created. Why he didn't just forgive all sins without the theatrics is obviously beyond our meager ability to comprehend things. Just like a dog can't understand that it can't learn English, we don't understand that we can't understand God's master plan. Therefore, the best thing to do is just to admit that we can't understand it and just believe it despite the evidence (i.e. on faith).

Furthermore, we should arbitrarily assume that Christianity is the correct one because it says so in its holy book. All the other religions are wrong because... well, because whatever society that we have been brought up in's religion is right. Except for all those other ones because... well, I can't even make a satirical argument that makes sense because it's so nonsensical.

It's utterly impossible that people wrote a book about mystical beings that isn't a factual account of what really happened. Except for those thousands of other times...

Additionally, it's impossible to be good without religion despite the fact that most crimes are committed by a disproportionate number of religious people versus non-religious. That statistic doesn't count because it goes against what I believe.

And finally, the world is flat. There's nothing you can say to me to convince me that it isn't. Anyone who believes otherwise is a spiritually-devoid idiot who is going to burn for eternity in hell.

Merry Christmas!

(And I mean that last part)




"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
View user's profile View All Posts By User This user has MSN Messenger
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 25-12-2011 at 18:49


A - Could you take your God VS No God fight somewhere else

B - "we don't understand that we can't understand God's master plan"

Maybe God thinks people are so full of it they do not deserve to know His plan.




"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Ephoton
National Hazard
****




Posts: 463
Registered: 21-7-2005
Member Is Offline

Mood: trying to figure out why I need a dark room retreat when I live in a forest of wattle.

[*] posted on 26-12-2011 at 16:18


oh come on the man has writen so many posts on explosives and poisons its damb impossible for him
not to belive int he BIG BANG :)

I think this is just another bomb to him. he loves to see things blow up and well every year at the same
time SM blows up and Rosco just sits there laughing his arse off.

got to hand it to him he is good at it.

he is probably a buddist but well read in christian ways :)




e3500 console login: root
bash-2.05#

View user's profile View All Posts By User
hissingnoise
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3939
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

[*] posted on 27-12-2011 at 04:39


Quote:
Just like a dog can't understand that it can't learn English . . .

- MJP, I must demur at this point!

View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
Banned





Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 3-2-2012 at 22:27


Quote: Originally posted by Ephoton  


(snip).... every year at the same
time SM blows up and Rosco just sits there laughing his arse off.

got to hand it to him he is good at it.


...not laughing ....somewhat dismayed, and not really surprised at the world
even at Christmas being and acting the part of being the broken and imperfect
world that the world is. The world is indeed a place where the heathen rage
and the people imagine a vain thing .....
there's nothing new under the sun in that same thing observed millennia ago
which continues, though not without a continual challenge by good authority.

Quote:

he is probably a buddist but well read in christian ways :)


Baptist actually ....for more than sixty years

The first clip is a look inside a Baptist church, the Billy Graham Chapel in North Carolina
followed by some music

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=w7vZ-hP... Nothing But The Blood

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTBBKRc24yE I Won’t Have To Worry Anymore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2MvnXnR9gU Just Over Yonder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpgm1wqdp5o Will Someone Be Waiting For Me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JoAxg5L9a0 Beyond The Sunset For Me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOytmkPzhLo Redeemed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvagoD8T0u4 The Sweet By And By

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9oW91Iv8D8 Are You Washed In The Blood Of The Lamb

Mennonites, Amish, and Baptists are fundamentally the same

If one was to compare the struggles of this world to the movie trilogy lord of the rings .....
we are something like the elves

Greetings Frodo .......Don't miss the boat.

[Edited on 4-2-2012 by Rosco Bodine]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Aperturescience27
Harmless
*




Posts: 39
Registered: 5-4-2012
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 15-4-2012 at 15:21


The reason they created the virus is because they wanted to know whether it was likely that the virus could mutate naturally into an easily-transmissible strain (apparently it is very likely), and so they could know, if they detected that strain, that they should quarantine it, and what kind of vaccine they would need to fight it. It is important to know these things. However, I don't think the knowledge should be available to the public, because obviously people could make the strain as a bioweapon. Keep in mind though that you would have to be pretty insane to want to destroy the ENTIRE human race (though some people certainly are that insane).
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1    3

  Go To Top