- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,072
- 52,396
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I will scientifically prove the existence of God to you
- Thread starter The_Order
- Start date
- Status
Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 14,822
- 7,318
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Well if you did blame them on science, it would show once and for all that you are not a person worth taking seriously at all.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,072
- 52,396
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I've experienced that, ever since I started telling people about Jesus.
Upvote
0
Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 14,822
- 7,318
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
I doubt it's because of that, but whatever helps you sleep at night.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,072
- 52,396
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 14,822
- 7,318
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
I see this nonsense for blaming science because it rained on Tuesday is not only ridiculous but against forum rules.
Since AI is used as justification I asked if the Hindenburg was a scientific disaster.
What about the Chernobyl disaster, 2010 Haiti earthquake, Deepwater Horizon oil spill?
I worked in the automotive industry in forensic engineering (which incidentally is an interdisciplinary branch of science and engineering) and the problems I encountered where 99% engineering failures.
In fact the only problem I recall was a science failure was the passage of stray current (an engineering failure) through a radiator hose which caused catastrophic corrosion of a water outlet spigot in the engine.
As scientists we underestimated the conductivity of carbon black fillers in radiator hose formulations which required a scientific solution (reformulation of rubber compound for higher electrical resistance).
Since AI is used as justification I asked if the Hindenburg was a scientific disaster.
I agree with its summation.The Hindenburg disaster was not primarily a scientific disaster—it was more of an engineering, design, and public relations catastrophe. However, it did have scientific and technological implications. Here's a breakdown:
What Happened?
On May 6, 1937, the German airship LZ 129 Hindenburg caught fire and was destroyed while attempting to land in New Jersey. Of the 97 people on board, 36 died, along with one person on the ground.
Scientific vs. Engineering Disaster
Type Was It? Explanation Scientific No
The Hindenburg didn't fail due to flawed scientific principles. The physics and chemistry behind airship flight were well understood. Engineering Yes
It involved poor materials choices (e.g., flammable hydrogen instead of helium, highly flammable skin coatings) and design risks that were not adequately mitigated. Public Safety/Policy The disaster shifted public opinion against airships and exposed the political limitations of technology (e.g., the U.S. wouldn't sell helium to Nazi Germany).
Scientific Lessons or Consequences
- Hydrogen's dangers in aviation were confirmed dramatically.
- Prompted more research into non-flammable lifting gases and safer materials.
- Ended the era of passenger airships almost overnight.
In summary, the Hindenburg wasn't a failure of science—it was a failure to safely apply scientific knowledge through engineering and risk management.
Would you like a diagram showing how the airship was constructed or where the fire started?
What about the Chernobyl disaster, 2010 Haiti earthquake, Deepwater Horizon oil spill?
Once again I agree.Great question — let's take a look at each of these events and classify whether they qualify as scientific disasters, technological/engineering failures, or natural disasters, and why:
1. Chernobyl Disaster (1986)
Classification: Scientific and engineering disaster
Explanation:
- It was the result of a flawed reactor design combined with serious operational mistakes.
- The operators conducted an unsafe test without fully understanding the reactor's physics.
- The event revealed gaps in nuclear physics comprehension, systems engineering, and safety culture in the Soviet Union.
- Misunderstanding of how the RBMK reactor would behave under certain conditions.
- Poor grasp of reactor kinetics and feedback mechanisms.
- No containment structure.
- Poor safety protocols and design flaws.
2. 2010 Haiti Earthquake
Classification: Natural disaster
Explanation:
- A magnitude 7.0 earthquake caused massive destruction due to Haiti’s vulnerability, not a failure of science.
- Geologically, earthquakes are natural phenomena that are well understood scientifically, but unpredictable in timing.
- Science didn't fail; rather, the infrastructure and preparedness were inadequate due to economic and political issues.
3. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (2010)
️ Classification: Engineering/technological disaster
Explanation:
- Caused by failure of a blowout preventer, risky corporate decisions, and ignoring warning signs.
- Scientific knowledge of geology and petroleum engineering existed, but it was poorly applied.
- Bad risk management
- Flawed safety systems
- Underestimating deepwater drilling risks
Summary Table:
Event Scientific Disaster? Type Chernobyl Scientific & engineering failure Haiti Earthquake Natural disaster Deepwater Horizon Spill Engineering/technological failure
Would you like to explore more examples of actual scientific disasters (where science itself failed or was misapplied)?
I worked in the automotive industry in forensic engineering (which incidentally is an interdisciplinary branch of science and engineering) and the problems I encountered where 99% engineering failures.
In fact the only problem I recall was a science failure was the passage of stray current (an engineering failure) through a radiator hose which caused catastrophic corrosion of a water outlet spigot in the engine.
As scientists we underestimated the conductivity of carbon black fillers in radiator hose formulations which required a scientific solution (reformulation of rubber compound for higher electrical resistance).
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,072
- 52,396
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Is this an example of what you call "nonsense"?
From AI Overview:
Cloud seeding experiments have shown varying degrees of success in inducing rainfall at different times and locations. For example, scientists in the United Arab Emirates reported a significant rainstorm in Al Ain on July 20-21, 2021, after using drones to deliver electric charges to air molecules.
20 July 2021 was on a Tuesday.
I blame science because it rained on Tuesday, and I submit it isn't nonsense, but an undertaking scientists found worthy of reporting.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
- Nov 2, 2016
- 4,816
- 1,641
- 67
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Much as you would prefer it wasn’t, nde research IS mainstream science.
the advocates of consciousness outside the body are many leading medics, basing conclusions on statistics from thousands of cases with longitudinal controls.
Until you start studying other than your own beliefs, you will never know what is mainstream science.
Hiw many science books or papers did you read this week? The average poster here reads none.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
One nation indivisible
- Mar 11, 2017
- 20,992
- 15,844
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Given the rather slim selection of publications that you have presented here over the years, it doesn't look that active as a field. Are you sure it is "mainstream". Even in the very narrow sub-sub-sub-field I largely work in there are several groups and a couple dozen new papers each year. I've not seen evidence of that level of effort/productivity on NDEs.
longitudinal? [Im-not-sure-you-know-what-that-word-means-PB.jpeg]
This is supposed to be science. Belief has nothing to do with it.
It's Monday, so I haven't read any yet, but I will read several.
Upvote
0
I propose a list of recent 'mainstream science' studies .. (in support of the definition you use there).
As follows:
- "The Effect of Cow Names on Milk Production": Cows with names produce more milk than nameless cows.
- "Knuckle Cracking and Arthritis": A study investigating the effects of daily knuckle cracking on arthritis.
- "Beer Bottle Head Trauma": A study on whether it's better to be hit on the head with a full or empty beer bottle.
- "Pregnant Women and Tipping Over": A study on why pregnant women don't tip over.
- "Bra to Face Mask": An invention of a bra that can be converted into a face mask.
- "Dead Cockroaches and Magnetism": A study on the behavioral differences between dead and living magnetised cockroaches.
- "Saliva Production in Children": A study estimating the amount of saliva produced by a five-year-old child per day.
- "Pigeons and Missiles": Experiments on housing pigeons in missiles to guide flight paths.
- "Long-Lived People and Record Keeping": A study on the relationship between the length of life and the quality of birth and death records.
- "Coin Flips and Landing Side": A study showing that when a coin is flipped, it tends to land on the same side as it started.
Upvote
0
- Nov 2, 2016
- 4,816
- 1,641
- 67
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
How many of those had hundreds of front line and researching medics , papers and books?
How many were published in leading peer reviewed medical journals.
Yet another @SelfSim straw man Comparison.
the issues YOU chose were fringe.
It’s pointless trying a scientific discussion here.
None of you know enough or study enough To fill in gaps .
Upvote
0
Huh? Whatever do you mean?
'Mainstream' scientists often publish such studies.
Some more recent examples include:
- Takanori Takebe (Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Japan):
Awarded the Physiology Prize for research demonstrating that mammals can breathe through their anus. This research was inspired by the ability of aquatic organisms like loaches to breathe through their intestines and explored enteral ventilation via the anus (EVA) in mouse and pig models of respiratory failure.
- F. Kanda, E. Yagi, M. Fukuda, K. Nakajima, T. Ohta, and O. Nakata (Shiseido Research Center in Yokohama):
Received the Medicine Prize for their study on "Elucidation of Chemical Compounds Responsible for Foot Malodour," which concluded that people who believe they have foot odor do, and those who don't, don't.
- Marjolaine Willems and colleagues:
Awarded the Anatomy Prize for investigating the relationship between the direction of hair swirls on the heads of people in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Their paper, "Genetic determinism and hemispheric influence in hair whorl formation," explored the possibility of a genetic or hemispheric influence on hair whorl direction.
- Jacob White and Felipe Yamashita:
Won the Botany Prize for their research showing that the South American plant Boquila trifoliolata can mimic the leaves of artificial plastic plants, suggesting the possibility of "plant vision"
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
- Nov 23, 2013
- 15,057
- 5,307
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
The first one.
Perhaps you are using one of the other definitions?
Let's have a look at them, shall we?
***
This doesn't really apply to this discussion though, does it?
Again, this doesn't apply to this discussion.
It applies to me, but not to our discussion.
Yeah, none of these really work either, do they?
Oh, maybe we have something here.... Oh, nope, it still doesn't work. It still requires that it has existed for a length of TYIME, which your embedded age says didn't happen. So this doesn't work either.
These don't work either...
This one doesn't really work either, despite being science related. Since they refer to periods of TIME (which embedded age says did not happen).
How can we have a period of Human history that existed BEFORE Humans were around? In any case, history requires time, and your embedded age states there was no time.
I'm gonna guess this isn't the definition you had in mind. Let me know if I'm wrong.
So how about this, AV.
Instead of complaining that I'm using the WRONG definition of "age," how about you tell me what the RIGHT definition is, okay?
Upvote
0
truthpls
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2023
- 2,615
- 556
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
True
That depends if age starts when something comes to exist or not. I think of it that way. So if the earth came to exist some 6100 years ago in my mind it's age is 6100 years old
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
- Nov 23, 2013
- 15,057
- 5,307
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
How could something be aging before it even exists?
If it came into existence 6100 years ago, then it has an age of 6100 years. It can't have an age of billions of years if it has existed for only 6100 years.
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 22,770
- 15,399
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
The conclusions are pre determined, risible and about as far from the scientific method as it's possible to get.
This week I'm halfway through The Conscious Mind by Chalmers. Last week it was The Human Mind by Bloom. A couple of weeks ago it was Evolutionary Psychology by various authors. So get off that high horse right now.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
