Bad Science Journalism: The Underdog Story

[AV1611VET]

If so, please accept my apologies. My bad.

Let's put all the rhetoric aside and talk plain, Thaumaturgy.

Today's science is of the devil, and scientists, who should be doing God's work on a mundane level, are instead acting in the capacity of Satan's puppets.

Now you may not like that, but I have already shown how science and Satan interface, using the very words of Jesus, Himself, Who was talking to Satan at the time.

You can dress it up and make it look neutral, but the fact of the matter is, nature is hostile, but obedient to God; and atheists and [most] scientists do not savor the things of God.

And all a Theistic Scientist does, is talk out of one side of his mouth in a laboratory, and the other side of his mouth in a church.

 

[Morcova]

You don't want to know what I call it; and as far as this guy being a Buddhist, or his post being wrong, or whatever --- take it up with him. I'm really not interested. I've already stated who is really behind today's science, and it would make this guy's article pale by comparison.

Who is it? Is it the Aliens?

The Illuminati?

Or the christianity's favorite whipping boy the Jews?

 

[Morcova]

And what points did I myself raised, Thaumaturgy?

All I said, in jest, was:



And I used the word "sham" in the place of a less diabolical term for what I normally use.

You're welcome.

Here folks we see the creationist, when shown he lacks the knowledge to back up his claims, pretend he was just joking in the first place.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here folks we see the creationist, when shown he lacks the knowledge to back up his claims, pretend he was just joking in the first place.

I back my claims up, in writing; something I don't see Theistic Evolutionists ever do.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

Who is it? Is it the Aliens?

The Illuminati?

Or the christianity's favorite whipping boy the Jews?

Don't ascribe the actions of individuals onto a philosophy or religion that does not at all support such actions.

 

[Molal]

And all a Theistic Scientist does, is talk out of one side of his mouth in a laboratory, and the other side of his mouth in a church.

Really? I think you mean based on YOUR biblical interpretation. Or did you mean, based on your denomination?

AV, I am quite shocked to read this from you, and very disappointed. Yet again, you conflate biblical inerrancy with literality and fail dismally.

 

[AV1611VET]

Really? I think you mean based on YOUR biblical interpretation.

It's hard to twist the Scriptures when you interpret Them literally, and I'm not the only one who interprets Them literally.

Or did you mean, based on your denomination?

I'm not in a denomination.

AV, I am quite shocked to read this from you, and very disappointed.

I'm sorry you feel that way - I really am.

Yet again, you conflate biblical inerrancy with literality and fail dismally.

I didn't get that --- but it doesn't really matter.

 

[Bombila]

Leaving AV's science-is-the-devil stance out of it, I don't agree that it is true that people cannot grasp the basics of scientific methods without practical experience in a post secondary school lab situation. A decent elementary school education will outline and teach an understanding of scientific method, and a decent high school education will elaborate on scientific principles and methodology, to the degree that students who take science education no further are still able to evaluate by research/reading whether a discovery has gone through a reasonably rigorous scientific examimation or not. I hesitate to propose that public schools are better generally in Canada than in the US, but reading here and elsewhere, that is definitely the impression with reference to science, biology, even geography and history.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Let's put all the rhetoric aside and talk plain, Thaumaturgy.

OKey dokey. But you ain't gonna like it.

Today's science is of the devil, and scientists, who should be doing God's work on a mundane level, are instead acting in the capacity of Satan's puppets.

Let me be very plain here: You sound like either a child or delusional when you say this.

No offense, I understand it is your religious faith that causes you to talk like this, but I'm being "plain" here.

When I hear an adult say this it just sounds silly.

It sounds doubly so when it comes from someone who doesn't know the first foreign thing about what science is or how it is done.

May I ask what it is you do for a living?

Just generally. Are you a janitor? An accountant? A businessman? Because you are busy telling scientists what science is all about, and, plainly speaking, you sound like a fool to me.

Now you may not like that, but I have already shown how science and Satan interface

Wouldn't it help your point if you knew anything about science? Or actually had an interest in science?

You tell us all Science is "god's gift", but you don't even know what it is, and then you tell us scientists are unwittingly satan's puppets?

Sorry but you are verging on "Uninformed Blowhard" status.

Gimme a break. I've asked you before but what would you say to an atheist who wished to slag Christianity but had never read the bible or set foot in a Christian church? Would you take them seriously?

This is an important question because I'm seeing a lot of Creationists who seem to forget the Golden Rule in their quest to slag fields they themselves don't understand.

You can dress it up and make it look neutral, but the fact of the matter is, nature is hostile, but obedient to God

Could you bother to say this again, only with something like "meaning" or "content"? I'm getting tired of reading this pablum. It's meaningless garbage. Word salad that only has meaning to you.

; and atheists and [most] scientists do not savor the things of God.

Are you unable to pay attention? Look at the folks on this board. Maneki and Molal both are Christians! They may not be YOU but they are Christians.

I used to be a Christian!

I would have to work really hard to find an open atheist anywhere in the scientists around me.

I work among scientists and have for a couple decades now. I haven't met many full-on atheists.

What is YOUR experience?

And all a Theistic Scientist does, is talk out of one side of his mouth in a laboratory, and the other side of his mouth in a church.

You are amazingly uninformed on this subject.

[bible]Matthew 7:1[/bible]

You better start backing up your slander or you will be on the border of breaking a commandment. You remember, the one about "false witness"?

 

[Loudmouth]

You may be right -- I never realized how useful the scientific method was until I got out of the classroom and into the lab -- but there has to be some way to get more people to appreciate it.

I don't want to drag this too far afield, but this reminds me of the debate between long time fans and bandwagon fans. I was listening to the Jim Rome show (a sports talk radio program) and he hit it on the head. More people are bandwagon fans nowadays because they simply don't have time to waste on a losing team. In the same way, people have less and less free time every year and if they don't want to spend it learning about science then that's fine. I can understand that. Some of us find science very interesting and we spend our free time learning about scientific fields that we were not trained in (theoretical physics is my guilty pleasure). But at the same time, how many people are as nerdy as we are?

It sounds like the media's first priority is to draw eyeballs, not to disseminate information.

That's it exactly. The media tries to "sex up" science, often at the expense of the science itself.

(I remember an alternate medium that existed about 10 years ago, a calendar called "Studmuffins of Science." It had 12 months of beefcake Ph.D. scientists showing that science was not just cool, but also hawt. There was supposed to be another calendar coming out that had the lovely ladies of science as well, but the project folded before it happened. Too bad -- I wanted to be Mr. January when I got my doctorate, and it closed up seven years too soon. )

There are hot lady scientists!!!!?????

 

[TheManeki]

I don't want to drag this too far afield, but this reminds me of the debate between long time fans and bandwagon fans. I was listening to the Jim Rome show (a sports talk radio program) and he hit it on the head. More people are bandwagon fans nowadays because they simply don't have time to waste on a losing team. In the same way, people have less and less free time every year and if they don't want to spend it learning about science then that's fine. I can understand that. Some of us find science very interesting and we spend our free time learning about scientific fields that we were not trained in (theoretical physics is my guilty pleasure). But at the same time, how many people are as nerdy as we are?

That's an excellent way of looking at it! I'll have to remember that one. You're reminding me of something I heard regarding a recent AAAS session involving misperceptions of science -- "Everyone is a lifelong learner...but once people leave school, that learning becomes a voluntary matter that's largely driven by individual taste...a surprising amount of it is faith-based; adults don't have the time or need to learn large frameworks like evolution, so they're often willing to accept or reject information based reasons beyond its consistency with scientific understanding."

There are hot lady scientists!!!!?????

Lady scientists are, by definition, hawt.

 

[Tomk80]

Let's put all the rhetoric aside and talk plain, Thaumaturgy.

Today's science is of the devil, and scientists, who should be doing God's work on a mundane level, are instead acting in the capacity of Satan's puppets.

Now you may not like that, but I have already shown how science and Satan interface, using the very words of Jesus, Himself, Who was talking to Satan at the time.

You can dress it up and make it look neutral, but the fact of the matter is, nature is hostile, but obedient to God; and atheists and [most] scientists do not savor the things of God.

And all a Theistic Scientist does, is talk out of one side of his mouth in a laboratory, and the other side of his mouth in a church.

Is this for real?

 

[GoSeminoles!]

I back my claims up, in writing; something I don't see Theistic Evolutionists ever do.

Baby Jesus cries when you lie for him.

Or he lies when you cry for him -- I can never remember which.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let me be very plain here: You sound like either a child or a delusional psychotic when you say this.

By today's standards, I don't doubt that. From what I understand, if one takes the Rorschach Test, and sees an abundance of Christian symbols, he is diagnosed (or prognosed) along the lines of "delusional." (Maybe someone in this field can confirm this either way.)

 

[Molal]

It's hard to twist the Scriptures when you interpret Them literally, and I'm not the only one who interprets Them literally.



I'm not in a denomination.



I'm sorry you feel that way - I really am.



I didn't get that --- but it doesn't really matter.

AV - I didn't say you were the only one who interprets scripture literally. My point was that - it appears you make the same error as other biblical literalists, you conflate biblical inerrancy with a literal interpretation. This is too say, you believe that the bible has to be interpreted literally to be inerrant and the bible is only inerrant when interpreted literally. This is particularly true for the book of Genesis.

I maintain that this debate is not bible vs. science, it is biblical interpretation vs. science.

 

[AV1611VET]

I maintain that this debate is not bible vs. science, it is biblical interpretation vs. science.

Jesus interpreted the Scriptures literally, and so do [should] I [we].

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don't need to know the nuances of science. When I look at a green object, I don't have to know what mauve is to know it's not mauve, it's green.

Again, I'll ask for the billionth time it seems: what would you say to an atheist who insists on denigrating Christianity but never read the Bible or set foot in a Christian church?

You see, AV, you don't need to know science at all. But, get one thing very straight, if you want to tell scientists they are unwittingly satan's puppets, then you better know something about science to begin with.

Otherwise you sound like a pontificating jerk.

I'm an ex-computer [mainframe] operator with an AA degree in Business Administration.

A computer guy who knows so amazingly little about science???

I'm sorry but I'm kind of aghast here. Especially an "old school" mainframe-era person.

I graduated summa cum laude in 1978, can play chess blindfolded, know PI to the 20[sup]th[/sup], and have an IQ of 176.

I can see I scratched a bit too deeply with that one! You had to bring out the "big guns". Summa cum laude with an associates degree. Pi to 20 digits.

I'm always impressed when I hear someone tout their IQ to 3 significant figures.

Fair enough?

All I wanted to know is what you do or did for a living.

Now, try this on for size:

I'm a computer novice. I don't do computers well, I use them as a tool.

Do you know what I know? Computer mainframe operators are almost to a person illiterate semi-morons. They eat from garbage dumpsters and have illicit relations with farm animals daily.

Do you know that I don't even care to know what computer mainframe operators are like in real life? Because I don't care about computer mainframes.

I do know that computers are god's gift to humanity, but the vast majority of computer operators are evil to the core.

There, does that feel good to you? Did you enjoy that? Do you take it seriously?

Or do I sound like a jerk?

It would only score Brownie points with you guys.

No, you'd sound less like a jerk to those whom you are calling unwitting puppets of satan. (Not that I believe in satan, but it does tell me that you think I'm unwittingly doing evil, which is pretty laughable if you knew the kind of science I do).

I said scientists are a gift from God --- not science. And I said most scientists are unwittingly Satan's puppets.

And you're verging on on the Miss Quote awards.

Scientists do science. If they don't do science then they aren't scientists. So are you saying that scientists are good as long as they don't do science which is heavily influenced by satan?

I'm sorry but it is pretty hard to "misquote" someone who uses language in such an obscure, obfuscatory or sui generis manner that no one can understand what they are saying.

 

[Tomk80]

By today's standards, I don't doubt that. From what I understand, if one takes the Rorschach Test, and sees an abundance of Christian symbols, he is diagnosed (or prognosed) along the lines of "delusional." (Maybe someone in this field can confirm this either way.)

Not from the field, but from what I can gather about the test, you'll be diagnosed delusional for seeing anything in the inkblot other than a very narrow range of description. Seeing religious symbolism will no doubt be amongst the many things that do not fit the description.

Rorschach is hardly used by psychologists nowadays as it is believed to have a very low validity.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Jesus interpreted the Scriptures literally, and so do [should] I [we].

Intepretted scriptures literally, but spoke in parables.

Funny that.

[BIBLE]Matthew 13:13-15[/BIBLE]

 

[MrGoodBytes]

...and have an IQ of 176.

More evidence that an IQ in the genius range isn't necessarily correlated with, well, anything, really.