What is the #1 Problem?

[Mr Strawberry]

That's nice. So anyone can join in on the fun?

Yes, I would say so.

Sorta ... I don't think it's going to happen though, since I have a feeling I know where cancer comes from.

Feelings are best left at the door.

On a technicality, the biggest [sic] is a cure for heart disease.

Yes, I'd like to see a cure for that too.

My personal belief is that abortion ranks far and above anything a scientist can find under a scope.

Science can perhaps work on miscarriages. Abortions are rather beyond its scope.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

And who, pray tell, is funding this? the Antichrist?

Folks like you who tell science to take a hike but use their computers every day. YOU who enjoy safe drinking water and antibiotics and advanced healthcare and an understanding of disease never hinted at in your bible.

YOU who only know of the true nature of planets, not as moving stars but as nonluminous bodies orbitting our sun in a way not even glimpsed by the writers of Genesis, but only through the work of scientists which you then coopt the words of your bible to AFTER THE FACT.

Tell me, what is thenumber one problem religion is working on?

Is it trying to remain relevant by telling the most successful means of understanding the world to take a hike?

 

[TLK Valentine]

What is the #1 problem scientists are working on today?

How best to study and explain the natural world for the betterment of all mankind without getting bogged down in:

Politics,
Economics,
Superstition,
or Willful Ignorance.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How best to study and explain the natural world for the betterment of all mankind without getting bogged down in:

Politics,
Economics,
Superstition,
or Willful Ignorance.

It is these things that trouble mankind, not the 'natural world'. The 'betterment of mankind' depends on us solving the problems caused by politics, economics, and willful ignorance of the proper way of conducting ourselves.

 

[CabVet]

That's nice. So anyone can join in on the fun?

Anyone can identify problems.

Sorta ... I don't think it's going to happen though, since I have a feeling I know where cancer comes from.

That is what everyone thought about every disease before a cure was discovered, so you are wrong.

On a technicality, the biggest [sic] is a cure for heart disease.

And what technicality would that be? I happen to think that between those two, cancer is the biggest scientific problem.

My personal belief is that abortion ranks far and above anything a scientist can find under a scope.

Perhaps because it is not a scientific problem?

 

[durangodawood]

What is the #1 problem scientists are working on today?

I'm curious to see if ... scientists here will answer:

1. With a paragraph or more.
2. With charts, graphs, anecdotes, drawings, etc.
3. With more than one #1 problem.
4. Contradict themselves.
5. Philosophize.

I'm also curious to see how many answer, since the more that answer, the higher the potential for disagreement.

Ask a philosophical question, expect a philosophical answer.
.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Ask a philosophical question, expect a philosophical answer.
.

Which is ironic that he would seemingly complain about that since his continual war on science is purely his own philosophy. And it is so haphazardly constructed that it wouldn't hold up to any real examination. The inconsistencies are shocking.

He complains nonstop about a "classification" change for Pluto and when shown how the bible shows a reclassification of bats as birds he MAKES UP ENTIRELY NEW ANIMALS!

When telling science to take a hike HE IS DOING IT ON A NETWORKED COMPUTER!

His war on science only ceases when he can jury rig some INTERPRETATION of a bible verse in order to make it fit science after the fact...and then complains when anyone deviates from the specific words of only one english translation of the bible.

I suppose this counts as a form of exegesisi somewhere. I bet it doesn't require much training to do.

 

[Belk]

What is the #1 problem scientists are working on today?

I'm curious to see if ... scientists here will answer:

1. With a paragraph or more.
2. With charts, graphs, anecdotes, drawings, etc.
3. With more than one #1 problem.
4. Contradict themselves.
5. Philosophize.

I'm also curious to see how many answer, since the more that answer, the higher the potential for disagreement.

People so misunderstanding what science is they can't even form coherent questions about the subject.

 

[Strathos]

I suppose if we wanted to give a completely statistically accurate answer to your question, we would first need to identify which field of science currently has the most scientists working in it, and then identify what the most major problem in that field is currently.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I suppose if we wanted to give a completely statistically accurate answer to your question, we would first need to identify which field of science currently has the most scientists working in it, and then identify what the most major problem in that field is currently.

I googled for the answer but came up empty.

 

[AV1611VET]

He complains nonstop about a "classification" change for Pluto and when shown how the bible shows a reclassification of bats as birds he MAKES UP ENTIRELY NEW ANIMALS!

This is the second time I know of that you mentioned me bringing up a new classification of animals.

The first time, I just dismissed it as you blowing smoke.

But now I'll ask:

What are you talking about?

 

[AV1611VET]

People so misunderstanding what science is they can't even form coherent questions about the subject.

Isn't I thought I made the right question properly?

 

[Lucy Stulz]

This is the second time I know of that you mentioned me bringing up a new classification of animals.

The first time, I just dismissed it as you blowing smoke.

But now I'll ask:

What are you talking about?

I have seen you talk now about the "fowled bat" . That is what I am talking about.

This is almost exactly parallel to the Pluto debate you live so much. The bible appears to use an ancient nontechnical characterization of a bat as grouped with fowl. In reality the two bear almost nothing in kinship except flight.

Today we classify fowl quite differently from bats.

Personally I fon't have a problem with the bible grouping bats in with fowl because the classification wasn't set using biological principals.

But YOU must deal with it. You have oft repeated the changeable nature of science because of a DEFINITION, not an actual technical matter.

So you are hoisted on your own petard! You make up animals that do not exist so you can avoid stumbling on you own critique of science!

If the words you find holy and immutable don't have a set meaning then your own kjv onlyism fails.

Check and mate.

 

[Strathos]

Technically, the "bats are birds" thing is only a problem in the English translated versions of the Bible. In the original Hebrew the words mean something different.

Of course KJV-only-ists are out of luck.

 

[JustMeSee]

Yes, I know you edited it, and I edited it out, so I could respond to the main point.

Scientists can't agree on what the number #1 problem is, can they?

When I was in college, it was depletion of natural resources.

Today ... and someone correct me, if I'm wrong ... some asteroid is supposed to hit us or something.

Either that, or something about space debris hitting space debris, causing a "billiard-ball effect" that will wipe out the GPS system.

Or some such bologna.

I don't think you guys really know, though.

There's too much disagreement in the sci community ... I guess.

You should have placed this in the OP. You are very predictable. Questions are best asked when you have not already drawn your own concrete conclusion. It does not seem that the purpose of this thread was for discussion, but instead as a delayed personal rant (with attitude).

Your OP was extremely vague, but to answer as a non-scientist, there are likely numerous top problems and/or research priority goals across the sciences. I doubt that there would be a total consensus on one answer.

 

[thenoizmaker]

I love posts like this!!

So what now Av vet you have stirred them all up in your question, not once offering a answer to any of there questions.

Talking from a more psychological view all I see is you trying to control people (to give you some form of entertainment)... if my statement is true and you are controlling people is that not what basic witchcraft is??

Talking from a more spiritual side, and understanding the bible and its principles. I see some one contradicting their faith to try prove a point. Is not that foolish thing to do??

Talking to a more philosophical side, the point in this you are making is no more than to bring people to argument so with that said, you believing in God yet lust after arguing and fighting among your brothers is than not hypocritical to your cause - or to say is that not what the proverbs teach you not to do??

Talking from a scientific side, you asked and question with no answer. There is no #1 problem as in Science all Problems, Theory's and work done are the same value.

 

[AV1611VET]

Today we classify fowl quite differently from bats.

Let me get this straight.

Today we classify fowl quite differently from bats, and therefore the fowled bat didn't exist when Leviticus 11 was written?

Is that what you're saying?

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course KJV-only-ists are out of luck.

We need luck, do we?

 

[AV1611VET]

Talking from a scientific side, you asked and question with no answer. There is no #1 problem as in Science all Problems, Theory's and work done are the same value.

I'll say this a second time, I did not realize there was no #1 problem.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Let me get this straight.

Today we classify fowl quite differently from bats, and therefore the fowled bat didn't exist when Leviticus 11 was written?

Is that what you're saying?

What I am saying is the classification of bats with fowl in the bible makes sense when you think that their definition of that classification could take in anything that flew.

The exact same thing holds for the idea of Pluto as a planet. As astronomy progressed they finally codified the definition on highly technical grounds and at that point Pluto failed to meet the criteria. Just as no biologst would group bats in with fowl today.

If science s "wrong" then the bible is wrong.

If, however you EVER bother to track on what people have been telling you about the whole Pluto thing, you would see that it isn't any more of an indictment of science than bats as birds is an indictment of the bible.

YOU established the boundaries and right now your rules indict the bible under the same rules.