The real world of science

Frumious Bandersnatch · Sep 19, 2003

JohnR7 said:
Ok, have it your way, and science gave us Atomic bombs, science gave us amthrax, science gave us terrorism, science gave us the inquisition. Science gave us air and water pollution, science gave us inappropriate contento with all it's filth and debauchery. Science also gives us world hunger, because it has the means to provide food, but it does not. It must be science that is destroying the morality of our kids, because science gives us the media that is destroying them.

How old are you John? If you are past 35 you may consider that you owe you life to science since before science the average life expectancy was about 35. If you don't like science just go to the dentist and some teeth filled and ask God to control the pain instead of using novacaine. Who knows it may work. Did you have your children(if you have any) delivered at home by a midwife or did your wife go to a hospital? Most ironically you wouldn't have a computer to post your anti-science nonsense if it wasn't for science. And BTW science didn't "give us antrax". It was already around long ago.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

armed2010 · Sep 19, 2003

JohnR7 said:
And you are free to quit thinking that science is going to solve mankind's problems and turn back to God with your whole, heart, mind, soul and strength. Or your also free to perish in your sins if you want.

There isnt a godnet I can surf

so ill stay on my science world view

bagfullofsnakes · Sep 19, 2003

OB said:
John,

I'm half way through Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World". I highly recommend it.

/relurk

edit cuz I can't type

I LOVED that book!

Keep reading!

bagfullofsnakes · Sep 19, 2003

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
And BTW science didn't "give us antrax". It was already around long ago.

This was the part I liked:

johnr7 said:
"science gave us the inquisition"

Um, no. That would be Christianity. (Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.)

ReUsAbLePhEoNiX · Sep 19, 2003

OB said:
John,

I'm half way through Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World". I highly recommend it.

/relurk

edit cuz I can't type

hey one of my favorite books! Ive read it billions and billions of times

Nathan Poe · Sep 19, 2003

JohnR7 said:
That is because no one seems to get it. Not even Nathan, who for some unknown reason, often understands the points I am trying to make.

Of course I understand what you're trying to say. Why else would I be laughing so hard?

People talk about how "wonderful" science is. Well, when the Indians sold long island for about $24 worth of trinkets, they most have thought those trinkets were wonderful at the time, to give up the land. Now you would pay more like $24 a square foot for long island property.

That was Manhattan island. Your historical ignorance rivals your scientific ignorance...

Science offers people a hand full of trinkets. People will then give up all they have for a hand full of nothing really. There is so much more to be had, and in reality, science offers so little.

Yes, we give up our ignorance, superstition, and mythology, and all we get is a better understanding of how the world really works. How unfair.

Some of what science offers is outright ignorance. Look at Psychology for example and how stupid that is. Why settle for that puke, when we can have the mind of God, we can have the same divine mind, attitude, thoughts and nature that Jesus had when He walked this earth as very man.

Why stop there, John? Why not buy our cow for your magic beans?

John, as a fellow forum member; I feel a need to tell you this, for your own good.

You are seriously embarassing yourself now. Squeegee up what little dignity you can salvage and walk away from this thread.

Nathan Poe · Sep 19, 2003

JohnR7 said:
Ok, have it your way, and science gave us Atomic bombs, science gave us amthrax, science gave us terrorism, science gave us the inquisition. Science gave us air and water pollution, science gave us inappropriate contento with all it's filth and debauchery. Science also gives us world hunger, because it has the means to provide food, but it does not. It must be science that is destroying the morality of our kids, because science gives us the media that is destroying them.

Science split the atom; man made it into a bomb.

Science showed up germs; man harvested the deadliest.

Science taught us about the human body; man wanted to find ways to inflict pain on it. Religion gave us the Inquisition.

Science gave us moving pictures; man decided they wanted inappropriate contento.

Science has the means to provide food; man keeps it locked up in warehouses while millions starve.

Science gives us the media; man decides what shows go on it, and man decides what to watch.

Find yourself another boogyman, John; you're making a fool of yourself.

and thanks to the science of the internet, the whole world knows it.

Nathan Poe · Sep 19, 2003

OB said:
John,

I'm half way through Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World". I highly recommend it.

/relurk

edit cuz I can't type

Don't be absurd.

John would never dirty his hands by reading anything scientific, particularly by a godless man like Carl Sagan.

_Orion · Sep 19, 2003

Nathan Poe said:
Don't be absurd.

John would never dirty his hands by reading anything scientific, particularly by a godless man like Carl Sagan.

You're probably right

I also couldn't resist buying the new DVD re-release of the original PBS Cosmos series. Hopefully I'll get started on that this weekend.

Carl Sagan was pretty cool if ya ask me...most folks on here probably know that already

To ReUsAbLePhEoNiX and bagfullofsnakes: I have the unabridged audio version (only free time is in the car lately) of the book and am really loving it as well. I wished I had read it years ago.

bagfullofsnakes · Sep 19, 2003

OB said:
Carl Sagan was pretty cool if ya ask me...most folks on here probably know that already

To ReUsAbLePhEoNiX and bagfullofsnakes: I have the unabridged audio version (only free time is in the car lately) of the book and am really loving it as well. I wished I had read it years ago.

I've read, and re-read, and then read some more from that book. It is absolutely inspiring.

Carl was a pot smoker, by the way.

That just makes me laugh thinking about getting high with Carl Sagan, and getting him to talk about astronomy.

(I went to the bookstore a couple days ago, to get the CD, but alas, they didn't have it.)

futantbirth · Sep 19, 2003

I am also halfway through "Demon-Haunted World"...

The CS Baloney Detector is a great tool... though throwing pure logic in the face of someone beating through astrology cliches and UFO expectations for the hundredth time doesn't seem to do me much good... The problem is too deeply embedded for that.

ReUsAbLePhEoNiX · Sep 19, 2003

bagfullofsnakes said:
I've read, and re-read, and then read some more from that book. It is absolutely inspiring.

Carl was a pot smoker, by the way.

That just makes me laugh thinking about getting high with Carl Sagan, and getting him to talk about astronomy.

(I went to the bookstore a couple days ago, to get the CD, but alas, they didn't have it.)

I remember hearing that Carl Sagen and his wife were involved in NORML, and wrote under a different name on the subject

bagfullofsnakes · Sep 19, 2003

ReUsAbLePhEoNiX said:
I remember hearing that Carl Sagen and his wife were involved in NORML, and wrote under a different name on the subject

You've got a good memory.

He wrote under the pseudonym, "Mr-X"

Here is a link to the short essay he wrote about marijuana use:
http://www.marijuana-uses.com/examples/Mr_X.htm

Zadok001 · Sep 19, 2003

JohnR7 said:
Here is a typical claim made on behalf of science:

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0860980.html

"Modern science holds out a number of promises, as well as a number of problems. In the foreseeable future researchers may solve the riddle of life and create life itself in a test tube. Most diseases may be brought under control. Science is also working toward control over the environment, e.g., dispersing hurricanes before they can endanger life or property. New sources of energy are being developed, and these together with the capacity to manipulate alien environments may make life possible on the moon or other planets."

Now your going to try to tell me that there are not people out there making wild claims about all that science can do and will do for us?

*blink* Think about the following two statements for a moment:

1. At some point in the future, Joe will be able to legally consume alchohol.

2. Joe is able to legally consume alchohol.

You ARE clear on how those two statements differ, correct? One defines what Joe will be able to do at some point, and the other makes a claim about what Joe can do AT THE MOMENT.

The quote you gave above says, effectively, that at some point in the future, science may be cabable of doing X, Y, and Z. It does NOT claim science is presently capable of these things. At present, when a hurricane forms or a child contracts a deadly, incurable infection, science can't do anything about it. Maybe in fifty years, science WILL be able to do something about it.

Now, how does this type of statement count as an 'unkept' promise? By that definition, John, the events in Revelations are ALL 'unkept' promises because they haven't yet occurred. Doesn't that strike you as a tad nuts?

ifriit · Sep 19, 2003

JohnR7 said:
Edison invented the carbon telephone transmitter which at first was used to make the telephone. Then this invention not only led to the development of the microphone, which made early radio possible, but the solid state "diode" or transistor which makes so many of today's electronic devices possible. Including television and computers. Also Edison discovered what was known as the Edison effect that was used to make the first tubes for radios.

Edison may have invented the carbon telephone transmitter, but I can only find information indicating he patented it. The distinction is important, as he patented many things he himself did not invent.

The carbon telephone transmitter, however, was not particularly instrumental to the invention of the vacuum tube, as that had its basis in 16th century experimentation. It was the lightbulb that led to the diode via the Edison Effect, which was discovered by William J. Hammer, an employee of Edison's. It was named the Edison Effect after Edison patented the lightbulb; Edison himself did no work with the effect.

JohnR7 said:
Edison did invent the first movie camera and projector.

No, he did not. As I stated, William Kennedy Laurie Dickson invented the movie camera. Edison simply patented it, as Dickson was employed by Edison.

armed2010 · Sep 19, 2003

Hey john, when you get to china, tell me what its like

Melange_Thief · Sep 19, 2003

Jon, I sincerely want to know the answer to this question and I WILL NOT make fun of you for any answer: Jon, do you think dignity is satanic?

LorentzHA · Sep 19, 2003

Jet Black said:
what? is the criterion for science now that the practitioner has a university education and letters after his name? Science, the study of nature, is responsible for these things. no-one just sat there praying only for a recipie for rubber to materialise infront of him

JB-I got a laugh out of this, this is funny

JohnR7 · Sep 19, 2003

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
How old are you John? If you are past 35 you may consider that you owe you life to science since before science the average life expectancy was about 35.

I think I am going to need your evidence for that. The word of God shows us ways we can have a long life, if that is what we want:

Ephes. 6:2-3
"Honor your father and mother," which is the first commandment with promise: [3] "that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth."

If you don't like science just go to the dentist and some teeth filled and ask God to control the pain instead of using novacaine.

I ask the dentist not to use novacaine. I don't like it. They never gave it to me as a child and I do not see any need for it now.

Who knows it may work.

You do not need novacaine, there is not that much pain, and what little there is does not last that long. I don't see any need for it.

Did you have your children(if you have any) delivered at home by a midwife or did your wife go to a hospital?

We would have used a midwife, but my wife was past the age of 35, so the law would not allow it. In the Philippines, they mostly use midwives and my wife would have been perfectly content with that.

Sometimes the law forces science on you, if you want it or not.

you wouldn't have a computer to post your anti-science

I am beginning to wonder if the good outweighs the bad, when it comes to computers. There is so much filth and disgusting perversion on computers. If science is so wonderful, why don't they find a way to get that filth off of the internet. Or at least come up with a way to block it so that our children are not exposed to it.

JohnR7 · Sep 19, 2003

armed2010 said:
Hey john, when you get to china, tell me what its like

China? Did I miss something? I have been to Hong Kong twice. Do you want me to tell you what it was like?

The real world of science

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Liberated from SinComplex

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Active Member

Liberated from SinComplex

Active Member

Gli alberi hanno orecchie, occhi e denti.

PRABOB!

Well-Known Member

ROMANI ITE DOMUM

Electric Kool-Aid Girl

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads