Spiritual Core

[Cabal]

No, that's not what I believe --- and you know it too --- don't you?

Let me refresh your memory: 407.

You're saying it wasn't a crime - how is that any different?

 

[AV1611VET]

You're saying it wasn't a crime - how is that any different?

How is what any different?

Incest is the crime of marrying a close relative.

If someone shoots someone, that is homicide.
If someone shoots someone in a war, it is not.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Sure. We are now in a universe where there is radioactive decay. Things break down over time, into other things. They look at what is now produced by decay, for example, the daughter material, and assume that the daughter was not here already. If the universe was not the same, the daughter was here, most likely, and employed at another job.

For example. We take the ion sisters, A, and B. They were happily doing their act in the different state, and enjoyed the company of siste S. Sister S was spiritual. Together, they did a fine job. Well, wouldn't you know, the present state got here, and poor sister S had to say goodbye for awhile. Funny how this physical only state is so cruel like that.

Now all things were out of kilter, and different, and the poor sisters A and B were left here on their own. As it turns out, now sister A is producing for the show, and little sister B is just a product of decay now. They have new jobs.

We now call sister A the parent (sadly science refuses to call dear God the parent). The wise men of the temporal state, and godless knowlege, come along, and observe the decaying act. How nice, they say. We can see that sister B is being well produced, and grows into a fine girl, at a certain rate. My, she is getting bigger. At that rate, golly gee, they figure, rubbing their beard, as if they were quite wise, it would taken 2 billion years to grow into the sister B we see before us. That proves it, say they. Aren't we the clever ones.

They even have other variations of the act they look at, and, the same conclusions are drawn.

Now, oh wise men of the box, there is just one thing left to do, to make all your wonderful stories come to life, and be true. You need to prove that this temporal universe state was in effect, when the curtains opened. When the theatre was built. Not just for the little bit of the last act you happen to catch. What??? You can't do that at all, in any way, anyhow? Too bad for you.

Someone might catch on....eventually. Do try to keep that day away as long as possible now. You don't want to be out of a job, and a laughing stock of all the universes, now do you?


Hope you enjoyed your stories, kids.

Stories indeed. If you submitted this for a creative writing class, I'd give you a C+, however if you submitted this to intro to science class, an F.
You get an A for effort though.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I understand why our 9th planet got plutoed --- but that's not the point.

The point is that 100% of the people here automatically agreed with the deomotion --- no questions asked.

That is, indeed, a rather different concept from what I've seen you utilize this topic for in the past. Usually you use it as a pointer to show the "temporal" and "changing" nature of science. When in fact it is little more than a definition issue.

Now, for the use at hand: showing how people "toed the line without question". Well, that isn't that much of a problem for people who realize it is merely a classification "bucket". It doesn't change Pluto in any way, so why bother with it? There are still ongoing debates within astronomy over this particular bucket but those rely more on how the bucket will be applied in future.

Personally I was enormously happy to know that a hole had been patched when the strict technical definition of "planet" was addressed.

It means, moving forward, that once established the technical definition holds sway.

Take for instance the word "theory". This is a word that creationists abuse with a vigor that makes Ike Turner look mild. "Theory" is a rather specific term of art in science, however it also has an informal meaning. Which is a problem. It allows creationists to confuse the meaning for the informal (normal person usage) with the more technical usage.

It allows for much confusion and even outright misrepresentation of factual information.

And just like my Mariana Trench thread says, they will accept anything they read, as long as it was scientifically verified first --- and this, contrary to popular opinion, is faith.

That I will grant. I am unable to get ahold of the Trieste so I can't dive on the Challenger Deep. The same for much science. The key differentiator is that many scientists have done that very thing. They've explored and provided the requisite "peer review", and don't for a second take that phrase lightly. "Peer Review" is very important and most of us who have acted as peer review panels (yes I have) take that duty seriously.

Science works precisely because when published:

1. The experiments are sufficiently described so they can be repeated by others. When they cannot be repeated those failures are published and ultimately the original article is described as a failed concept.

2. The article provides sufficient proof that is verifiable by whatever means are available.

Are there cases where data has been manipulated and researchers lied? Sure! People can do bad things. The real key is that ultimately the truth will out since scientists are skeptical enough to test everything.

If Picard and Walsh had lied about going to the Challenger Deep it would be bad, but clearly not possible to hide the data forever. Considering that the Japanese later sent Nereus down to the bottom.

I will readily grant that I do have some "faith" that I am not being lied to by every single person who speaks. I also have some amount of "faith" that science I am do not work in is as correct as the large group of practitioners describe it to me. I feel justified in that feeling for a couple of reasons:

1. I am a scientist and I know how science is done and how peer review works and how scientists tend to look over each others' shoulders obsessively.

2. I assume that when a large number of unrelated people without a common purpose agree on a point that indeed there is little reason to assume that their common point is actually a big conspiratorial lie aimed at bamboozling me.

Again I must point out that humankind has been "chasing down the God Hypothesis" since humans first gathered together as a social animal able to communicate and despite many millenia we are no closer to have a single consistent, even marginally universally accepted "model" of what God is or what he will do.

For your certainty that God is fully described in the 17th century translation of the Bible remember there are many people who have studied god who believe that book gets a huge amount wrong about the true nature of the spiritual realm, and for every one of those people there's yet a third group who "knew" a completely different god.

As a matter of real differences science, since becoming a dominant philosophy in the past couple of centuries has dramatically reshaped the face of the earth and provided provable, testable models of what things are doing and what they will do in the future. Many of these ideas are nearly universally accepted and have born out over the centuries.

Sure there's revolutions. Sure there's subtle tweaks. But in point of fact science works.

 

[dad]

Stories indeed. If you submitted this for a creative writing class, I'd give you a C+, however if you submitted this to intro to science class, an F.
You get an A for effort though.

It was meant to illustrate the basis of radioactive decay dating. Not win the booby prize in a PO science class.

 

[Split Rock]

The point is that 100% of the people here automatically agreed with the deomotion --- no questions asked.

We accept that astronomers have defined the word "planet" to exclude Pluto, and they seem to have a good reason to do so. Do you have a reason why we should not accept the new definition?

And just like my Mariana Trench thread says, they will accept anything they read, as long as it was scientifically verified first --- and this, contrary to popular opinion, is faith.

Wrong again. The key term you are glossing over is verified. Faith requires no verification. We do. Juvie seems to at least understand that much. You even let it slip on occassion that you know the difference as well. Why do you keep pretending otherwise?

Is it wrong to use this statistic (100%) as an example of how people automatically (blindly) agree with "foreign policy" (Chess is 'foreign' to them)?

So, we should tell chess players how to move their pieces? Is that your argument? Otherwise we are "blindly" accepting what chess players do and therefore have "faith." Should we non medical doctors tell surgeons what to name their surgical procedures? Should I tell artists what to call different artisitic periods? If they decide to change "Cubic" to "Geometric," should we take a vote here in thsi forum as to whether we will accept it or not? Nonsense.

 

[dad]

... Faith requires no verification. We do....

I see. Well so do we. You claimed stuff about pre 4500 tree rings, for example. You never verified it. By the way, your dendrochronologist friend, what happened!? He dropped the ball? -- Others brought up old old old roots, as dated, yet failed to verify it.

But, as you say faith requires no verification. Very well,-------- just don't pretend it is science. Paaaleeeese.

 

[AV1611VET]

We accept that astronomers have defined the word "planet" to exclude Pluto, and they seem to have a good reason to do so. Do you have a reason why we should not accept the new definition?

I don't --- but apparently there are scientists in the IAU who do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Another thing I don't get about this Pluto thing, is that the Pluto vote was accepted automatically, with 100% agreement --- no initial skepticism involved --- just automatic.

However, when it comes to the books of the Bible, which supposedly was settled by vote --- you guys want to argue it.

 

[Cabal]

How is what any different?

Incest is the crime of marrying a close relative.

If someone shoots someone, that is homicide.
If someone shoots someone in a war, it is not.

Right, exactly, so it was ok until God said it wasn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Right, exactly, so it was ok until God said it wasn't.

That is correct.

It was okay until God said it wasn't.

And just to be clear, "it" is not "incest" --- "it" is "marrying w/i the family".

 

[Cabal]

That is correct.

It was okay until God said it wasn't.

And just to be clear, "it" is not "incest" --- "it" is "marrying w/i the family".

Oh, well that little semantic alteration makes it all sound just dandy.

So what about paedophilia and necrophilia then? God hasn't placed explicit prohibitions on those.

Another thing I don't get about this Pluto thing, is that the Pluto vote was accepted automatically, with 100% agreement --- no initial skepticism involved --- just automatic.

No, it wasn't, you've been told why before, stop repeating it.

As I said - some of us READ, you should try it sometime.

However, when it comes to the books of the Bible, which supposedly was settled by vote --- you guys want to argue it.

....

"Thing X was settled by vote, so you should automatically agree with thing Y?"

At what point is that supposed to start making sense?

 

[AV1611VET]

As I said - some of us READ, you should try it sometime.

I would say that's even worse yet.

Everyone read it --- yet still come to 100% agreement?

Interesting indeed.

Not even the IAU did that.

 

[Cabal]

I would say that's even worse yet.

Everyone read it --- yet still come to 100% agreement?

Interesting indeed.

Not even the IAU did that.

The point is, it wasn't "automatic" like you claim it is.

So I see we can't win either way here.

Not what we say, it's what we are.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is, it wasn't "automatic" like you claim it is.

So I see we can't win either way here.

Not what we say, it's what we are.

Oh, my --- have I created a catch-22?

Sorry about that!

 

[Cabal]

Oh, my --- have I created a catch-22?

Sorry about that!

No, you pronounced it wrong, it's called a "double standard".

It would be a catch-22 if what you said was actually correct.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Another thing I don't get about this Pluto thing, is that the Pluto vote was accepted automatically, with 100% agreement --- no initial skepticism involved --- just automatic.

That is one of the strangest sentences I've seen in a while.

Tell me, AV, what is there to be skeptical about?

Are you skeptical that the word canid is defined as "The family of carnivorous animals comprising coyotes, dogs, foxes, jackals and wolves"?

Are you skeptical that the word speleothem is defined as "A body of mineral material formed in a cave as the result of chemical precipitation from groundwater that has entered the cave"?

What is there to be skeptical about?

Perhaps you are skeptical about the fact that the word skeptical is, in part, defined as "incredulity: doubt about the truth of something"

NOW, again, if someone had claimed Pluto was made only of purple anti-neutrinos and the home of giant giraffe-monkey hybrids, people would likely be skeptical.

If people debate on how to define a word there are differences of opinions, but how do you justify using the word "skepticism" in this application?

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell me, AV, what is there to be skeptical about?

We just go from having 9 planets in our solar system to having 8, and no one has a right to be skeptical?

Didn't we go to 10 at one time with Sitchin's junk?

Was anyone skeptical then?

I have a feeling (and forgive me if I wrong, but I don't think I am) ... but I have a feeling that some people just read the headlines and think, "Oh, okay --- whatever."

Just like in those PRATT lists --- they get treated the same way.

If it's in a PRATT list, it's automatically right.

And that's why we get called everything under the sun by newbies that don't know us from Adam.

Person A has 7000 posts, and calls Person B a liar, deceiver, or whatever.

Newbie A sees Person A's ad hominem, and automatically accepts it.

No difference.

That's also the same reason some of you guys automatically --- aw-toe-mat-tick-lee --- reject anything --- en-ee-thing --- (and I do mean 'anything') that comes from Answers-in-Genesis or the Discovery Institute.

Try and explain Pi to someone, and they won't hear it --- because it's automatic.

No questions, no skepticism, no nothing --- just automatic.

 

[thaumaturgy]

We just go from having 9 planets in our solar system to having 8, and no one has a right to be skeptical?

I'm unsure if you are not understanding what "skepticism" is or if you still don't get that this is a "classification" issue and hence a wholly synthetic matter.

Which is it?

I have a feeling (and forgive me if I wrong, but I don't think I am) ... but I have a feeling that some people just read the headlines and think, "Oh, okay --- whatever."

No, I think you don't fully understand the concepts in play here.

Let's look at your beloved bible. It has some pretty messed up "classification" of animals like bats as birds. But that's because our modern classification system is clearly different from the more simplistic classification system in which anything that was about that size and could fly around was a "bird".

It doesn't change the nature of "birds" or "bats".

(BTW: because this is a matter of nomenclature I don't use it as a critique of the Bible. The fact that God's chosen people to whom he gave all this great knowledge couldn't differentiate between two animals that don't share much in the way of biology in common isn't my problem, because I recognize that the Bible was written not by God but by flawed humans. Even if it was written by God, I would merely assume God's "classification scheme" was different.)

The point is, that this whole discussion is around what humans determine what a human word means and nothing more. There is no "skepticism". There can be disagreement over classification schema, but that is quite different from being "skeptical".

Again, I will ask that you actually read the stuff I'm typing here.

Just like in those PRATT lists --- they get treated the same way.

Wha...what? You mean the stuff that Creationists roll out based almost wholly on their ignorance of science that have to be refuted over and over again because Creationists feel the same way about science education that Count Dracula feels about crucifixes and holy water? THOSE PRATTS?

If it's in a PRATT list, it's automatically right.

Actually maybe it is for you, but in the case of my own reliance on quoting a PRATT list I do like to take some time to better understand why it is a refuted point. I will grant sometimes in science I am not that familiar with (like high energy physics) I will resort to believing professionals in the field. That's why I try to provide references for points I raise so in case I'm in error it can be pointed out.

But if you wish to think that scientists act in some specific way, perhaps you are generalizing when it is not warranted.

And that's why we get called everything under the sun by newbies that don't know us from Adam.

Well, I don't much care what a newbie says. They can have whatever opinion they want, but personally I've seen so many creationists come on proud and puffed up with their own hubris because they got their "facts" fresh from Reverend B. Goode at last Sunday's Sermon and they think they have all the science down pat, when the last thing they ever actually care about is learning the science.

That's also the same reason some of you guys automatically --- aw-toe-mat-tick-lee --- reject anything --- en-ee-thing --- (and I do mean 'anything') that comes from Answers-in-Genesis or the Discovery Institute.

Oh the very second AIG or DI actually provide any science, and I do mean en-eeeeeee science that isn't riddled with trash, bad assumptions, poor technique or inaccuracies, then maybe they will deeeeserve to have their declarations not rejected.

By-the-by, can you actually find any significant scientific discovery that AIG or DI has presented that has significantly altered the scientific landscape? (I'm not talking about them jumping on some actual science and proposing "what if" scenarios, I'm talking about new-to-the-world discoveries that overturned massive amounts of science. Because in real science that happens on occasion. But I've not seen int from AIG or DI.)

No questions, no skepticism, no nothing --- just automatic.

Hahahahahahaha. That's funny. It's funny because you seem to think that say someone who has more than 20 years in the sciences and knows a goodly amount about the earth sciences would have no real reason to reject AIG or DI, yet many Creationists who either despise science or have never taken more than a couple of intro classes seem to think that AIG and DI are the be-all and end-all for the earth sciences.

(That sounds like "pride" on such a gigantic scale that even God himself would be offended by it.)

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm unsure if you are not understanding what "skepticism" is or if you still don't get that this is a "classification" issue and hence a wholly synthetic matter.

Which is it?

I'm well aware of what skepticism is --- and actually it is neither.

It is the ancient philosophy that one should, on principle, never make an opinion for or against something, in the hope that his 'forced neutrality' will open his mind up to the a higher truth.

That philosophy has now gone the way of "linoleum" and "Scotch tape" --- IOW it is used so much it is exempt from protection of its true use.

Wha...what? You mean the stuff that Creationists roll out based almost wholly on their ignorance of science that have to be refuted over and over again because Creationists feel the same way about science education that Count Dracula feels about crucifixes and holy water? THOSE PRATTS?

No, not 'those PRATTS'.

I'm talking about lists like:

1. Contradictions in the Resurrection Story
2. Pi
3. geocentrism and flat earth
4. those sorts of things

You go to explain them, and because it's on a PRATT list somewhere, you may as well talk to the wall.