Embrace me darkened one, strengthen my soul. Spew thy darkness into our world. And through the rotting gates heaven. Shadowy wisps will heal my wounds. Shadowy wisps will wound their prayers. Send me the loving peace of Lucifer. Send me the battered pieces of jesus christ. It is now time, we begin to move forward. Hordes of terror are waiting to strike them. Following a great leader into his war. With hoofs of steel, he'll crush thy body. You will give in to the might of Satan.
@itstonymacaroni I think these days it's more often that anti-religious bias dominates science. Like I say, it's hard as a person with faith in God to even *exist* because of the interaction that always happens OUTSIDE the work environment. eg. at U of O where I was always faced with apathy vs. speaking out when others would assert non-sense. And I'd shut down their reasoning w/logic and that would just piss them off and they'd have to find OTHER ways to attack. For many that = termination.
@dhide14 lol. Well not by intent. It's just hard to get lighting everywhere in there without running up a huge bill. I can see the controls and that's all that matters when I'm using it. There are a few spots where I want local lighting like on the K5m display that has a failed backlight etc.
Credentials do have some merit: if someone knows more about a topic, then they have a greater ability to argue a point on that topic. In any case, there is no argument regarding evolution; if you disagree you don't understand. Peer review is one of the most important aspects of the scientific community. There is no greater agenda, and those scientists that don't make it to publication are more often than not those whose propositions are pointless or invalid.
@s9083061 Sure in the world where everyone wants to have a voice one would tend to *start* with voices that have some credential. However that doesn't discount the fact that in a sea of complexity/uncertainty that engulfs MANY topics, that a non-authority might not even think of something that someone highly trained (and perhaps biased so that they aren't as free to think open mindedly) might miss. I AGREE peer review is GOOD when used right. Many topics are more political than intellectual..
@sounddoctorin ,,continuing...and thus, as I note, tend to not be well represented in the peer review process. Once the whole community is polarized on an issue it can be difficult to get past that. And hey... one thing can lead to another when people have money influence. People can become polarized about things that a person who isn't under that bondage of grant renewals etc. can see the truth more clearly one. I don't recall saying the idea of peer review is bad. It isn't perfect though.
@sounddoctorin Well put, it is difficult to reverse an opinion that becomes set in literature. However, with the right amount of justifiable evidence that polarised view can be reversed: it happens a lot more often that one might think. The beauty of the scientific community is that their knowledge is always developing and growing thanks to this multitude of diverse ideas and the testing of hypotheses. A lot of the time, a lack of grant money means the idea is flawed, rather than the system.
@s9083061 Up to a point. I guess we can say the 'ugliness' of humanity as a whole, is that it has a history where manipulators consistently hijack the political system, whatever it might be, and wind up enslaving/butchering people in mass. In the past century we saw this happen to the tune of 100's of millions of people. NATURALLY people get into science for a variety of reasons and so agendas do culminate. eg. watch the ark vid on my fav's. Why did it take me 50 years to learn about this?
lets consider that over 70% of Americans consider themselves Christians. statistically, it more likely they be removed. Also, you said stated that 90% of scholars were atheists, now assuming that number is true, because i don't know that it isn't, i would believe that many higher sciences may lend themselves to atheists, because of the subject matter. it would be hard to study the formation of the universe, or biology, if you don't believe that the theories that they are based on are correct.
actually I said that 90% of the people in academic research in the fields of relevance to the issues at hand (eg. biology, ecology, and various more specific fields like molecular, micro. Though Micro I'm guessing has more of a mix. But I've worked in molecular and I know what the typical ratios are and it's at least on target with polls I've heard cited). I mentioned some specifics in my vids so I won't be redundant. There is persecution. I would have loved to have been an astronomer...cont
I aspired in HS and early college to do that as a profession. I've build several scopes, viewed all messier objects as a youth save the few that are disputed open clusters..hehe.... and intended my study in physics to go that way SIMPLY BECAUSE I LOVE STUDYING WHAT MY CREATOR MADE! I don't have an agenda. I simply view what the facts are and process them. Not towards any particular *end* like atheists typically do. That's the difference mate.
@AureolaFE Nobody should decide whether or not someone is worth listening to on the basis of credentials. Where did I make such a claim? YUP it's a logical fallacy called 'argument from authority' or the like to 'care' in the way you are hinting one should care by the tone of your statement I believe.
A 'secularist' normally *is* an atheist. It's all kind of amorphous because for example a person claiming to be a Christian who manifests the prioritization of secular fame, treasures etc... is really a secularist in function. Secularist engulfs the vast majority of humanity if all were tallied up :-). And to REALLY put ones faith in secular things...makes their God *look* rather *insignificant*. Right? So I'm not sure there is a functional difference actually.
I used to be an atheist, and now i have moved into the realm of pantheism (with a bunch of other things thrown in the mix too, especially postheism).
The defining point to me, however, is that I am willing to accept my beliefs as just that- beliefs. One who will not deny a fact simply because it goes against his/her religion is secular.
not a unique argument. You are BASICALLY trying to say YOU are better...because you know that you can't be sure... compared to OTHERS who ARE SURE they claim.
But see...the problem is you buddy. You are claiming to know others can't know! And that is MUCH more elusive than actually knowing. Which makes you way more of a jerk than you ever could have imagined they might be :-). (Ie. your claim that that can't know absolutley is totally untable, which theirs potentially IS tenable. )
I get this all the time "Show me a Peer Reviewed Article"... and I point out that its like foxes watching the hen house.
I try to keep from saying disrespectful things to them, and I've done a fair ob controlling myself, I think. But frankly, I don't know why I need to show respect to a bunch of academian tyrants. I cannot tell you the vulgarities I have endured from this bunch of clowns.
BTW I particularly like a term coined by Phil Johnson: Evolutionist Priesthood. I use it frequently :)
Yup. I'd challenge any board of Peers to sit down with me in a logical debate environment. With trained moderators. Just reviewing the things we know as robust theories, I can take them apart piece by piece. And with a moderator there to ding them every time they use an illogical response... man...it would be fun to just leave them sitting there at the end realizing that THEIR REILGION WILL NOT FLY IN A COURT OF LOGIC.
Peer review is an atheist trick???!!! Peer review keeps the system honest. you can't just say " I believe this is true because I said so". If other scientists can't independently, quantify anything you say by applying logic and the scientific method your hypothesis fails. This doesn't apply only to creationists but everyone.
Perhaps you didn't read what I just said below. *Many* times (for example, the big bang theory) you can't even present alternate theories in stupid forums. How are you ever going to get consideration by a peer review board? If you got "Peer review is an atheist trick" out of this then your comprehension needs some honing...
EVERYONE gets bullied in peer review... nomatter WHAT their position is. If you present a claim that doesnt have the kind of evidence it needs to back it ... BAM it gets tanked.
I do not talk about my atheism or religion at all at my job. If i flaunted the fact that i'm an atheist in my mostly christian town, i might not get hired. Or if I flaunt it around my co-workers i might get fired. I don't think thats wrong. Religion is a topic to avoid if you're PROFESSIONAL.
1) Who said anything about 'flaunting'. I'm talking about being able to have NORMAL CONVERSATIONS with people during the day for a moment here and there about things of common interest...like humans do.
2) "The kind of evidence it needs".... well... evolutionary progression of species gets through with most people because it's what they want to believe. There is no credible evidence that simple cells can evolve to complex organisms like humans. It's all what people WANT to believe in...
Atheism is not Biology. Atheism is not Chemistry. Atheism is not Physics. Atheism is not PBS. Atheism is not Science. The cult of Darwinism was invented 150 years ago. There is STILL no evidence for mutational advance where new benefical stuctures are formed randomly.
A belief in common ancestry of all life is not a requirement in order to discover cures and solve problems. There is a testable design Model in the link at the end of my profile.
The funniest part in Expelled, is when Ben 'Igmoramus' Stein visits the office of the Discovery Institute, and wonders how small it is. Sure it is small, but he failed to ask, where is their research lab.
trying to find some relevance in this.... If you speak in vague dissociated and irrelevant manner, I will remove you because it just wastes people's time. ATTACH what it is that you are thinking is an inconsistency with some kind of specific article. I can't figure out what point you are trying to make from what you say above.
You used Expelled as your major argument in this video.
The point is simple: there is nothing to supress. The Big Atheist Conspiracy is just an excuse for lack of actual content, lack of testable evidence, lack of understanding the nature and scope of science. And also a good excuse for personal fiascos.
Sorry .. I cited instances I've personally encountered where people in the atheist community look for any excuse to 'expel' Christians. So it's not 'just' anything you nit wit. Like 90% of the people IN POWER POSITIONS are atheists. It's not because they are smarter... if you look at the who's who in the history of significant scientific advances, people believing in God hold their share and beyond. RATHER atheists hold this overwhelming sway because they maneuver without morals.
That is to say that if you do research that supports the presumption that a "higher power" (whatever that refers to) does not exist, if your research design, analysis of the data, outcome of the research, other research upon which the research rests, etc, is (or are) flawed, and most research is, it is not a fact, theory, or otherwise scientifically valid (on the level of specifics--research can be flawed but still indicate general trends) hypothesis.
I don't see how to even get it on the table since there is no hypothetical way to *support* the presumption that a higher power does not exist. It's a ludicrous notion. WHY? Because the only evidence would exist in a spiritual realm which the physical has no means of assessing. fail.
Kaiouss replied with the irritating 'fairy' argument. Talk about 'fail'. Sorry I don't allow people to post redundant and ignorant arguments here. There is no comparison because folklore based on what people hypothetically may have seen...and the incredible weight of evidence that scriptures are actual history. Sorry not even on the same map. Some idiot on the net made up the flying spaghetti monster. If you want to sound DIM..sure bring that into the argument.
That being said, the main point I wanted to touch on was the casting aside of the peer-review process on the basis that most people participating have an agenda (in particular, an Atheist one). Even if we assume it's true that most highly educated people are Atheist, through the peer review process, a majority is irrelevant. Even if one Christian exists (and I know several at Harvard, even) who brings a legitimate claim against research, it must be considered. The origin of a claim is irrelevant
I'll tell you how polarized things have gotten. I can't even post on the flipping 'physics forum' without getting BOOTED by some ignoramus for posting 'non-mainstream theories'. Was simply pointing out that M33 and M31 are on totally illogical flight patters for any kind of big bang to have happened. Bam. I'm kicked out. SO if you can't even get an idea past people on a physics forum.. now much more will you get censored functionally before getting a peer review on the matter?
A Physics forum is not the cutting edge of the scientific community. Again, presenting single personal experiences as evidence to indict an entire group. A Physics forum has nothing to do with the peer review process. I have never seen the post, so I'm not sure if you were generalizing about Atheists and being disrespectful to everyone on the forum. If that were the case, I would have kicked you off, too. Physicists don't care whether a theory is mainstream, they care whether it's legitimate.
Firstly, let me say that Atheism does not prevent people from being people. Now that that is out of the way, I think you make a lot of generalizations about "Atheists" based upon personal experience. I'm sorry you've had those experiences, but I don't go disliking all Christians because most of the ones I meet are human. In fact, come to think of it, all of them are. People do things like form groups, become defensive and belligerent, et ceter, et cetera. It is not a purely Atheistic trait.
It's people being people that CAUSES atheism :-). It's got nothing to do with 'disliking' people. There is a God who is spiritually calling to his creation. If people choose to ignore it they have an agenda for doing so. Sure most people calling themselves 'Christian' absolutely hate many of the things in the text they claim to be sacred. Many others claim it isn't authoritative and just make up whatever they want to believe. Yup. So what'd that have to do with anything I said in vid?
Clearly, being Christian has not prevented you from being belligerent, rude, et cetera, on YouTube. So why should I believe that it is the lack of Christianity that causes these things when I could just believe it is being human and being unable to moderate one's self? It's Ockham's Razor and we would apply the same principle to weighing "a universe came from nothing" with "a god came from nothing and created the universe". And it has to do with everything you say in the vid generalizing a group
We aim to please! :-) Tell God to give me another one if you don't like this one. I do a good scooby doo immitation come to think of it..I think I'll start using that one instead :-)
Truth isn't a democratic process. This guy is slanting his statements to make it sound as though only Leftist reviewers have a worthwhile opinion. The film got great reviews from any conservative source I've talked to. Don't I recall Glenn Beck interviewing him and Fox news? Yeah look up the youtube video of the latter. I can't allow time wasters like this to even bug me here so I'm canning the guy and deleting his longer post.
continuing...but instead they boot me out and block me because they can't deal with what I'm telling them. They say I was kicked out for posting a 'non-conventional theory'. WELL CRRRRUUDDD! If you can't even POST about them on a physics forum..how do you figure that you're going to get a peer reviewed article on the topic? OR get to TEACH A CLASS! Sure you SAY 'go ahead, teach a class'. Dude my oral presentation in college sent ripples..hehe.. no way would they let me teach on it.
I didn't see anything in the movie which a remote exposure to the field wouldn't clear up any confusion about. We're hearing two things. People's testimonies. Usually parts are accurate and parts might be biased. But in these cases I've WITNESSED things on par with that crud. Like I say people are so sensitive that they even BOOT ME from the Physics forum for commenting on blue shift data. If they had BRAINS and they were RIGHT they could shut me down *that* way.
And btw..Cosmicluck.. just to commend you..you are the first guy in QUITE a while who's just posted in a non-offensive way. Most of the people in your camp.. haven't been acting like that. They come on *super* smug/arrogant. Pronounce themselves victor before firing a shot etc. Hey...I've fired a lot of shots. And I think those shots have hit a lot of targets and that's why people come off that way. But thank YOU for posting things that disagree with me but I don't have to pull down! :-)
Expelled is what it is. Ben interviews people and they tell their side of a story that otherwise doesn't get published in recent history. Are there alternative testimonies? SURE! Who's lying? Who knows? BUT THE PHILOSOPHICAL THRUST is what is very powerful. Note the nutty Eugenist woman running the death camp/museum. The atheist framework leads one to think that life is purely biological; hence might as well CLEAN UP! :-) The theist has a plausible motive NOT to tamper w/the creation.
And in that respect the move is ultimately powerful. A lot of people seem to miss that...probably because they are looking the other way :-). But the testimonies are more the 'huh...well that doesn't surprise me given this whole mindset that becomes a religion of atheism functionally'. And if some atheists claim that these people are lying it wouldn't surprise me. Was there something PARTICULAR you thought I should see since I'm a busy guy and don't go proving around random sites much?
Nah just disappointed really. Expelled is as much propaganda as zeitgeist is and I didn't expect you to be seemingly endorsing it. The mud being animated by lightning strawman, evolution leading to nazism, etc. I would have hoped that Ben "Science Leads You To Killing People" Stien would have been beneath you. And your misunderstanding of atheism in general (from your last comment) is dissapointing as well.
It's not 'evolution>Nazism'. That's a total trivialization of the process there. I can walk you through it but not in 500char. AGAIN the 'science leads you to killing people' is WAY out of context. Science EXCLUSIVELY (Ie. refusing a heart of compassion) leads to killing people. And I say that with utter confidence. WHY? If anyone believes ONLY physical processes exist, then it's 100% logical to treat people like cattle. If the herd gets out of hand, you do what you must. Kill them.
continuing, IT APPEARS you are either as divisive as the others, OR you are simply taken in by the stupid anti-Stein propaganda which takes his words OUT of the context I just slam dunked on you :-). So do the research your self and don't clog my threads with lies. Thanks. NEXT it's not a 'strawman' to note the implausibility of cells forming from purely 'random' processes. Philosophically we're talking about 1 in 10^240+ odds of electrochemical processes HAPPENING to favor life arrangements
continuing... or whatever. So nobody is going to pull that BS on me. From your language here also, you're potentially brilliant mind is being tainted by propaganda. Perhaps that's why you're an atheist. You just haven't done the research YOURSELF yet. You've been listening to moderate atheist propaganda instead of doing HARD STATISTICAL CALCULATIONS on various scenarios and realizing that ALL (100%) of the alternative theories to creation they hand you are total bunk. >sounddoctorin page
also only some of them lied. Stein cut some others off and posited his own version of what the circumstances were. For Instance the Myer article situation wasn't about ID. Stein only put in enough of his position in to make it seem as if he were being discredited for ID support, when he was an unpaid intern (not an employee) and he snuck an article into their Sci journal without peer review. But he wasnt even fired for it.
Only some of them lied. Dude...I should just remove that post for the biased language you use there. You're implying that ALL of them either lied or HE misrepresented their stories! WHEN I PERSONALLY KNOW that the academic community is FULL of bullying. I've witnessed it FIRST HAND MULTIPLE TIMES. So duh. It would be just..REAL hard to find legit stories like this. Not. But STein just had the HORRIBLE luck of finding ONLY the liars. Uhuh. SHut up with the propaganda or you're gone.
I agree there is a lot of acedemic bullying, my point was that the film was tailored to give false impressions about science. And this agree with me or I will silence you horseshit that you are peddling now when I did NOTHING to personally attack you in any way is bullying. This isn't rational discussion, so go ahead and silence me from your channel. I was wrong to compliment you. Youre obviously unwilling to allow any one but yourself to be heard. I wont be watching this anymore. Silence me.
It's my belief that the film was INTENDED for an audience intelligent enough to ...for example...get the 'science leads to killing people' quote IN CONTEXT. Perhaps you're very smart in some areas...but you seem to have been victimized by the bad information...look.. do you know how it is when people want to hate you SO bad...that they are looking for anything they can take out of context to ridicule you with? That's clearly what happened with that quote. In context..there's a powerful truth.
And secondly...I can't even figure out what you are trying to say in the run on sprawl there. Anyway I believe Ben's intentions on the film were good. I believe Ben LIKE MYSELF is a lover of PURE science. I believe he's also come to recognize that some try to USE science to promote a very evil agenda though and that is the Eugenist mindset that fueled Hitler's Germany and CONTINUES to be very alive in the world today. Science is HIJACKED as a vehicle for these to legitimize their evil.
Oh this is one of those things where you don't apologize for your previous mess up..and you hope to find some fault in my thoughts along the way :-). Right. It's a rather involved explanation. If you don't already know take Physics through E+M and get back to me or send some tutoring fees. Thanks, -Bob
How would you feel about introducing Buddhist beliefs into the Science classroom presented as fact? How about Satanic or Pagan beliefs? Or do you feel that only Christian beliefs should be accepted by the scientific community as fact?
Why are you asking me this? I've never advocated teaching in public schools as FACT anything that can't be established across the board. Physics concludes that there had to be an origin of all matter from something that doesn't follow 2nd law of TD. FACT. Teach it. None of the origin theories for solar system, life, etc. aren't implausible. FACT. Teach it. Teach that these are some 'theories' people have had but only supernatural explanations don't have implausible aspects. FACT.
It's strange that my reply doesn't appear under this. I basically told you to take some physics classes to where you are up to speed. But let me add MATTER we don't observe being created in a for that has the potential energy for processes we deem useful. RATHER we see mutual annihilation and things that convert matter to less harvestable forms of energy. The predicted 'heat death' as some call it would have occurred by now if there were no t=0 for matter.
With your "definition" of scientific fact, there wouldn't be much to teach in science classes at all. I mean gravity is "just a theory". Should they teach that it might be entirely wrong to say that every apple will always fall down because there are some things about black holes we don't understand yet and therefor the theory of gravity is incomplete? And how the heck are the theories about the formation of the solar system implausible?!?
In this 500 char limit it's hard to spell out every detail. It is a FACT that the 2nd law is an incredibly well established theory. Teach it as something we can build SOME kind of scientific framework upon BEARING IN MIND the research that supports our presumption we're not being totally deceived somehow.
THere are GOOD presumptions that allow one to venture down a likely pathway. And there are stupid ones that cause people to waste time. FOCUS ON THE GOOD ONES! Is that more clear?
people are bullied like they say they are in expelled because they as scientists are going against the purpose of scientists by spreading ideas which are not supported by evidence. that's not science, that's lying, and they should be bullied out of academia. i dearly hope you DON'T teach science. ever.
This is a hand waving argument. Like I say I don't allow just opinion spew here. I don't give a hoot what you hope frankly. Your grammar usage pretty much pegs you as an ignoramus. I HOPE you never have a decent teacher like myself lest you become an effective communicator. Anyway I'll leave this up a while so people can laugh at you then I'll probably remove it because this thread is getting too cluttered with junk posts.
Or are you honestly that fucking stupid that you think peer review is a bad thing? Do you honestly not understand a single concept of science? Do you actually think 'Expelled' was a good movie? If so, you have ZERO place in a classroom teaching science. You would be an insult to true science teachers everywhere.
Hmm... 'true science teacher'...hmm...that..reminds me of 'true scotsman' somehow. :-). I blocked this user for his non-constructive comment in other thread. But let's make an example of him with this one. I never said peer review is bad. However having corrupt peers who for eg. post presumptuous CONCLUSIONS to data is bad. I'm about to post another video commenting on the e.coli study where the 'researchers' post a conclusion RATHER than continuing to form exp. which would subst. conclusion
If posting presumptuous conclusions is bad then what do you have to say about Christians who take a grain of evidence and jump to "proof of God"? Is it wrong to assume that since the first 99 theist arguments were bunk that the 100th must also be bunk? Or do I have to waste my time listening to you.
Your intro is hilarious. You sound like this is the first time you've considered the possibility that making stupid presumptions might be a bad thing :-). Anyway yes people claiming to be Christians who are knuckleheads and claim things to be 'proof' fall by the same sword. MEANWHILE I've entertained thousands of BUNK ATHEIST arguments over the past decades. They all CONTINUE to be bunk. So do whatever you want to do. What I speak is logical and you obviously have no challenge to that.
1) Demons believe in God. YOUR POINT SIR? (think before you write...am I asking too much??)
2) Everyone is free to hijack whatever thing they want until someone kills them. Again... point?
3) Please go to the video on that topic to discuss evolution. As a 'progression of species' theory NO it is NOT science. I should do another vid on the absurd aspects of that claim. I'll try to fit that in today.
The original bullies were the church who imprisoned much of our original scientists and free thinkers who transformed our small understanding of our universe (bcuz it contradicted their interpretation of the bible).
So, does science disprove God? I havent read anything that does. Yet I keep hearing Christians refuting the intelligence of science. It's sad
What's sad is...the number of small children who think they are know it all's on youtube.
1) Are you saying that the government of Rome didn't bully? Or countless others before it? How then can you say RC was the 'original bully'? That's retarded.
2) Why do you call something that doesn't meet Jesus' requirement of "Church" the church? In doing so YOU lend credibility to those who lie and you diss the name of Jesus for no apparent reason.
1) God knows the heart but many people in Rome's government certainly ACTED like they had no belief that they would be held accountable for the evil they did.
2) agreed! Precisely my point. I don't call them 'church' though. I call them a religious meeting.
3) Proposing that a two molecules with some 10^1000 power possibilities, *randomly* arrange themselves to form new species together...is not science.
You go to a job interview, to get a job as an educator, and you say that you think that you shouldn't make people smarter, and you're supprised you didn't get the job? Moreover you somehow think the interviewers are at fault?
This is a pretty pathetic interpretation of anything I said. Where did I say I shouldn't make people smarter? I'm educating YOU right now. You seem unable to process grammar. Where did the hang up occur specifically since I never said anything resembling those words.
-I certainly don't think education is the answer to mans problems [...] you make people smarter they build bigger bombs-
Ergo, we should avoid educating people in case that makes them smarter! Correct me if I misinterpret you.
You seem to think the people who interviewed you had some sort of agenda beyond simply trying to find someone who shared what I presume was their belief that education is of paramount importance.
I'm educating you by teaching you about presumption. LOGICAL TRUTH TABLE EVALUATION of my statement DEMANDS a de-trivialization of your *take* on it. Ie. You are a bonehead. Now listen or I'll remove your arrogant presence. TRUTH table for what I said includes possibilities like 'DISCERN where a student is going and LEND THEM THE RIGHT kinds of wisdom'. Nobody but an idiot would surmise from what i said that we should NOT TEACH. That's why I graduated. TO TEACH.
As an observational point, cultures have been observed which were primitive but peaceful with one another having relatively few of what we would term 'problems'. So it all depends what your goals are. I ENJOY intellectual pursuits; delving into the details of why things do what they do etc. Some don't. As an educator it is my job to give people what will most help THEM to become something positive. If a person is destructive in their direction I certainly don't want to help them. :-)
Ken Miller, who appeared as a witness for the Dover trial, is openly Christian. He is also a respected biologist. It doesn't appear as though he has ever been ostracized for his religious beliefs. The difference is that his belief in a creator is not in contradiction to the evidence of evolution, because he doesn't prescribe to the biblical account of the creation of earth. There's nothing wrong with that comprimise because believing in a God and believing in a religious text are different
*Many* people pose as Christians through history for a variety of reasons. JESUS CHRIST DEFINES what Christianity is and it is historically documented. Refer to the 'no true Scotsman' video please. NATURALLY the atheist community wants as many people like Miller as they can get! Atheist LIKE people to claim to be Christians and side with their views on these things. But a true Christian believes the texts Jesus quoted from. People can *make up* their own def. but it has no substance.
Don't forget Francis Collins, another avowed christian scientist. It just amazes me that we live in a country with a huge majority of christians, but they can claim that they are being downtrodden by the 'majority' of atheists. Why doesn't your brain implode? If there was a majority of atheists in academia, then we wouldn't have the stupid prayer rituals we see whenever there is some tragedy. Or the appeals to what ever deity for the universities sports team. Atheists are the minority. Deal
Well of course. The statistics are clear. The more you learn about reality, the less you believe in fantasy. Some people are able to hold on to their faith in the light of science (like Miller and Collins) but most loose that faith. But the idea that this atheist conspiracy is keeping people out of academia is just ridiculous. There is a large religious presence on every campus I've ever been to. Just look at the Virginia Tech shootings, most of the school went out to pray for the tragedy.
well that comment was very objective. I would think that science and religion are mutually exclusive. People that go into science lose their faith because they forget about their God.
This is retarded. I went into science and didn't lose my faith. :-). What are you talking about? I should just erase all this junk. Spewing unbased opinions is not what these threads are for. Facts...just the facts. If you want opinions go to a religious thread :-). This one is for discussion of facts.
I didnt say anyone who went into science lost their faith. I said that statistics show that the more education you receive the more likely you are to be less religious. Its a fact. You are in the minority (if you indeed received a science degree from a 4 year university) But you belong to the majority of Americans. As soon as the facts disagree with your world view, feel free to use the tool religion uses best, censorship.
Right, but it'st he correlating of going into science/losing faith. The majority of people in certain areas of science tend to be atheist. PEER PRESSURE is the most POWERFUL motivating force for many. So if you are surrounded by jerks mocking you for you faith 5 days a week then obviously if your faith is weak you lose it. It has nothing to do with seeing something in science and going "well..shazaammm! There's no God'!" That's silly.
Again, yes, I've been on many campuses, and I have never seen anyone proselytizing atheism in a class room. I've also never heard of a science professor proselytizing to students in his class. If you have a good example, I would love to hear it. I HAVE seen, on every campus I've visited, a religious presence. I was also exposed to more religious views during my time in college that at any other time in my life.
I was just going to remove this because it's so foolish. But the last fallacy makes a point so I'll give it a bloody nose and leave it instead. Atheists will GLADLY take money from people who are religious. GLADLY try to cram their agenda down their throats as they pay for it. NOBODY is arguing whether atheists are trying to keep religious people off campuses. Quite the contrary. They *want* them in their classes so they can indoctrinate them. 90% atheist stat refers to positions of power.
Sure I will take money from someone who would give it to me. The question is, why are religious people giving these atheists money? (if they are) Your percentages, where do you get them from? I've never seen those numbers anywhere. I've often heard that 87.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Ahh sorry..sometimes youtube's organization of posts comes up different. I see what you are replying to. We are talking about your loon assertion that because people who are religious are allowed in colleges dominated by atheists, that this proves they're really fair people. When in reality I've seen it over and over...they use it to try to indoctrinate people, take their money and hope they lose faith. Have you been to college..at all?
I'm puzzled as to why I never got email notification of this post. Hmm. Anyway there are many people who are Christians in science. So? 90% of those controlling the field related to sciences strategic in setting the mindset re: topics of faith relating to science...are atheists or more. I can't see how this would surprise anyone. Given the obvious mechanics of the situation. DEAL.
The great atheist conspiracy is hacking your email, expect a mirad of inconveniences :) Its really simple. A great many people enter university with a belief in some higher power. As they learn more science, a great many discard the belief. All my years in school I never had anyone 'indoctrinate' me into atheism.Only the subject for which I was there to learn was discussed. As Twain said, Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. As such, so is knowledge.
A lot of people are stupid. So? If they were SMART they would see that there are no plausible scientific/physical explanations for the major things we observe in the universe. In fact we don't even know *what* energy really is etc. We only make mathematical correlations in observed things. We know the essence of NIL. Basically people get arrogant and stupid and think they know something beyond that. IT's a pride trip. so?
There are a myriad of things that we don't understand yet. This is a reason, in my opinion, to continue with the scientific method, instead of throwing up our hands and saying 'Goddidit' But on the other hand, we DO have a great idea of what energy is (here is a secret, its equal to a particle of mass times the square of the speed of light) Were learning more all the time.
Anybody who uses *that* line of reasoning is an idiot obviously. But haven't you perceived anything from this thread? The fact that you said that makes me say "don't quit your day job" because I have a spiritual experience as do many others. Others *claim* to be Christian or whatever but as soon as they are faced with social pressure to justify their alleged affiliation *they* throw their hands up and plead atheism. Even some who do have spiritual experience push it away due to social press.
Oh and HERE is a secret. (this is one to most people..whereas any frosh physics student should know what you said..). Matter is harmonically bound energy. We know this because when particles with opposite properties meet (matter/anti-matter) they cancel the part of the wave function the keeps them harmonically bound and an EM photon is emitted have the energy predicted by E=MC^2
Hint: Don't talk down way to people who completed most of a Physics BS when you haven't gotten past Frosh level.
MENSA members and People with PhDs more so and even more so People who have won Nobel Prizes for science, are less likely to believe in an god than the average of the population.
All it maybe shows is that people who don't believe in God have to fill their lives up with *something*, and obviously creating clubs etc. to feel like they are intellectually superior and alienating those who Love God is going to be high on the list in a typical motivational analysis evaluation. In school, I experienced this tendency of people to make me outcast. Sadly for them I was the guy with the IQ but..oh well :-) I've observed plenty of humanity to understand how things work...
PS and of course you might ask yourself WHO is giving Nobel Prizes. I mean..crudd..they gave Al Gore the peace prize for what? The guy should be JAILED for defrauding people. Data presented in a normal swing of temperature over a few 1/10ths of a degree and then AFTER the data (2002) starting on a downhill tendency again. Proof that a lot of POLITICS play into such things. Don't put your faith in man. Do your own homework. STOP letting the TV/internet educate you.
First of all it is Jesus who says that you should look for God in your youth.
As for riches it is easyer for a camel to go trough a needle; is applying to knowledge as well.
Secondly the fact is that nobelprices arent that long in existence as does evolution. Second that Nobelprices are selective look at the ammount of jews and women with prices.
Thirthly that christians find values to family more then the average atheist. Thus having more time.
Ahh I found it. I responded to a documented ERROR in your assessment by noting that you didn't know anything about electronics. And now you smart off with that? Ok yeah you're just talking silly and insulting. Bye.
fyi Electronic circuits don't 'imitate' things in nature. They ARE things in natured dumb dumb :-) I mean seriously...what do you think they are? Electrons are part of nature. Capacitors are allow electrons to interact through electrical fields. Inductors allow them to interact through magnetic fields. Tubes use electric fields to control current and transistors a depletion zone phenomena created by atomic eletron structure variations in nearby atomic structures in lattice. Hope that helps.
Ahh of course. Yeah that's not the electronics doing that on their own. :-) That's software in digital instruments that imitate things in nature. They just sound like modems if you amplify the digital lines of course :-) Anyway I'm for making it easy to fire people actually. I'm also for taking education out of the hands of government though. That way if people fire the wrong people they collapse from their own stupidity. Meanwhile the smart people they fired are off doing useful things.
I don't see how software is less "natural". Electronic hardware expresses human-designed algrithms too.
I thought you meant to insinuate that firing was hardly ever for a good reason.
You'd still want free education for everyone right? You'd still need standardised tests though, (and hence a government-controled basic curriculum). I think a voucher sustem should be tested in a state.
You think of free-market economics as a self-correcting just utopia, don't you?
Sounds created in s/w either immitate things in nature or they are totally abstract. Analog circuits ARE part of nature. Mechanical oscillators and electronic ones for instance. The equation that governs a mass/spring oscillator is the same as an LC. TWo different parts of nature bound by the same force relationships, hence the word 'analog'. I think education should be done on a local level. Government has destroyed a sense of community. Nobody knows their neighbor etc. LAWS for abuses..
...still need to exist. For example people have no right to lie to the consumer. People have no right to pretend to be multiple companies but to be forming monopolies. (Eg. oil stuff right now, though they've nested it cleverly) There is no utopia. Humans are evil. However if you want to CENTRALIZE evil, then sure. GIve government power that they shouldn't have in hope of reaching YOUR utopia. 2 kinds of socialist. Duped ones, and those who maneuver into pole position for control.
The tools are natural. However s/w can be quite arbitrary; having no connection whatsoever with any process that is seen in the physical universe. That's why there is a big resurgance of interest in analog gear. DX7 was certainly much more POWERFUL and RELIABLE than a CS80 6 years earlier. Both are roughly the same vintage. dx is what 30 pounds and cs80 219lbs. ! Yeah the keys feel better but.. you can midi in a controller w/ dx. :-) Get a module of it. CMV? DX=300.00 CS = 10,000.00
But I get a feeling that you're talking about synthethisers.
I think your distinction between natural and not is really just a distinction between physical and conceptual. However, since any complex circuit will contain innate algorithms/software, I think they're just as conceptual as the software itself. It's like saying that a book is natural, but a conversation isn't.
Anyway, this argument isn't really worth debating.
Our state even has a lot of corruption. I think it's great to have testing and to inform communities of how their students are doing. However to control what people teach their children is a bit Nazi/arrogant/I know-more-than-you attitude. While general math skills and communication skills are necessary each community will have different reasons for emphasizing different things. If kids can learn in their community and gradually branch out > higher ed I think it's more productive.
"However to control what people teach their children is a bit Nazi/arrogant/I know-more-than-you attitude."
There's no control on what parents teach their children.
There are people (maybe not politicians though) who know better what's important to teach than the average parent. It's not fascism (yet), it's realism:
Branching out is good, but it's also much more expensive than standardisation.
A big problem in the US is that so few people go to higher/further ed at all.
How can 30% of scientists be christian if they get fired as soon as their faith is discovered?
Also, there's some VERY religious scientists out there, who are open about their faith, and who still hold high academic positions. (though already a smaller proportion).
Also, Ben Stein's interviewees were fired for pretty good reasons: (see expelledexposed).
What about the discovery institute's research?
Also, electronic circuits do not imitate anything in nature that I know of.
1) Nobody said Astronomers for example were being persecuted in this way. Atheists are probably too stupid to get into fields that require foundational science (physics) to a GREATER extent. (jab jab)
2) Nobody said people were fired as soon as their faith is discovered. If their faith is strong people pick that up in interview and they rarely get hired though.
3) Oh right everyone is fired for 'good' reasons. You're talking to the wrong guy.
1) I guess Japan and europe don't have physicists then. (I'm a maths student myself)
2) Maybe a little. But I don't think christian scientists would discriminate against christians.
3) If a history teacher taught holocaust-denial, and students complained a lot about her, I'd fire her. The other "expelled" people still kept their jobs for a long time after publishing their creationist articles.
4) Ok, but then every man-made machine is "in nature". You said earlyer that they were imitations.
PS it's good to have someone reasoning finally. I've seen nothing but people (from opposed views) approaching with know-it-all sorts of attitudes. If you know something it's ok to say it. But presumption absolutely kills productive argument. I appreciate your 'rational' approach.
n 500 words or less.. Hinduism; has multiple conflicting creation accounts ALL of which contain scientific absurdities (cosmic cobras etc.) Mormonism; science proves that genetic claims about various groups are false. Islam; single witness history revisionist/pedophile dredges 'allah' from pantheistic moon/war God and posts multiple false prophecies (google them) Buddhism; teacher who never tried to start a religion; moot. etc.
Have you considered running this line of reasoning by DonExodus2? Search YouTube for his videos. He did an excellent video on Expelled, and he is a Christian.
Then there's Ken Miller and Francis Collins. They seem to have 'no' problem finding jobs (to say the least) yet they openly profess their faith, especially Collins.
My training is theological, so I'm not one to take up the torch here. Just passing along some thoughts.
Hehe. God didn't create metal? We form things and rearrange but we don't really 'create' anything from scratch like God did. But he did give us wonderful minds that can explore and do forms of art within this environment. LOOK...the sounds that REACH the human soul are related to nature. Analogs particularly are just voicing natural phenomena. Digitals imitate natural phenomena and if they don't are only 'appreciated' by people who just want to hear something weird :-)
Interesting comments about education. I think you should be a little more sceptical about the claim from creation science that the reason their scientific reputation is low is because of a conspiracy! A little convenient, methinks.
It's all hand waving until you do some HARD SCIENCE to investigate the issue isn't it Charlie? Try being a Christian who is open about their faith and see how far YOU get in the academic environment. Fact is..I'm like..real life McGuiver. I can make things work from available materials..remembering fixing this guy's boat starter out in the middle of a LAKE! :-) I'm a decent EE, Machinist, OE, Code writer.. But eventually for things I write in the campus paper..I'm EXPELLED. Such hypocrisy.
Has your case received media attention? If so, how did the media deal with it? Were they sympathetic?
In my experience, the scientific community in the UK is wary of creationism, but equally wary of Dawkins' breed of atheism. Of the scientists that I know personally -friends/acquaintances, most are agnostics, and those who are believers don't think faith has much bearing on science.
I don't have to have a sense of humor..and neither do you! :-). Lucky thing or you would cease to exist!! hehe. It's a play off 'stupid animal tricks'. See...atheists...think we're ahimals. GET IT? It's a ...I say it's a joke son! (I'll have to do my fogghorn legghorn immitation in one of these.) As I noted I'm not saying all atheists are intellectually deficient. I'm just saying *some* employ absurd/deceptive 'tricks' to try to convince others of their position.
your assertion in a previous comment that "therefore the only testimony that COULD hold water is 'God did it'" has two problems. First one is minor, that it leaves a question of which god "did it", as mankind has worshiped literally thousands in our history. Second is major as "god did it" can't be proved or disproved. It then becomes a redundant statement in which you could replace god with any fictional character.
Why is 'which God' a problem? Every search needs a starting place. I don't see why that would be on the table at all at that point in the process. I personally know which God because of spiritual experience (not to mention fatal illogical fallacies in all other religions...) 2nd no and we've already discussed this at length. Fictional char's don't have reams of testimony that predates but is backed by current science. Quite a difference. This argument is a dead horse. Get it out. Thanks.
Well, ID is not science by definition. Why should it be treated as such then? Because you want to? Peer-review is the strong point of science cause it filters out all the non-sense and potential fake research out there. ID is not the only thing that isn't accepted through peer-review. Without this filtering mechanism we might as well called the whole thing the Disney method rather than the scientific method.
Removed other posts for pure hand-waving content. I will answer this question though. LISTEN. There is no viable explanation of how life evolved. I and others have put extensive effort into the logical thrust of this argument which *are* overwhelming to the point of making a shambles of all speculation. Therefore the only testimony that COULD hold water is 'God did it'. Like it or not, that's the reality pal. Got another actual theory? Post it. Or shut up. Nobody cares about hand waving.
1)Yes there is, its called ev. theory. It encompasses all avaliable evidence and its predictions has been confirmed for 150 years. 'God' is not a scientific claim because it cannot be falsified, but the creationist 'hypothesis' is and it has been refuted and disproven... thoroughly. Ev. theory might be wrong in some details but if it even were completely wrong that would not mean for a second that the creation myth was correct.
Sorry you haven't produced a viable paper that either shows an experiment which was done to substantiate the HAND WAVING NOTION that ev. can occur across complex species...NOR even any calculations confirming this is possible. It again is impossible for slow gradual changes due to the complex vital org. systems code. Don't you people ever get tired of bantering lies and being made fools of? ADDRESS THE REASONING PRESENTED ON THE TOPIC IN these vids or shut up. Stop trying to waste my time.
1) there really is good creationist science out there, and
2) It's being squelched by a vast conspiracy?
This is what's known as a 'self reinforcing delusion'. You have no evidence, and suddenly that counts as evidence that you do have evidence. I call Bullshit on that. Link to the papers that should have been accepted.
By the way, plenty of believing scientists do get tenure. Are you sure that was really the reason you couldn't find work? I have my dounbts.
I have my doubt that you want to reason. I see you claiming 'self-reinforcing delusion' ..what was that based on again and why is it in this topic? Lost me there. I call bullshit on your ability to communicate :-). Yes many believing scientists get tenure. So? Did anyone claim that this conspiracy was 100% efficient? It wasn't until recent decades that 90% of the people in power positions of relevance were atheist. How'd that happen and if you say 'atheists are smarter' I'll remove you.
Why speculate? Let's just deal with the documented cases where people were ejected from positions or ridiculed because they suggest ID. Let's get PROPER education to these people so they can see on the chalkboard why there is no viable 'theory of evolution' as it relates to progression to complex species. THEN we can all recognize that it doesn't matter what people mention so long as it isn't provably wrong (like many of the evolutionist claims...)
1) I personally have worked in Mol. Bio. as I say. I've first hand seen the treatment of the matter in that environment. So I don't really care if there are speculations about particular cases.
2) I have a spiritual relationship/first hand experience. I don't have to guess how things were created. Not to mention the 1 in GOGOL odds that a fabricator could assemble so many fits with modern science in the bible w/out a single clanker. Anyone can check that out.
No, it makes you look like a troll. I ban trolls. The fact that you asked 'does this help your case' makes you too stupid to reason with obviously. If you are that imperceptive about what I'm saying then it's hopeless to try to reason with you in 500 word bursts. Like I say simply start assessing in your spare time when you aren't trolling, the stated things in the OT that correlate IN context to physical things then unknown. qualitatively accumulate odds of a ganker being there instead.
"I see you claiming 'self-reinforcing delusion' ..what was that based on again and why is it in this topic?"
You seemed to me to be saying that the absence of peer-reviewed literature supporting creationism is itself evidence of the conspiracy you're puting forward. You present no exmaples, but just expect us to believe in this conspiracy. Nothing can disprove it that way: self-reinforcing.
Also, why do you keep threatening to block me? I pose no threat to your ideas, if they're sound.
Because you make stupid unfounded speculation about why I wasn't hired. That's an ad hominem attack and I won't tolerate that kind of non-sense. Back to the topic, I and many others have written articles but they aren't 'peer reviewed' because again 90% atheists tend to sneer at the suggestion. Sarfati and others hold PhD's and have written great books destroying the arguments typically spouted by 'peers'. I thought most people were aware of literature like 'refuting evolution' etc.
I speculated about why you weren't hired? All I did was express skepticism about your view on evolution being the *only* reason you weren't hired. There could be lots of legitimate reasons you weren't hired. Lots of otherwise wonderful people are not hired for such things. Pointing it out doesn't constitute an ad hominem attack.
I've never seen a convincing attack on evolution. Have you posted one of these articles of yours? I'd love to see what you have to say.
Saying it's not doesn't make it not either. The grammar has no other interpretation though. Oh well.
Look..I'm not stupid. I see in my 47 years..CONSISTENT ALIENATION because I talk about things that are uncomfortable to people. If you don't have that experience...adopt a stand that isn't popular and start talking to people. You'll see how people operate. That's basically the problem here. Apparently you are naive in this respect.
1) absolutely. However I'm just saying I have observed human behavior for 47 years. I know the kinds of thoughts people have and how they GUARD against thoughts that threaten their world view.
2) This thread isn't for speculating about bizarre things that contradict what we both know about human nature :-) Maybe the blue unicorn MAKES people guard their worldview. Oh please. We dont' need it. That's what I mean by 'I'm not stupid'. Thanks.
This has been flagged as spam show
TheDarkLordLucifer 5 months ago
Good. We don't need religious bias infiltrating science.
itstonymacaroni 1 year ago
@itstonymacaroni I think these days it's more often that anti-religious bias dominates science. Like I say, it's hard as a person with faith in God to even *exist* because of the interaction that always happens OUTSIDE the work environment. eg. at U of O where I was always faced with apathy vs. speaking out when others would assert non-sense. And I'd shut down their reasoning w/logic and that would just piss them off and they'd have to find OTHER ways to attack. For many that = termination.
sounddoctorin 1 year ago
the dark lighting and all the keyboards are kinda creepy, but I like your vids
dhide14 1 year ago
@dhide14 lol. Well not by intent. It's just hard to get lighting everywhere in there without running up a huge bill. I can see the controls and that's all that matters when I'm using it. There are a few spots where I want local lighting like on the K5m display that has a failed backlight etc.
sounddoctorin 1 year ago
Credentials do have some merit: if someone knows more about a topic, then they have a greater ability to argue a point on that topic. In any case, there is no argument regarding evolution; if you disagree you don't understand. Peer review is one of the most important aspects of the scientific community. There is no greater agenda, and those scientists that don't make it to publication are more often than not those whose propositions are pointless or invalid.
s9083061 1 year ago
@s9083061 Sure in the world where everyone wants to have a voice one would tend to *start* with voices that have some credential. However that doesn't discount the fact that in a sea of complexity/uncertainty that engulfs MANY topics, that a non-authority might not even think of something that someone highly trained (and perhaps biased so that they aren't as free to think open mindedly) might miss. I AGREE peer review is GOOD when used right. Many topics are more political than intellectual..
sounddoctorin 1 year ago
@sounddoctorin ,,continuing...and thus, as I note, tend to not be well represented in the peer review process. Once the whole community is polarized on an issue it can be difficult to get past that. And hey... one thing can lead to another when people have money influence. People can become polarized about things that a person who isn't under that bondage of grant renewals etc. can see the truth more clearly one. I don't recall saying the idea of peer review is bad. It isn't perfect though.
sounddoctorin 1 year ago
@sounddoctorin Well put, it is difficult to reverse an opinion that becomes set in literature. However, with the right amount of justifiable evidence that polarised view can be reversed: it happens a lot more often that one might think. The beauty of the scientific community is that their knowledge is always developing and growing thanks to this multitude of diverse ideas and the testing of hypotheses. A lot of the time, a lack of grant money means the idea is flawed, rather than the system.
s9083061 1 year ago
@s9083061 Up to a point. I guess we can say the 'ugliness' of humanity as a whole, is that it has a history where manipulators consistently hijack the political system, whatever it might be, and wind up enslaving/butchering people in mass. In the past century we saw this happen to the tune of 100's of millions of people. NATURALLY people get into science for a variety of reasons and so agendas do culminate. eg. watch the ark vid on my fav's. Why did it take me 50 years to learn about this?
sounddoctorin 1 year ago
lets consider that over 70% of Americans consider themselves Christians. statistically, it more likely they be removed. Also, you said stated that 90% of scholars were atheists, now assuming that number is true, because i don't know that it isn't, i would believe that many higher sciences may lend themselves to atheists, because of the subject matter. it would be hard to study the formation of the universe, or biology, if you don't believe that the theories that they are based on are correct.
riles5446 2 years ago
actually I said that 90% of the people in academic research in the fields of relevance to the issues at hand (eg. biology, ecology, and various more specific fields like molecular, micro. Though Micro I'm guessing has more of a mix. But I've worked in molecular and I know what the typical ratios are and it's at least on target with polls I've heard cited). I mentioned some specifics in my vids so I won't be redundant. There is persecution. I would have loved to have been an astronomer...cont
sounddoctorin 2 years ago
I aspired in HS and early college to do that as a profession. I've build several scopes, viewed all messier objects as a youth save the few that are disputed open clusters..hehe.... and intended my study in physics to go that way SIMPLY BECAUSE I LOVE STUDYING WHAT MY CREATOR MADE! I don't have an agenda. I simply view what the facts are and process them. Not towards any particular *end* like atheists typically do. That's the difference mate.
sounddoctorin 2 years ago
Thank you for the reply, it was well stated and well received.
riles5446 2 years ago
@sounddoctorin Who cares about your credentials? You don't care about anyone else's.
AureolaFE 1 year ago
@AureolaFE Nobody should decide whether or not someone is worth listening to on the basis of credentials. Where did I make such a claim? YUP it's a logical fallacy called 'argument from authority' or the like to 'care' in the way you are hinting one should care by the tone of your statement I believe.
sounddoctorin 1 year ago
The biggest problem here is that he seems to be confusing atheists and secularists.
boilingbubbles 2 years ago
A 'secularist' normally *is* an atheist. It's all kind of amorphous because for example a person claiming to be a Christian who manifests the prioritization of secular fame, treasures etc... is really a secularist in function. Secularist engulfs the vast majority of humanity if all were tallied up :-). And to REALLY put ones faith in secular things...makes their God *look* rather *insignificant*. Right? So I'm not sure there is a functional difference actually.
sounddoctorin 2 years ago
@sounddoctorin well, lets start with me.
I used to be an atheist, and now i have moved into the realm of pantheism (with a bunch of other things thrown in the mix too, especially postheism).
The defining point to me, however, is that I am willing to accept my beliefs as just that- beliefs. One who will not deny a fact simply because it goes against his/her religion is secular.
boilingbubbles 2 years ago
not a unique argument. You are BASICALLY trying to say YOU are better...because you know that you can't be sure... compared to OTHERS who ARE SURE they claim.
But see...the problem is you buddy. You are claiming to know others can't know! And that is MUCH more elusive than actually knowing. Which makes you way more of a jerk than you ever could have imagined they might be :-). (Ie. your claim that that can't know absolutley is totally untable, which theirs potentially IS tenable. )
sounddoctorin 2 years ago
I get this all the time "Show me a Peer Reviewed Article"... and I point out that its like foxes watching the hen house.
I try to keep from saying disrespectful things to them, and I've done a fair ob controlling myself, I think. But frankly, I don't know why I need to show respect to a bunch of academian tyrants. I cannot tell you the vulgarities I have endured from this bunch of clowns.
BTW I particularly like a term coined by Phil Johnson: Evolutionist Priesthood. I use it frequently :)
lexscripta1 2 years ago
Yup. I'd challenge any board of Peers to sit down with me in a logical debate environment. With trained moderators. Just reviewing the things we know as robust theories, I can take them apart piece by piece. And with a moderator there to ding them every time they use an illogical response... man...it would be fun to just leave them sitting there at the end realizing that THEIR REILGION WILL NOT FLY IN A COURT OF LOGIC.
sounddoctorin 2 years ago
Peer review is an atheist trick???!!! Peer review keeps the system honest. you can't just say " I believe this is true because I said so". If other scientists can't independently, quantify anything you say by applying logic and the scientific method your hypothesis fails. This doesn't apply only to creationists but everyone.
ptango101 2 years ago
Perhaps you didn't read what I just said below. *Many* times (for example, the big bang theory) you can't even present alternate theories in stupid forums. How are you ever going to get consideration by a peer review board? If you got "Peer review is an atheist trick" out of this then your comprehension needs some honing...
sounddoctorin 2 years ago
EVERYONE gets bullied in peer review... nomatter WHAT their position is. If you present a claim that doesnt have the kind of evidence it needs to back it ... BAM it gets tanked.
I do not talk about my atheism or religion at all at my job. If i flaunted the fact that i'm an atheist in my mostly christian town, i might not get hired. Or if I flaunt it around my co-workers i might get fired. I don't think thats wrong. Religion is a topic to avoid if you're PROFESSIONAL.
JamesCalico 2 years ago 2
1) Who said anything about 'flaunting'. I'm talking about being able to have NORMAL CONVERSATIONS with people during the day for a moment here and there about things of common interest...like humans do.
2) "The kind of evidence it needs".... well... evolutionary progression of species gets through with most people because it's what they want to believe. There is no credible evidence that simple cells can evolve to complex organisms like humans. It's all what people WANT to believe in...
sounddoctorin 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheism is not Biology. Atheism is not Chemistry. Atheism is not Physics. Atheism is not PBS. Atheism is not Science. The cult of Darwinism was invented 150 years ago. There is STILL no evidence for mutational advance where new benefical stuctures are formed randomly.
A belief in common ancestry of all life is not a requirement in order to discover cures and solve problems. There is a testable design Model in the link at the end of my profile.
Atheism is Dead.
prffsrx 2 years ago
Why is this marked as spam? I didn't do this did I?
sounddoctorin 2 years ago
I can't change it's status. Very strange...
sounddoctorin 2 years ago
The funniest part in Expelled, is when Ben 'Igmoramus' Stein visits the office of the Discovery Institute, and wonders how small it is. Sure it is small, but he failed to ask, where is their research lab.
So , please stop the whining about supression!
lovasip 2 years ago
trying to find some relevance in this.... If you speak in vague dissociated and irrelevant manner, I will remove you because it just wastes people's time. ATTACH what it is that you are thinking is an inconsistency with some kind of specific article. I can't figure out what point you are trying to make from what you say above.
sounddoctorin 2 years ago
You used Expelled as your major argument in this video.
The point is simple: there is nothing to supress. The Big Atheist Conspiracy is just an excuse for lack of actual content, lack of testable evidence, lack of understanding the nature and scope of science. And also a good excuse for personal fiascos.
lovasip 2 years ago
Sorry .. I cited instances I've personally encountered where people in the atheist community look for any excuse to 'expel' Christians. So it's not 'just' anything you nit wit. Like 90% of the people IN POWER POSITIONS are atheists. It's not because they are smarter... if you look at the who's who in the history of significant scientific advances, people believing in God hold their share and beyond. RATHER atheists hold this overwhelming sway because they maneuver without morals.
sounddoctorin 2 years ago
ps and if that's the kind of redundant stuff you are going to waste my time with...leave..
sounddoctorin 2 years ago
That is to say that if you do research that supports the presumption that a "higher power" (whatever that refers to) does not exist, if your research design, analysis of the data, outcome of the research, other research upon which the research rests, etc, is (or are) flawed, and most research is, it is not a fact, theory, or otherwise scientifically valid (on the level of specifics--research can be flawed but still indicate general trends) hypothesis.
Kaiouss 3 years ago
I don't see how to even get it on the table since there is no hypothetical way to *support* the presumption that a higher power does not exist. It's a ludicrous notion. WHY? Because the only evidence would exist in a spiritual realm which the physical has no means of assessing. fail.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Kaiouss replied with the irritating 'fairy' argument. Talk about 'fail'. Sorry I don't allow people to post redundant and ignorant arguments here. There is no comparison because folklore based on what people hypothetically may have seen...and the incredible weight of evidence that scriptures are actual history. Sorry not even on the same map. Some idiot on the net made up the flying spaghetti monster. If you want to sound DIM..sure bring that into the argument.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
That being said, the main point I wanted to touch on was the casting aside of the peer-review process on the basis that most people participating have an agenda (in particular, an Atheist one). Even if we assume it's true that most highly educated people are Atheist, through the peer review process, a majority is irrelevant. Even if one Christian exists (and I know several at Harvard, even) who brings a legitimate claim against research, it must be considered. The origin of a claim is irrelevant
Kaiouss 3 years ago
I'll tell you how polarized things have gotten. I can't even post on the flipping 'physics forum' without getting BOOTED by some ignoramus for posting 'non-mainstream theories'. Was simply pointing out that M33 and M31 are on totally illogical flight patters for any kind of big bang to have happened. Bam. I'm kicked out. SO if you can't even get an idea past people on a physics forum.. now much more will you get censored functionally before getting a peer review on the matter?
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
A Physics forum is not the cutting edge of the scientific community. Again, presenting single personal experiences as evidence to indict an entire group. A Physics forum has nothing to do with the peer review process. I have never seen the post, so I'm not sure if you were generalizing about Atheists and being disrespectful to everyone on the forum. If that were the case, I would have kicked you off, too. Physicists don't care whether a theory is mainstream, they care whether it's legitimate.
Kaiouss 3 years ago
Firstly, let me say that Atheism does not prevent people from being people. Now that that is out of the way, I think you make a lot of generalizations about "Atheists" based upon personal experience. I'm sorry you've had those experiences, but I don't go disliking all Christians because most of the ones I meet are human. In fact, come to think of it, all of them are. People do things like form groups, become defensive and belligerent, et ceter, et cetera. It is not a purely Atheistic trait.
Kaiouss 3 years ago
It's people being people that CAUSES atheism :-). It's got nothing to do with 'disliking' people. There is a God who is spiritually calling to his creation. If people choose to ignore it they have an agenda for doing so. Sure most people calling themselves 'Christian' absolutely hate many of the things in the text they claim to be sacred. Many others claim it isn't authoritative and just make up whatever they want to believe. Yup. So what'd that have to do with anything I said in vid?
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Clearly, being Christian has not prevented you from being belligerent, rude, et cetera, on YouTube. So why should I believe that it is the lack of Christianity that causes these things when I could just believe it is being human and being unable to moderate one's self? It's Ockham's Razor and we would apply the same principle to weighing "a universe came from nothing" with "a god came from nothing and created the universe". And it has to do with everything you say in the vid generalizing a group
Kaiouss 3 years ago
You have a really annoying laugh.
maemorri 3 years ago
We aim to please! :-) Tell God to give me another one if you don't like this one. I do a good scooby doo immitation come to think of it..I think I'll start using that one instead :-)
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Ya the expelled movie did so well..... I mean look at all the movie reviews, critics say its the worst propaganda film produced in the last 10 years.
conman2317 3 years ago
Truth isn't a democratic process. This guy is slanting his statements to make it sound as though only Leftist reviewers have a worthwhile opinion. The film got great reviews from any conservative source I've talked to. Don't I recall Glenn Beck interviewing him and Fox news? Yeah look up the youtube video of the latter. I can't allow time wasters like this to even bug me here so I'm canning the guy and deleting his longer post.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
continuing...but instead they boot me out and block me because they can't deal with what I'm telling them. They say I was kicked out for posting a 'non-conventional theory'. WELL CRRRRUUDDD! If you can't even POST about them on a physics forum..how do you figure that you're going to get a peer reviewed article on the topic? OR get to TEACH A CLASS! Sure you SAY 'go ahead, teach a class'. Dude my oral presentation in college sent ripples..hehe.. no way would they let me teach on it.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
I didn't see anything in the movie which a remote exposure to the field wouldn't clear up any confusion about. We're hearing two things. People's testimonies. Usually parts are accurate and parts might be biased. But in these cases I've WITNESSED things on par with that crud. Like I say people are so sensitive that they even BOOT ME from the Physics forum for commenting on blue shift data. If they had BRAINS and they were RIGHT they could shut me down *that* way.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
And btw..Cosmicluck.. just to commend you..you are the first guy in QUITE a while who's just posted in a non-offensive way. Most of the people in your camp.. haven't been acting like that. They come on *super* smug/arrogant. Pronounce themselves victor before firing a shot etc. Hey...I've fired a lot of shots. And I think those shots have hit a lot of targets and that's why people come off that way. But thank YOU for posting things that disagree with me but I don't have to pull down! :-)
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
expelledexposed[dot]com
Srsly.
intelligentfalling 3 years ago
Expelled is what it is. Ben interviews people and they tell their side of a story that otherwise doesn't get published in recent history. Are there alternative testimonies? SURE! Who's lying? Who knows? BUT THE PHILOSOPHICAL THRUST is what is very powerful. Note the nutty Eugenist woman running the death camp/museum. The atheist framework leads one to think that life is purely biological; hence might as well CLEAN UP! :-) The theist has a plausible motive NOT to tamper w/the creation.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
And in that respect the move is ultimately powerful. A lot of people seem to miss that...probably because they are looking the other way :-). But the testimonies are more the 'huh...well that doesn't surprise me given this whole mindset that becomes a religion of atheism functionally'. And if some atheists claim that these people are lying it wouldn't surprise me. Was there something PARTICULAR you thought I should see since I'm a busy guy and don't go proving around random sites much?
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Nah just disappointed really. Expelled is as much propaganda as zeitgeist is and I didn't expect you to be seemingly endorsing it. The mud being animated by lightning strawman, evolution leading to nazism, etc. I would have hoped that Ben "Science Leads You To Killing People" Stien would have been beneath you. And your misunderstanding of atheism in general (from your last comment) is dissapointing as well.
intelligentfalling 3 years ago
It's not 'evolution>Nazism'. That's a total trivialization of the process there. I can walk you through it but not in 500char. AGAIN the 'science leads you to killing people' is WAY out of context. Science EXCLUSIVELY (Ie. refusing a heart of compassion) leads to killing people. And I say that with utter confidence. WHY? If anyone believes ONLY physical processes exist, then it's 100% logical to treat people like cattle. If the herd gets out of hand, you do what you must. Kill them.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
continuing, IT APPEARS you are either as divisive as the others, OR you are simply taken in by the stupid anti-Stein propaganda which takes his words OUT of the context I just slam dunked on you :-). So do the research your self and don't clog my threads with lies. Thanks. NEXT it's not a 'strawman' to note the implausibility of cells forming from purely 'random' processes. Philosophically we're talking about 1 in 10^240+ odds of electrochemical processes HAPPENING to favor life arrangements
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
continuing... or whatever. So nobody is going to pull that BS on me. From your language here also, you're potentially brilliant mind is being tainted by propaganda. Perhaps that's why you're an atheist. You just haven't done the research YOURSELF yet. You've been listening to moderate atheist propaganda instead of doing HARD STATISTICAL CALCULATIONS on various scenarios and realizing that ALL (100%) of the alternative theories to creation they hand you are total bunk. >sounddoctorin page
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
also only some of them lied. Stein cut some others off and posited his own version of what the circumstances were. For Instance the Myer article situation wasn't about ID. Stein only put in enough of his position in to make it seem as if he were being discredited for ID support, when he was an unpaid intern (not an employee) and he snuck an article into their Sci journal without peer review. But he wasnt even fired for it.
intelligentfalling 3 years ago
Only some of them lied. Dude...I should just remove that post for the biased language you use there. You're implying that ALL of them either lied or HE misrepresented their stories! WHEN I PERSONALLY KNOW that the academic community is FULL of bullying. I've witnessed it FIRST HAND MULTIPLE TIMES. So duh. It would be just..REAL hard to find legit stories like this. Not. But STein just had the HORRIBLE luck of finding ONLY the liars. Uhuh. SHut up with the propaganda or you're gone.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
I agree there is a lot of acedemic bullying, my point was that the film was tailored to give false impressions about science. And this agree with me or I will silence you horseshit that you are peddling now when I did NOTHING to personally attack you in any way is bullying. This isn't rational discussion, so go ahead and silence me from your channel. I was wrong to compliment you. Youre obviously unwilling to allow any one but yourself to be heard. I wont be watching this anymore. Silence me.
intelligentfalling 3 years ago
It's my belief that the film was INTENDED for an audience intelligent enough to ...for example...get the 'science leads to killing people' quote IN CONTEXT. Perhaps you're very smart in some areas...but you seem to have been victimized by the bad information...look.. do you know how it is when people want to hate you SO bad...that they are looking for anything they can take out of context to ridicule you with? That's clearly what happened with that quote. In context..there's a powerful truth.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
And secondly...I can't even figure out what you are trying to say in the run on sprawl there. Anyway I believe Ben's intentions on the film were good. I believe Ben LIKE MYSELF is a lover of PURE science. I believe he's also come to recognize that some try to USE science to promote a very evil agenda though and that is the Eugenist mindset that fueled Hitler's Germany and CONTINUES to be very alive in the world today. Science is HIJACKED as a vehicle for these to legitimize their evil.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Oh this is one of those things where you don't apologize for your previous mess up..and you hope to find some fault in my thoughts along the way :-). Right. It's a rather involved explanation. If you don't already know take Physics through E+M and get back to me or send some tutoring fees. Thanks, -Bob
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
How would you feel about introducing Buddhist beliefs into the Science classroom presented as fact? How about Satanic or Pagan beliefs? Or do you feel that only Christian beliefs should be accepted by the scientific community as fact?
1n354a 3 years ago
Why are you asking me this? I've never advocated teaching in public schools as FACT anything that can't be established across the board. Physics concludes that there had to be an origin of all matter from something that doesn't follow 2nd law of TD. FACT. Teach it. None of the origin theories for solar system, life, etc. aren't implausible. FACT. Teach it. Teach that these are some 'theories' people have had but only supernatural explanations don't have implausible aspects. FACT.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Since when did science start dealing with supernatural explanations?
What does the 2nd law of thermodynamics have to do with matter creation?
1n354a 3 years ago
It's strange that my reply doesn't appear under this. I basically told you to take some physics classes to where you are up to speed. But let me add MATTER we don't observe being created in a for that has the potential energy for processes we deem useful. RATHER we see mutual annihilation and things that convert matter to less harvestable forms of energy. The predicted 'heat death' as some call it would have occurred by now if there were no t=0 for matter.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
With your "definition" of scientific fact, there wouldn't be much to teach in science classes at all. I mean gravity is "just a theory". Should they teach that it might be entirely wrong to say that every apple will always fall down because there are some things about black holes we don't understand yet and therefor the theory of gravity is incomplete? And how the heck are the theories about the formation of the solar system implausible?!?
diogenes1984 3 years ago
In this 500 char limit it's hard to spell out every detail. It is a FACT that the 2nd law is an incredibly well established theory. Teach it as something we can build SOME kind of scientific framework upon BEARING IN MIND the research that supports our presumption we're not being totally deceived somehow.
THere are GOOD presumptions that allow one to venture down a likely pathway. And there are stupid ones that cause people to waste time. FOCUS ON THE GOOD ONES! Is that more clear?
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
people are bullied like they say they are in expelled because they as scientists are going against the purpose of scientists by spreading ideas which are not supported by evidence. that's not science, that's lying, and they should be bullied out of academia. i dearly hope you DON'T teach science. ever.
natman48 3 years ago
This is a hand waving argument. Like I say I don't allow just opinion spew here. I don't give a hoot what you hope frankly. Your grammar usage pretty much pegs you as an ignoramus. I HOPE you never have a decent teacher like myself lest you become an effective communicator. Anyway I'll leave this up a while so people can laugh at you then I'll probably remove it because this thread is getting too cluttered with junk posts.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Wha... is this satire?
Or are you honestly that fucking stupid that you think peer review is a bad thing? Do you honestly not understand a single concept of science? Do you actually think 'Expelled' was a good movie? If so, you have ZERO place in a classroom teaching science. You would be an insult to true science teachers everywhere.
Uglytastic 3 years ago
Hmm... 'true science teacher'...hmm...that..reminds me of 'true scotsman' somehow. :-). I blocked this user for his non-constructive comment in other thread. But let's make an example of him with this one. I never said peer review is bad. However having corrupt peers who for eg. post presumptuous CONCLUSIONS to data is bad. I'm about to post another video commenting on the e.coli study where the 'researchers' post a conclusion RATHER than continuing to form exp. which would subst. conclusion
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
If posting presumptuous conclusions is bad then what do you have to say about Christians who take a grain of evidence and jump to "proof of God"? Is it wrong to assume that since the first 99 theist arguments were bunk that the 100th must also be bunk? Or do I have to waste my time listening to you.
gandalf2069 3 years ago
Your intro is hilarious. You sound like this is the first time you've considered the possibility that making stupid presumptions might be a bad thing :-). Anyway yes people claiming to be Christians who are knuckleheads and claim things to be 'proof' fall by the same sword. MEANWHILE I've entertained thousands of BUNK ATHEIST arguments over the past decades. They all CONTINUE to be bunk. So do whatever you want to do. What I speak is logical and you obviously have no challenge to that.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
1) Demons believe in God. YOUR POINT SIR? (think before you write...am I asking too much??)
2) Everyone is free to hijack whatever thing they want until someone kills them. Again... point?
3) Please go to the video on that topic to discuss evolution. As a 'progression of species' theory NO it is NOT science. I should do another vid on the absurd aspects of that claim. I'll try to fit that in today.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
The original bullies were the church who imprisoned much of our original scientists and free thinkers who transformed our small understanding of our universe (bcuz it contradicted their interpretation of the bible).
So, does science disprove God? I havent read anything that does. Yet I keep hearing Christians refuting the intelligence of science. It's sad
anyssa43 3 years ago
What's sad is...the number of small children who think they are know it all's on youtube.
1) Are you saying that the government of Rome didn't bully? Or countless others before it? How then can you say RC was the 'original bully'? That's retarded.
2) Why do you call something that doesn't meet Jesus' requirement of "Church" the church? In doing so YOU lend credibility to those who lie and you diss the name of Jesus for no apparent reason.
Where do Christians refute intelligence of sci?
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
1. Are you saying the government of Rome had no belief in God?
2. Many Christians that dont meet the requirements of church still call their church a church.
3. Evolution is science. Dont Christians believe that evolution invalidates their religion/God, therefore refute it?
anyssa43 3 years ago
Don't know how I missed this...
1) God knows the heart but many people in Rome's government certainly ACTED like they had no belief that they would be held accountable for the evil they did.
2) agreed! Precisely my point. I don't call them 'church' though. I call them a religious meeting.
3) Proposing that a two molecules with some 10^1000 power possibilities, *randomly* arrange themselves to form new species together...is not science.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
You go to a job interview, to get a job as an educator, and you say that you think that you shouldn't make people smarter, and you're supprised you didn't get the job? Moreover you somehow think the interviewers are at fault?
tmcthree 3 years ago
This is a pretty pathetic interpretation of anything I said. Where did I say I shouldn't make people smarter? I'm educating YOU right now. You seem unable to process grammar. Where did the hang up occur specifically since I never said anything resembling those words.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
To paraphrase; at 2:30 you said
-I certainly don't think education is the answer to mans problems [...] you make people smarter they build bigger bombs-
Ergo, we should avoid educating people in case that makes them smarter! Correct me if I misinterpret you.
You seem to think the people who interviewed you had some sort of agenda beyond simply trying to find someone who shared what I presume was their belief that education is of paramount importance.
In what way are you educating me?
tmcthree 3 years ago
I'm educating you by teaching you about presumption. LOGICAL TRUTH TABLE EVALUATION of my statement DEMANDS a de-trivialization of your *take* on it. Ie. You are a bonehead. Now listen or I'll remove your arrogant presence. TRUTH table for what I said includes possibilities like 'DISCERN where a student is going and LEND THEM THE RIGHT kinds of wisdom'. Nobody but an idiot would surmise from what i said that we should NOT TEACH. That's why I graduated. TO TEACH.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
As an observational point, cultures have been observed which were primitive but peaceful with one another having relatively few of what we would term 'problems'. So it all depends what your goals are. I ENJOY intellectual pursuits; delving into the details of why things do what they do etc. Some don't. As an educator it is my job to give people what will most help THEM to become something positive. If a person is destructive in their direction I certainly don't want to help them. :-)
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Ken Miller, who appeared as a witness for the Dover trial, is openly Christian. He is also a respected biologist. It doesn't appear as though he has ever been ostracized for his religious beliefs. The difference is that his belief in a creator is not in contradiction to the evidence of evolution, because he doesn't prescribe to the biblical account of the creation of earth. There's nothing wrong with that comprimise because believing in a God and believing in a religious text are different
TheGatorHumper 3 years ago
*Many* people pose as Christians through history for a variety of reasons. JESUS CHRIST DEFINES what Christianity is and it is historically documented. Refer to the 'no true Scotsman' video please. NATURALLY the atheist community wants as many people like Miller as they can get! Atheist LIKE people to claim to be Christians and side with their views on these things. But a true Christian believes the texts Jesus quoted from. People can *make up* their own def. but it has no substance.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Don't forget Francis Collins, another avowed christian scientist. It just amazes me that we live in a country with a huge majority of christians, but they can claim that they are being downtrodden by the 'majority' of atheists. Why doesn't your brain implode? If there was a majority of atheists in academia, then we wouldn't have the stupid prayer rituals we see whenever there is some tragedy. Or the appeals to what ever deity for the universities sports team. Atheists are the minority. Deal
Revyloution 3 years ago
because where it counts in terms of scientific theory, there is a majority of atheist population.
AZNGoSu 3 years ago
Well of course. The statistics are clear. The more you learn about reality, the less you believe in fantasy. Some people are able to hold on to their faith in the light of science (like Miller and Collins) but most loose that faith. But the idea that this atheist conspiracy is keeping people out of academia is just ridiculous. There is a large religious presence on every campus I've ever been to. Just look at the Virginia Tech shootings, most of the school went out to pray for the tragedy.
Revyloution 3 years ago
well that comment was very objective. I would think that science and religion are mutually exclusive. People that go into science lose their faith because they forget about their God.
AZNGoSu 3 years ago
This is retarded. I went into science and didn't lose my faith. :-). What are you talking about? I should just erase all this junk. Spewing unbased opinions is not what these threads are for. Facts...just the facts. If you want opinions go to a religious thread :-). This one is for discussion of facts.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
I didnt say anyone who went into science lost their faith. I said that statistics show that the more education you receive the more likely you are to be less religious. Its a fact. You are in the minority (if you indeed received a science degree from a 4 year university) But you belong to the majority of Americans. As soon as the facts disagree with your world view, feel free to use the tool religion uses best, censorship.
Revyloution 3 years ago
Right, but it'st he correlating of going into science/losing faith. The majority of people in certain areas of science tend to be atheist. PEER PRESSURE is the most POWERFUL motivating force for many. So if you are surrounded by jerks mocking you for you faith 5 days a week then obviously if your faith is weak you lose it. It has nothing to do with seeing something in science and going "well..shazaammm! There's no God'!" That's silly.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Again, yes, I've been on many campuses, and I have never seen anyone proselytizing atheism in a class room. I've also never heard of a science professor proselytizing to students in his class. If you have a good example, I would love to hear it. I HAVE seen, on every campus I've visited, a religious presence. I was also exposed to more religious views during my time in college that at any other time in my life.
Revyloution 3 years ago
I was just going to remove this because it's so foolish. But the last fallacy makes a point so I'll give it a bloody nose and leave it instead. Atheists will GLADLY take money from people who are religious. GLADLY try to cram their agenda down their throats as they pay for it. NOBODY is arguing whether atheists are trying to keep religious people off campuses. Quite the contrary. They *want* them in their classes so they can indoctrinate them. 90% atheist stat refers to positions of power.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Sure I will take money from someone who would give it to me. The question is, why are religious people giving these atheists money? (if they are) Your percentages, where do you get them from? I've never seen those numbers anywhere. I've often heard that 87.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Revyloution 3 years ago
Ahh sorry..sometimes youtube's organization of posts comes up different. I see what you are replying to. We are talking about your loon assertion that because people who are religious are allowed in colleges dominated by atheists, that this proves they're really fair people. When in reality I've seen it over and over...they use it to try to indoctrinate people, take their money and hope they lose faith. Have you been to college..at all?
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
I'm puzzled as to why I never got email notification of this post. Hmm. Anyway there are many people who are Christians in science. So? 90% of those controlling the field related to sciences strategic in setting the mindset re: topics of faith relating to science...are atheists or more. I can't see how this would surprise anyone. Given the obvious mechanics of the situation. DEAL.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
The great atheist conspiracy is hacking your email, expect a mirad of inconveniences :) Its really simple. A great many people enter university with a belief in some higher power. As they learn more science, a great many discard the belief. All my years in school I never had anyone 'indoctrinate' me into atheism.Only the subject for which I was there to learn was discussed. As Twain said, Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. As such, so is knowledge.
Revyloution 3 years ago
A lot of people are stupid. So? If they were SMART they would see that there are no plausible scientific/physical explanations for the major things we observe in the universe. In fact we don't even know *what* energy really is etc. We only make mathematical correlations in observed things. We know the essence of NIL. Basically people get arrogant and stupid and think they know something beyond that. IT's a pride trip. so?
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
There are a myriad of things that we don't understand yet. This is a reason, in my opinion, to continue with the scientific method, instead of throwing up our hands and saying 'Goddidit' But on the other hand, we DO have a great idea of what energy is (here is a secret, its equal to a particle of mass times the square of the speed of light) Were learning more all the time.
Revyloution 3 years ago
Anybody who uses *that* line of reasoning is an idiot obviously. But haven't you perceived anything from this thread? The fact that you said that makes me say "don't quit your day job" because I have a spiritual experience as do many others. Others *claim* to be Christian or whatever but as soon as they are faced with social pressure to justify their alleged affiliation *they* throw their hands up and plead atheism. Even some who do have spiritual experience push it away due to social press.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Oh and HERE is a secret. (this is one to most people..whereas any frosh physics student should know what you said..). Matter is harmonically bound energy. We know this because when particles with opposite properties meet (matter/anti-matter) they cancel the part of the wave function the keeps them harmonically bound and an EM photon is emitted have the energy predicted by E=MC^2
Hint: Don't talk down way to people who completed most of a Physics BS when you haven't gotten past Frosh level.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
hehe..oops I already did remove him for saying something else stupid I guess. I can't keep track. So many stupid atheists...so little time :-)
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
MENSA members and People with PhDs more so and even more so People who have won Nobel Prizes for science, are less likely to believe in an god than the average of the population.
That shows somthing!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
All it maybe shows is that people who don't believe in God have to fill their lives up with *something*, and obviously creating clubs etc. to feel like they are intellectually superior and alienating those who Love God is going to be high on the list in a typical motivational analysis evaluation. In school, I experienced this tendency of people to make me outcast. Sadly for them I was the guy with the IQ but..oh well :-) I've observed plenty of humanity to understand how things work...
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
PS and of course you might ask yourself WHO is giving Nobel Prizes. I mean..crudd..they gave Al Gore the peace prize for what? The guy should be JAILED for defrauding people. Data presented in a normal swing of temperature over a few 1/10ths of a degree and then AFTER the data (2002) starting on a downhill tendency again. Proof that a lot of POLITICS play into such things. Don't put your faith in man. Do your own homework. STOP letting the TV/internet educate you.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
First of all it is Jesus who says that you should look for God in your youth.
As for riches it is easyer for a camel to go trough a needle; is applying to knowledge as well.
Secondly the fact is that nobelprices arent that long in existence as does evolution. Second that Nobelprices are selective look at the ammount of jews and women with prices.
Thirthly that christians find values to family more then the average atheist. Thus having more time.
Eskon2 3 years ago
Ahh I found it. I responded to a documented ERROR in your assessment by noting that you didn't know anything about electronics. And now you smart off with that? Ok yeah you're just talking silly and insulting. Bye.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
fyi Electronic circuits don't 'imitate' things in nature. They ARE things in natured dumb dumb :-) I mean seriously...what do you think they are? Electrons are part of nature. Capacitors are allow electrons to interact through electrical fields. Inductors allow them to interact through magnetic fields. Tubes use electric fields to control current and transistors a depletion zone phenomena created by atomic eletron structure variations in nearby atomic structures in lattice. Hope that helps.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Anyway, forget about the expelled movie. I'm just spewing counter-propaganda, and should research this myself before arguing.
For 4), after rereading, I guess I misinterpreted your answer to sounddoctorin:
"but we don't really 'create' anything from scratch [...] Digitals imitate natural phenomena"
Sorry for making an unintentional straw man.
for 3), I'm for socialist-style labour laws (hard to fire, social security etc).
It's still easyer for a fundie to get a job than for a black guy ;-).
Paulginz 3 years ago
Ahh of course. Yeah that's not the electronics doing that on their own. :-) That's software in digital instruments that imitate things in nature. They just sound like modems if you amplify the digital lines of course :-) Anyway I'm for making it easy to fire people actually. I'm also for taking education out of the hands of government though. That way if people fire the wrong people they collapse from their own stupidity. Meanwhile the smart people they fired are off doing useful things.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
I don't see how software is less "natural". Electronic hardware expresses human-designed algrithms too.
I thought you meant to insinuate that firing was hardly ever for a good reason.
You'd still want free education for everyone right? You'd still need standardised tests though, (and hence a government-controled basic curriculum). I think a voucher sustem should be tested in a state.
You think of free-market economics as a self-correcting just utopia, don't you?
Paulginz 3 years ago
Sounds created in s/w either immitate things in nature or they are totally abstract. Analog circuits ARE part of nature. Mechanical oscillators and electronic ones for instance. The equation that governs a mass/spring oscillator is the same as an LC. TWo different parts of nature bound by the same force relationships, hence the word 'analog'. I think education should be done on a local level. Government has destroyed a sense of community. Nobody knows their neighbor etc. LAWS for abuses..
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
...still need to exist. For example people have no right to lie to the consumer. People have no right to pretend to be multiple companies but to be forming monopolies. (Eg. oil stuff right now, though they've nested it cleverly) There is no utopia. Humans are evil. However if you want to CENTRALIZE evil, then sure. GIve government power that they shouldn't have in hope of reaching YOUR utopia. 2 kinds of socialist. Duped ones, and those who maneuver into pole position for control.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Ok... So we sort of agree on politics.
When you can't trust democracy anymore (well, we never could actually) then centralising just makes things worse.
I just think wealth-redistribution through taxes+social security is good.
By local, do you mean state-level? Makes sense.
I'm not atacking your definition of nature. I'm just saying that under that if a motherboard is natural, then software is also natural.
Paulginz 3 years ago
The tools are natural. However s/w can be quite arbitrary; having no connection whatsoever with any process that is seen in the physical universe. That's why there is a big resurgance of interest in analog gear. DX7 was certainly much more POWERFUL and RELIABLE than a CS80 6 years earlier. Both are roughly the same vintage. dx is what 30 pounds and cs80 219lbs. ! Yeah the keys feel better but.. you can midi in a controller w/ dx. :-) Get a module of it. CMV? DX=300.00 CS = 10,000.00
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
I didn't understand any of that.
But I get a feeling that you're talking about synthethisers.
I think your distinction between natural and not is really just a distinction between physical and conceptual. However, since any complex circuit will contain innate algorithms/software, I think they're just as conceptual as the software itself. It's like saying that a book is natural, but a conversation isn't.
Anyway, this argument isn't really worth debating.
Paulginz 3 years ago
Our state even has a lot of corruption. I think it's great to have testing and to inform communities of how their students are doing. However to control what people teach their children is a bit Nazi/arrogant/I know-more-than-you attitude. While general math skills and communication skills are necessary each community will have different reasons for emphasizing different things. If kids can learn in their community and gradually branch out > higher ed I think it's more productive.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
"However to control what people teach their children is a bit Nazi/arrogant/I know-more-than-you attitude."
There's no control on what parents teach their children.
There are people (maybe not politicians though) who know better what's important to teach than the average parent. It's not fascism (yet), it's realism:
Branching out is good, but it's also much more expensive than standardisation.
A big problem in the US is that so few people go to higher/further ed at all.
Paulginz 3 years ago
How can 30% of scientists be christian if they get fired as soon as their faith is discovered?
Also, there's some VERY religious scientists out there, who are open about their faith, and who still hold high academic positions. (though already a smaller proportion).
Also, Ben Stein's interviewees were fired for pretty good reasons: (see expelledexposed).
What about the discovery institute's research?
Also, electronic circuits do not imitate anything in nature that I know of.
Paulginz 3 years ago
1) Nobody said Astronomers for example were being persecuted in this way. Atheists are probably too stupid to get into fields that require foundational science (physics) to a GREATER extent. (jab jab)
2) Nobody said people were fired as soon as their faith is discovered. If their faith is strong people pick that up in interview and they rarely get hired though.
3) Oh right everyone is fired for 'good' reasons. You're talking to the wrong guy.
4) You are ignorant of electronics. Big surprise
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
1) I guess Japan and europe don't have physicists then. (I'm a maths student myself)
2) Maybe a little. But I don't think christian scientists would discriminate against christians.
3) If a history teacher taught holocaust-denial, and students complained a lot about her, I'd fire her. The other "expelled" people still kept their jobs for a long time after publishing their creationist articles.
4) Ok, but then every man-made machine is "in nature". You said earlyer that they were imitations.
Paulginz 3 years ago
PS it's good to have someone reasoning finally. I've seen nothing but people (from opposed views) approaching with know-it-all sorts of attitudes. If you know something it's ok to say it. But presumption absolutely kills productive argument. I appreciate your 'rational' approach.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
// not to mention fatal illogical fallacies in all other religions... //
SD, would you share a few of these fallacies with us?
rationalmuscle 3 years ago
n 500 words or less.. Hinduism; has multiple conflicting creation accounts ALL of which contain scientific absurdities (cosmic cobras etc.) Mormonism; science proves that genetic claims about various groups are false. Islam; single witness history revisionist/pedophile dredges 'allah' from pantheistic moon/war God and posts multiple false prophecies (google them) Buddhism; teacher who never tried to start a religion; moot. etc.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
// Hinduism; has multiple conflicting creation accounts ALL of which contain scientific absurdities (cosmic cobras etc.) //
And this differs from the 2 accounts in Genesis (Ch 1 and 2) and a talking serpent with legs... how?
// Mormonism; science proves that genetic claims about various groups are false. //
Hasn't science has disproved claims concerning Genesis as well, such as light before stars?
I'm just trying to understand why all these others sound spurious and Genesis works. Thanks!
rationalmuscle 3 years ago
SD,
Have you considered running this line of reasoning by DonExodus2? Search YouTube for his videos. He did an excellent video on Expelled, and he is a Christian.
Then there's Ken Miller and Francis Collins. They seem to have 'no' problem finding jobs (to say the least) yet they openly profess their faith, especially Collins.
My training is theological, so I'm not one to take up the torch here. Just passing along some thoughts.
Thanks!
rationalmuscle 3 years ago
only the woodends of your synths were created by god, the rest is pure science.
eiffe 3 years ago
Hehe. God didn't create metal? We form things and rearrange but we don't really 'create' anything from scratch like God did. But he did give us wonderful minds that can explore and do forms of art within this environment. LOOK...the sounds that REACH the human soul are related to nature. Analogs particularly are just voicing natural phenomena. Digitals imitate natural phenomena and if they don't are only 'appreciated' by people who just want to hear something weird :-)
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Interesting comments about education. I think you should be a little more sceptical about the claim from creation science that the reason their scientific reputation is low is because of a conspiracy! A little convenient, methinks.
CharlieBBoy12345 3 years ago
It's all hand waving until you do some HARD SCIENCE to investigate the issue isn't it Charlie? Try being a Christian who is open about their faith and see how far YOU get in the academic environment. Fact is..I'm like..real life McGuiver. I can make things work from available materials..remembering fixing this guy's boat starter out in the middle of a LAKE! :-) I'm a decent EE, Machinist, OE, Code writer.. But eventually for things I write in the campus paper..I'm EXPELLED. Such hypocrisy.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Has your case received media attention? If so, how did the media deal with it? Were they sympathetic?
In my experience, the scientific community in the UK is wary of creationism, but equally wary of Dawkins' breed of atheism. Of the scientists that I know personally -friends/acquaintances, most are agnostics, and those who are believers don't think faith has much bearing on science.
CharlieBBoy12345 3 years ago
you dont have to say stupid atheist.
AZNGoSu 3 years ago
I don't have to have a sense of humor..and neither do you! :-). Lucky thing or you would cease to exist!! hehe. It's a play off 'stupid animal tricks'. See...atheists...think we're ahimals. GET IT? It's a ...I say it's a joke son! (I'll have to do my fogghorn legghorn immitation in one of these.) As I noted I'm not saying all atheists are intellectually deficient. I'm just saying *some* employ absurd/deceptive 'tricks' to try to convince others of their position.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
your assertion in a previous comment that "therefore the only testimony that COULD hold water is 'God did it'" has two problems. First one is minor, that it leaves a question of which god "did it", as mankind has worshiped literally thousands in our history. Second is major as "god did it" can't be proved or disproved. It then becomes a redundant statement in which you could replace god with any fictional character.
BigMcRuler 3 years ago
Why is 'which God' a problem? Every search needs a starting place. I don't see why that would be on the table at all at that point in the process. I personally know which God because of spiritual experience (not to mention fatal illogical fallacies in all other religions...) 2nd no and we've already discussed this at length. Fictional char's don't have reams of testimony that predates but is backed by current science. Quite a difference. This argument is a dead horse. Get it out. Thanks.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Well, ID is not science by definition. Why should it be treated as such then? Because you want to? Peer-review is the strong point of science cause it filters out all the non-sense and potential fake research out there. ID is not the only thing that isn't accepted through peer-review. Without this filtering mechanism we might as well called the whole thing the Disney method rather than the scientific method.
saxojon 3 years ago 2
Removed other posts for pure hand-waving content. I will answer this question though. LISTEN. There is no viable explanation of how life evolved. I and others have put extensive effort into the logical thrust of this argument which *are* overwhelming to the point of making a shambles of all speculation. Therefore the only testimony that COULD hold water is 'God did it'. Like it or not, that's the reality pal. Got another actual theory? Post it. Or shut up. Nobody cares about hand waving.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
1)Yes there is, its called ev. theory. It encompasses all avaliable evidence and its predictions has been confirmed for 150 years. 'God' is not a scientific claim because it cannot be falsified, but the creationist 'hypothesis' is and it has been refuted and disproven... thoroughly. Ev. theory might be wrong in some details but if it even were completely wrong that would not mean for a second that the creation myth was correct.
saxojon 3 years ago 3
Sorry you haven't produced a viable paper that either shows an experiment which was done to substantiate the HAND WAVING NOTION that ev. can occur across complex species...NOR even any calculations confirming this is possible. It again is impossible for slow gradual changes due to the complex vital org. systems code. Don't you people ever get tired of bantering lies and being made fools of? ADDRESS THE REASONING PRESENTED ON THE TOPIC IN these vids or shut up. Stop trying to waste my time.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Also. Love your keyboard wall, by the way. What kind of music do you play?
Creationismsucks 3 years ago
Variety of stuff. All over the map :-)
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Are you saying that
1) there really is good creationist science out there, and
2) It's being squelched by a vast conspiracy?
This is what's known as a 'self reinforcing delusion'. You have no evidence, and suddenly that counts as evidence that you do have evidence. I call Bullshit on that. Link to the papers that should have been accepted.
By the way, plenty of believing scientists do get tenure. Are you sure that was really the reason you couldn't find work? I have my dounbts.
Creationismsucks 3 years ago
...and my doubts
Creationismsucks 3 years ago
I have my doubt that you want to reason. I see you claiming 'self-reinforcing delusion' ..what was that based on again and why is it in this topic? Lost me there. I call bullshit on your ability to communicate :-). Yes many believing scientists get tenure. So? Did anyone claim that this conspiracy was 100% efficient? It wasn't until recent decades that 90% of the people in power positions of relevance were atheist. How'd that happen and if you say 'atheists are smarter' I'll remove you.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
How efficient would you say this conspiracy is?
Creationismsucks 3 years ago
Why speculate? Let's just deal with the documented cases where people were ejected from positions or ridiculed because they suggest ID. Let's get PROPER education to these people so they can see on the chalkboard why there is no viable 'theory of evolution' as it relates to progression to complex species. THEN we can all recognize that it doesn't matter what people mention so long as it isn't provably wrong (like many of the evolutionist claims...)
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
Have you even looked at the expelledexposed website or checked into the context of these alleged 'expulsions'?
If you thought the evidence for evolution was compelling, could you see yourself accepting it under any conditions?
Creationismsucks 3 years ago
1) I personally have worked in Mol. Bio. as I say. I've first hand seen the treatment of the matter in that environment. So I don't really care if there are speculations about particular cases.
2) I have a spiritual relationship/first hand experience. I don't have to guess how things were created. Not to mention the 1 in GOGOL odds that a fabricator could assemble so many fits with modern science in the bible w/out a single clanker. Anyone can check that out.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
"...there is ASTOUNDING statistical evidence."
That's great. Where? If you give me something specific and stop just threatening to block me, I'd love to check it out.
"Your NAME is a stupid add in itself."
Does this help your case? You've seen this conspiracy first hand; that's enough for you. If you want to convince me you'll have to do better.
The more believers block and disable comments the less scrutiny it looks like their ideas can bear.
Good luck with everything.
Creationismsucks 3 years ago 2
No, it makes you look like a troll. I ban trolls. The fact that you asked 'does this help your case' makes you too stupid to reason with obviously. If you are that imperceptive about what I'm saying then it's hopeless to try to reason with you in 500 word bursts. Like I say simply start assessing in your spare time when you aren't trolling, the stated things in the OT that correlate IN context to physical things then unknown. qualitatively accumulate odds of a ganker being there instead.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
"I see you claiming 'self-reinforcing delusion' ..what was that based on again and why is it in this topic?"
You seemed to me to be saying that the absence of peer-reviewed literature supporting creationism is itself evidence of the conspiracy you're puting forward. You present no exmaples, but just expect us to believe in this conspiracy. Nothing can disprove it that way: self-reinforcing.
Also, why do you keep threatening to block me? I pose no threat to your ideas, if they're sound.
Creationismsucks 3 years ago
Because you make stupid unfounded speculation about why I wasn't hired. That's an ad hominem attack and I won't tolerate that kind of non-sense. Back to the topic, I and many others have written articles but they aren't 'peer reviewed' because again 90% atheists tend to sneer at the suggestion. Sarfati and others hold PhD's and have written great books destroying the arguments typically spouted by 'peers'. I thought most people were aware of literature like 'refuting evolution' etc.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
I speculated about why you weren't hired? All I did was express skepticism about your view on evolution being the *only* reason you weren't hired. There could be lots of legitimate reasons you weren't hired. Lots of otherwise wonderful people are not hired for such things. Pointing it out doesn't constitute an ad hominem attack.
I've never seen a convincing attack on evolution. Have you posted one of these articles of yours? I'd love to see what you have to say.
Creationismsucks 3 years ago 2
Saying it's not doesn't make it not either. The grammar has no other interpretation though. Oh well.
Look..I'm not stupid. I see in my 47 years..CONSISTENT ALIENATION because I talk about things that are uncomfortable to people. If you don't have that experience...adopt a stand that isn't popular and start talking to people. You'll see how people operate. That's basically the problem here. Apparently you are naive in this respect.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago
1. I never said you were stupid. Plenty of intelligent people can be wrong about why they weren't given a teaching position.
2. Something's wrong if I can't suggest you're mistaken without you taking it as a personal insult. Are you incapable of error?
Creationismsucks 3 years ago
1) absolutely. However I'm just saying I have observed human behavior for 47 years. I know the kinds of thoughts people have and how they GUARD against thoughts that threaten their world view.
2) This thread isn't for speculating about bizarre things that contradict what we both know about human nature :-) Maybe the blue unicorn MAKES people guard their worldview. Oh please. We dont' need it. That's what I mean by 'I'm not stupid'. Thanks.
sounddoctorin 3 years ago