The older I get...

[Paradoxum]

I believe the science is in bed with politics more often than not.

And I think you are wrong and have no reason to think that.

 

[farmer joe]

Finally we all agree on something, except the science part. But this thread wasn't about science. Amen to all.

 

[Rajni]

...the more I distrust anything reported about any topic, whether it be politics or human affairs or even science. I mean the only secular topic I trust as fact is pure mathematics.

Is this a common occurrence as we get older or is this a direct result from the amount of pure sewage we are required to swallow every day? I have just about gotten to the point where I watch the news once a week because there is so much hateful nothingness on it.

Everything seems to be about "divide and conquer", or "what I say is true, the opposing view is not only wrong but shows ignorance or bigotry or racism or some other negative character trait." It is no longer ok to disagree, it is now understood that any disagreement reveals some character flaw in the opposing view.

Anyways, I am glad I am secure in the Lord because those lost souls who are banking on humanity to come up with all the answers and speak the truth are building some big houses on some sandy foundations.

Just having a bad day I guess...

I think I understand where you’re coming from; I’ve gotten more that way myself.

I pretty much ignore almost all of the news on TV or in the papers, partly because I have this nagging hunch that at least some of it could be either blatantly untrue, or else staged by people hired to make things look a certain way in order to sway public opinion or conduct some sort of social experiment (think of the effects on the public from the old 1930’s War of the Worlds radio broadcast, only used intentionally). That sounds a bit conspiracy-theorist on my part, but there it is (I used to be much worse, lol! )

My other reason for not taking much of it seriously is more from a human-nature perspective: I’m not necessarily getting info on how things really are, I’m getting info on how things are believed to be. Everyone has a perspective -- their “story” -- on reality, and every perspective is different, and it appears that every perspective can come up with data to (seemingly) back it up.

I think it just feels more overwhelming nowadays because we are able to get our hands on so much more incoming information via the Internet. Maybe we weren’t meant to take in so much stuff so quickly, but then again having a more detached view of things and not taking it too seriously might be just the thing that helps preserve one’s sanity in spite of it. I'm persuaded that God is in control, even when it appears otherwise.

 

[Davian]

...
The only truth man knows without God is money...follow the money on any topic and the corruption is revealed.

Which would include religion.

 

[Elioenai26]

It must be remembered that:

"It is not in the nature of politics that the best men should be elected. The best men do not want to govern their fellowmen."

George Macdonald

There is corruption in every arena that men involve themselves in under the sun. Journalism, religion, politics, science, the academic realm, etc. etc.

And the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

And a man is not easily led to see through the eyes of another. ​

 

[farmer joe]

According to this article, Fox news is the number one news outlet in America. Followed by msnbc and then cnn.
CNN Primetime Ratings Sink To 20-Year Weekly Low


Pretty sad if ya ask me.

 

[jpcedotal]

I think I understand where you’re coming from; I’ve gotten more that way myself.

I pretty much ignore almost all of the news on TV or in the papers, partly because I have this nagging hunch that at least some of it could be either blatantly untrue, or else staged by people hired to make things look a certain way in order to sway public opinion or conduct some sort of social experiment (think of the effects on the public from the old 1930’s War of the Worlds radio broadcast, only used intentionally). That sounds a bit conspiracy-theorist on my part, but there it is (I used to be much worse, lol! )

My other reason for not taking much of it seriously is more from a human-nature perspective: I’m not necessarily getting info on how things really are, I’m getting info on how things are believed to be. Everyone has a perspective -- their “story” -- on reality, and every perspective is different, and it appears that every perspective can come up with data to (seemingly) back it up.

I think it just feels more overwhelming nowadays because we are able to get our hands on so much more incoming information via the Internet. Maybe we weren’t meant to take in so much stuff so quickly, but then again having a more detached view of things and not taking it too seriously might be just the thing that helps preserve one’s sanity in spite of it. I'm persuaded that God is in control, even when it appears otherwise.

Yeah, you caught what I was throwin...

One has to believe God is in control, otherwise there is only this intentional deception and half-truths. To me, it is just so obvious just how sinful man is, how any topic, any event, any decision is the worst/best decision ever.

 

[jpcedotal]

Which would include religion.

true...when man gets involved with even religion corruption is soon to follow. That's why we must stick to Scripture. It is the only thing in the entire world that has not been corrupted by shifting moral standards and practices.

 

[jpcedotal]

And I think you are wrong and have no reason to think that.

It's cool, I aint trying to convert. I would just ask that you put the same kind of scrutiny towards science as you do toward religion. Don't just swallow what some group spews just because they were the label of scientist.

 

[The Engineer]

It's cool, I aint trying to convert. I would just ask that you put the same kind of scrutiny towards science as you do toward religion. Don't just swallow what some group spews just because they were the label of scientist.

That's not why I believe them, at all. I believe them because their explanations make sense. If I find they don't make sense, I don't believe them, it's that easy.

As I said, to make sense of science, one must have at least a basic understanding of science. Without that, it's impossible to distinguish real science from pseudoscience.

EDIT:
By the way, I can't imagine a scientist conspiracy in physics, biology or chemistry. Why would any corporation pay a scientist to advance the string theory?
If anything, corporations would pay for the scientists getting results, and incidentally, you get the best results in these fields by sticking to the truth, i.e. to that which makes the most sense.

If you want to have an example of a science that is a real can of worms, try anything that has something to do with food. My favorite "scientist" in that field is Gillian McKeith. She literally bought her doctor title from a source which sells these things even to dead dogs (this really happened), and she talks crap about how eating (poisonous) algae will increase your DNA. Well, according to all other scientific fields, eating anything other than radioactive or cancerogenic substances won't do anything to your DNA, and even if eating algae would make your DNA strains longer, that wouldn't make you more healthy. Of all animals, lung fishes have the longest DNA; the length of the DNA doesn't correlate with superiority, intelligence, complexity or any other property that you can attribute to a life form.

Scientists in some fields may have an agenda, sure, but those fields are almost always subordinated to fields were scientists wouldn't gain anything from being corrupt. Of course, they could design their theories so that the crap that Gillian McKeith talks would make sense, but apparently, that's not the case, and even if they tried, I don't think they would succeed. Do you know how hard it is to design a consistent conspiracy theory alone? Now imagine doing this along with 10000 other people, all of whom have different agendas and sponsors. Wouldn't work.

 

[jpcedotal]

Science and Politics Make Bad Bed Fellows

The Strange Politics of Science

The Politics of Science - Christianity Today

The Politics of Science - Washington Post

The Politics of Science - Center for Science and Technology

On the science debate of this thread, all I am trying to get across is that science is no longer pure...government, especially American government, has its hand and money very involved in it...now, this isn't always a bad thing but to say certain "pressures" are not present to angle science toward certain political goal is foolish.

Just turn some of that skepticism that is pointed at anything that includes God to what is coming out in the scientific community...which is full of VERY LIBERAL scientists...but what can one expect when our higher education almost solely promotes liberalism.

 

[The Engineer]

Science and Politics Make Bad Bed Fellows

The Strange Politics of Science

The Politics of Science - Christianity Today

The Politics of Science - Washington Post

The Politics of Science - Center for Science and Technology

On the science debate of this thread, all I am trying to get across is that science is no longer pure...government, especially American government, has its hand and money very involved in it...now, this isn't always a bad thing but to say certain "pressures" are not present to angle science toward certain political goal is foolish.

Just turn some of that skepticism that is pointed at anything that includes God to what is coming out in the scientific community...which is full of VERY LIBERAL scientists...but what can one expect when our higher education almost solely promotes liberalism.

No one said science was pure, but that doesn't mean it's unreliable if you have an understanding of it.

When politicians lie about science, they do this to convince the people who don't know anything about it, because they know that the real scientists, or even the ones who have at least a basic understanding of science, won't buy it.

Who do you think makes up the big majority of voters? Scientists? Not by a far stretch. The majority are people who think geology means buying paper-mache volcanoes. Why would politicians try so hard to convince a group of people that makes up less than 10% or so of their voters?

They don't try so hard. As such, they don't fool anyone who has an understanding of science.

I suggest you learn about science, so you can distinguish between the facts and the lies, instead of dismissing scientists outright because they are all part of a political conspiracy.

 

[jpcedotal]

No one said science was pure, but that doesn't mean it's unreliable if you have an understanding of it.

When politicians lie about science, they do this to convince the people who don't know anything about it, because they know that the real scientists, or even the ones who have at least a basic understanding of science, won't buy it.

Who do you think makes up the big majority of voters? Scientists? Not by a far stretch. The majority are people who think geology means buying paper-mache volcanoes. Why would politicians try so hard to convince a group of people that makes up less than 10% or so of their voters?

They don't try so hard. As such, they don't fool anyone who has an understanding of science.

I suggest you learn about science, so you can distinguish between the facts and the lies, instead of dismissing scientists outright because they are all part of a political conspiracy.

I don't dismiss science, but because of my fundamental religious views (that will never change) I refuse to believe in any worldview hiding under the science label...such as evolution. I am not closing my eyes to evidences, I am just not swallowing all the educated guesses backing the theory with a few fossils thrown in for eye candy.

I gotta see it to believe it. Show me evolution in a lab. Change a fruit fly into something else, then show this something else reproducing without reverting back or becoming sterile. Does this make me somewhat backwoods, sure, but I don't have to change or "evolve" my thinking with ever new discovery then back track it when it is proven false.

It is all about God and if God don't fit in it, it aint true.

 

[Skavau]

I don't dismiss science, but because of my fundamental religious views (that will never change) I refuse to believe in any worldview hiding under the science label...such as evolution. I am not closing my eyes to evidences, I am just not swallowing all the educated guesses backing the theory with a few fossils thrown in for eye candy.

I gotta see it to believe it. Show me evolution in a lab. Change a fruit fly into something else, then show this something else reproducing without reverting back or becoming sterile. Does this make me somewhat backwoods, sure, but I don't have to change or "evolve" my thinking with ever new discovery then back track it when it is proven false.

It is all about God and if God don't fit in it, it aint true.

Why do you think it is a bad thing to change your understanding and admit your errors with the discovery of new information?

 

[The Engineer]

I don't dismiss science, but because of my fundamental religious views (that will never change) I refuse to believe in any worldview hiding under the science label...such as evolution.

It's not a worldview. It's a theory.

I am not closing my eyes to evidences, I am just not swallowing all the educated guesses backing the theory with a few fossils thrown in for eye candy.

There's plenty of evidence for evolution. Speciation and evolution have been observed.

I gotta see it to believe it. Show me evolution in a lab. Change a fruit fly into something else, then show this something else reproducing without reverting back or becoming sterile.

If you want to start a discussion about macroevolution, do it in the science board. I have even made a thread about it.

Does this make me somewhat backwoods, sure, but I don't have to change or "evolve" my thinking with ever new discovery then back track it when it is proven false.

So you have a problem with adapting your worldview to new discoveries and new evidence?
No wonder you complain about all the lies in politics, news and science even though we've shown you multiple ways of getting reliable results even from sources that are completely nuts. It seems that you don't like to think for yourself, or, in your words:

but I don't have to change or "evolve" my thinking with ever new discovery then back track it when it is proven false.

You don't want to adapt to new evidence; this suggests you don't want new evidence at all.

You're either unwilling, or incapable of thinking for yourself. This must be why you have such trouble cross-referencing multiple sources, like I suggested you do. I'd say you either start to think, or you stop complaining about lying politicians and news papers, because YOU are the kind of person that enabled their constant lying in the first place.

It is all about God and if God don't fit in it, it aint true.

In short, you will flat-out ignore ANYTHING that suggests God doesn't exist.

Next time you start a thread, tell us from the beginning that you're not going to change your worldview at all, so people like me don't waste our precious time on you.

 

[Musicc]

The older I get, the more apathetic I become. I lose interest in politics, media, whatever.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Science and politics are joined at the hip, just as religion and politics once were. There is no doubt that the scientific community is very liberal, and asks for liberal helpings of tax dollars. The politicians don't consent for votes but to have their names associated with some big scientific project (they know they'll get the votes) and as justification to impose new regulations on the people.

For a real-life practical example I present my favorite example of this harlot/beast relationship; the dirty lakes of southern Wisconsin.

The city of Madison and county, the DNR, and related science departments of the University of WI have conspired to keep the lakes in a 'hypereuthropic' (week-choked and smelly, closed beaches, huge algae bloom, fish kills, etc.) condition.

This ensures two things: maximum biological productivity (more fish, more fishing licences), and a stable lake ecology for 'study' purposes.

At the same time a plethora of regulations is being placed on the surrounding watershed, citing the condition of the lakes as justification: local government action at the behest of the scientific community, and doing so gladly as another exercise of power and control.

The result? Angry, frustrated citizens (who for the most part will not comply with these regulations) with no improvement in the quality of these waters. In fact because most of the resources are used in the watershed programs the actual removal of weeds is underfunded. When the budget was cut recently the LTE's manning the weed harvesters were cut, while all of the 'administrators' kept their jobs.

The list of organizations promoting 'clean lakes' here is as long as your arm, involving thousands of people, paid and unpaid, with the same result: the lakes get worse each year. Why? Because the scientific and political community profit more from dirty lakes than from clean ones. The annual late summer die-off and decomposition of unharvested weeds is in full swing right now, and the smell is unbearable.

There's yer science and politics.

 

[jpcedotal]

In short, you will flat-out ignore ANYTHING that suggests God doesn't exist.

Exactly this...everything else your said wasn't worth quoting

 

[jpcedotal]

The older I get, the more apathetic I become. I lose interest in politics, media, whatever.

I am with you on this...it is getting to the point it isn't worth my time to keep up with current events on any level. It is all spun in a way to push some agenda to get a dollar.

 

[Skavau]

Exactly this...everything else your said wasn't worth quoting

Then you can't know whether your observations on reality are right or wrong.

You actively ignore the process by which understanding on reality is gained.