^JoeDirt

Your arguments were impressive, but fell well short of what I was hoping for.

First: Your main answer to my "gotcha" question was that we don't know and what I'm looking for is probably unknowable. I appreciate the primer on current scientific theory, but I was indulging in skipping to the end. I'm sure there will be mind blowing theories and constructs out there before I die, but I guarantee you NONE will be able to explain what "force" brought the earliest point of origin into being. The whole "we're experiencing an infinite repetitive loop" doesn't get you there. Something had to make this little sandbox our universe is spinning in.

Second: You did manage to provide me one answer I was looking for. By your own words, there is a lot we don't know on the basis of science alone, and what we do know is subject to revision and update. Given that, I don't see how any legitimate self-respecting scientist could adamantly conclude that there is no God. Where is the concrete evidence for that conclusion? In this day and age, I see SCIENCE = RELIGION in its own right. I've encountered religious nuts in your corner way further out on a limb than I am with my dusty old Bible.

To everyone else. Can you honestly take in the astounding sights, sounds, and wonders of the world around us and not at least consider the possibility that this was not all the result of ridiculously improbable chaos? The order and certainty, which I thank Science for demonstrating, in the laws of physics and gravity...you can honestly say "gee, neat that it all just came together like that?" Our planet alone would have had to have been to result of 10,000,000 lottery odds occurrences all happening in concert. Nothing was behind that?

You science guys have far more faith than I!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'science, guy, nostalgia, natural selection' to 'science, guy, nostalgia, natural selection, lamarckian, darwinian' - edited by RhesusMonk

at the fifteen mark it made me interested. right near the very end when the mother load came out, THAT alone made it worth watching till the end. HOLY CRAP !



CAUSE SCIENCE IS COOL

this is the cyst of science !

bill nye the science guy, bill bill bill bill

>> ^HadouKen24:
>> ^JAPR:
Interesting, but not really science guys.

Did archaeology stop being a science when I wasn't looking?


No, but the conclusions they make are unscientific and out of their field.

>> ^HadouKen24:
>> ^JAPR:
Interesting, but not really science guys.

Did archaeology stop being a science when I wasn't looking?


Archeologists are not neurologists. It is just as sensible to ask a nuclear physicist what the function of the viral protein VP22 is in the assembly and function of HSV-1. In other words, these dudes don't know crap about what they're talking about beyond vague guesses of folk lore and superstition. Heck, people used to think only witches float.....

>> ^JAPR:
Interesting, but not really science guys.


Did archaeology stop being a science when I wasn't looking?

Interesting, but not really science guys.

>> ^MINK:
bullshit patchwork science.
"the more faithful a nation is, the more likely to have bad shit there"
that's nothing to do with the title.
"on the strict terms of what he wrote, simply showing a corelation, the study holds up"
SOOO.... off you go, kneejerk atheists, expand that very limited conclusion into something it isn't. How scientific of you.
"science guy" is gonna make a lot of money on that book. nice.



You say "bullshit patchwork science", Mink. Did you read the paper? Are you quite well versed in Statistics? What parts of the study are "bullshit" or, otherwise, do not agree with what should be deemed "proper science"?

I almost hate to get myself kicked in the chin here, but, you appear to be pulling a "kneejerk deist" (and I say "deist" because you've noted several times in other threads that you're not really a "theist" by any definition of the word) reaction to merely what was said in the short interview.

bullshit patchwork science.

"the more faithful a nation is, the more likely to have bad shit there"

that's nothing to do with the title.

"on the strict terms of what he wrote, simply showing a corelation, the study holds up"

SOOO.... off you go, kneejerk atheists, expand that very limited conclusion into something it isn't. How scientific of you.

"science guy" is gonna make a lot of money on that book. nice.

I really should not watch this before bed. My nightmares are going to be supremely awful.

And what ever happened to teaching kids science and math, like on 3-2-1 Contact or Bill Nye the Science Guy? Why must we continually push idiocy like this on children?

This was fn hilarious when it was demonstrated on jay leno,

http://www.videosift.com/video/Leno-inhales-gas-with-some-science-guy

This gas needs to be called the "makes your laugh sound awesome" gas..

This guy has nothing on Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Strong arm, lol. That is the best quote I've heard in a while, makes me wonder whether I should have aimed for that M.D. after all. I'm big into, y'know, sticking things in body cavities.

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Thanks,
I appreciate having a really good science guy to back me up when some of this IV chelation, touch therapy, paranormal mumbo-jumbo starts floating around.
I pass gas most of the day and when I'm not, I'm usually sticking needles in things. As they told us in med school, there's not a body cavity that can't be reached with a strong arm and a 14 gauge needle.

Thanks,
I appreciate having a really good science guy to back me up when some of this IV chelation, touch therapy, paranormal mumbo-jumbo starts floating around.
I pass gas most of the day and when I'm not, I'm usually sticking needles in things. As they told us in med school, there's not a body cavity that can't be reached with a strong arm and a 14 gauge needle.

Fair enough. If not the big C, then what faith do you follow?


In reply to this comment by MINK:
ahh, now you said the word "christianity". different thing.

don't worry, i am not in any way flustered, it just sounds like that because discussing on the internet is quite clumsy.

it's anyway interesting to do it, but you don't really get anywhere.

so i am not angry or bitter, maybe more like tired.

you started this with "not to be rude" so i think you knew it was touchy territory! it's just so hard because neither of us know each other.




In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Wooah! Easy there, MINK. I didn't attack you, let alone argue with you. I'm not trying to beat you down, prove you wrong or change your mind. This is just a regular ole conversation, so pull yourself together.

First of all, I didn't state or imply that Christianity was blissful ignorance, that came purely from your own imagination. The fact that those thoughts are hovering around your brainpan is probably significant.

I agree that language isn't sufficient to fully explain the euphoria of love, hate, fear, sadness, religion, music, dance, psychedelics, etc...... but that doesn't mean you should shut down communication altogether.

I'm not sure what the source of your anger and bitterness is (over-exposure to political propaganda would be my guess?) but having to trudge through your emotional minefield is no fun.

Take a deep breath and relax.....

We're not required to have all the answers....

It's OK to say 'I don't know'.....

There's room enough for everyone's ideas....

PAX

In reply to this comment by MINK:
defensive because you attacked, with your "isn't faith basically happy stupidity" argument.

faith isn't meaningless, your question was meaningless, or at least cannot be responded to meaningfully, because there's no way to describe faith satisfactorily to someone who's already decided it is happy stupidity.

Words are not good enough to debate this topic. They only work for science, not for feelings, emotions, spiritual concepts, music, love.

So if you are arguing science vs faith by using words, the science guys have a big advantage and the stuff the faith guys say sounds meaningless.

Anyway... interesting video here:
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Science-of-Remote-Viewers-959

the second half is more interesting.

I am pretty sure science will catch up with god one day and find out that prayer and karma and belief and faith are tangible and important, and scientists will come up with new words for stuff that used to be "impossible" or "unscientific".

So i think we get closer to "proving" faith is sensible rather than "disproving" it as irrational and stupid.

Hope that makes some kinda sense, even though the meanings of the words are not exactly what i think.

Your attitude to the world changes your experience of the world. Having faith in something good can improve your experience of the world. Having faith in existing science is stupid because it will change. Having faith in the scientific method to one day discover everything is not stupid, i think the scientific method is ok. You just need to remember that we might only be 2% of the way on the journey of science, but theology and philosophy uncovered some powerful basic truths a long long time ago.




In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Why so defensive? I wasn't going to whack you over the head with your answer. Is faith meaningless?



In reply to this comment by MINK:
that question is either loaded or meaningless.

Faith from a scientific standpoint is weak. Science from a faithful standpoint is weak.

Is that quantum enough for you?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What does faith mean to you?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
some people have a willful lack of understanding of faith.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
/\ Not to be rude, but isn't faith - by its very definition - a willful lack of understanding.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
this dude rawks. notice how he has more confidence in his lack of understanding than they have in their faith.

b...b...b...but the bible was inspired by the holy spirit... or sumtin... so... you're like wrong i guess...!