Author Topic: Funny Comic  (Read 2220 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1851
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #29 on: July 12, 2013, 11:04:47 AM »
quote author=SkyWriting:

Likely your you're taking somebody's word for that who you haven't spoken with either.
According to such researchers, none of the manuscripts we have were written while [the alleged Jesus character] was alive.  Most were written by his followers after the [alleged] resurrection.

Thanks for the corrections and modifications to my "quote". 
I miss the "you are" contraction a lot.
It's fun to see what people focus on.
Does anyone have any spare irony meters for sale?  This exchange just annihilated all of mine.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #30 on: July 12, 2013, 11:13:39 AM »
Pre-history does not fall under the guise of science. 
Anything that cannot be tested is Science-Fiction.

SW, I've asked you this before: could you please provide a specific example of what you consider "pre-history"? You tend to make general statements but neglect to provide details. If you'd do so in this instance, I'd appreciate it.

You've been fooled into believing that anything
a scientist says is science. Even when it is only
scientist approved, Science-Fiction.

Again, a specific instance of someone who disagrees with you "being fooled" would be helpful.

Pre-History has a definition already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory

What I was referring to is any unrepeatable event.  Pre-history is a convenient 
term because it rules out the oldest lab books that specify an investigative procedure.

People being fooled by the masses are:
Frasier Cane :  Is There Life on Pluto? - Universe Today
 http://www.universetoday.com/14315/is-there-life-on-pluto/

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6247
  • Darwins +787/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #31 on: July 12, 2013, 12:59:46 PM »
What are you talking about? Science is not about matching up events exactly. But we can get close to what happened. Science operates with models of reality. If the model tests the way it should, then it matches reality accurately. 

Every time a wave crashes on the beach it is slightly different. Does that mean the previous wave never crashed? Every time you take a breath, different molecules are moving. Does that mean you never took the earlier breath? Everything is unrepeatable. No lab will ever exactly recreate the beginning of the universe. Does that mean it never happened? Nothing ever happens exactly the same way twice. Everything happens once.  You are dismissing all of science.
 
By your definition, nobody has ever been born. Because we can't "repeat the test" to see if each of us was born. &) :P :?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12035
  • Darwins +623/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #32 on: July 12, 2013, 01:13:53 PM »
Anything that cannot be tested is Science-Fiction.

This is untrue.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4640
  • Darwins +514/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #33 on: July 12, 2013, 02:06:10 PM »
What are you talking about? Science is not about matching up events exactly. But we can get close to what happened. Science operates with models of reality. If the model tests the way it should, then it matches reality accurately. 

Every time a wave crashes on the beach it is slightly different. Does that mean the previous wave never crashed? Every time you take a breath, different molecules are moving. Does that mean you never took the earlier breath? Everything is unrepeatable. No lab will ever exactly recreate the beginning of the universe. Does that mean it never happened? Nothing ever happens exactly the same way twice. Everything happens once.  You are dismissing all of science.
 
By your definition, nobody has ever been born. Because we can't "repeat the test" to see if each of us was born. &) :P :?
Actually, I think that's his point.  We "can't really be sure" that past events happened the way scientists say they happened, because those scientists weren't there to observe the actual events.  It "could've happened differently", and we can't rule that possibility out since things "could've been different" back then.  Like his belief that thoughts became reality during the Creation week.

Kind of like this.  No matter how many waves we model, he can come along and claim that the very first one was actually caused by God, because nobody was there to see it and thus can't prove him wrong.  Never mind that every wave we model shows that the theory behind them is sound.

What he's got is a belief that lets him arbitrarily exclude things that he disagrees with because nobody can 'prove' those things happened the way they say they happened, therefore he can insert his own idea about what caused them in.  What gets me is that he thinks other people should take him seriously, as if his own ideas based on his own thinking and interpretations have equal weight with the discoveries and conclusions based on science.  I guess he thinks we should take him as seriously as God apparently does.

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1738
  • Darwins +72/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #34 on: July 12, 2013, 02:21:37 PM »
Thanks for the clarification of what you mean.

Pre-History has a definition already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory

What I was referring to is any unrepeatable event.  Pre-history is a convenient 
term because it rules out the oldest lab books that specify an investigative procedure.

How does it rule them out? The reasoning process we call the scientific method can be and is applied to past events with great success. If it somehow couldn't be, then even the most basic physical laws would be open to moment-to-moment interpretation. Fortunately, they're not.

nogodsforme pretty much hit it on the head:

What are you talking about? Science is not about matching up events exactly. But we can get close to what happened. Science operates with models of reality. If the model tests the way it should, then it matches reality accurately. 

Every time a wave crashes on the beach it is slightly different. Does that mean the previous wave never crashed? Every time you take a breath, different molecules are moving. Does that mean you never took the earlier breath? Everything is unrepeatable. No lab will ever exactly recreate the beginning of the universe. Does that mean it never happened? Nothing ever happens exactly the same way twice. Everything happens once.  You are dismissing all of science.
 
By your definition, nobody has ever been born. Because we can't "repeat the test" to see if each of us was born. &) :P :?

Nor do I see how the invention of writing caused a paradigm shift in reality so that all events before it can't be verified and all those after it can. There are reliable ways to investigate the past that don't need written records, otherwise much of geology would be impossible.

People being fooled by the masses are:
Frasier Cane :  Is There Life on Pluto? - Universe Today
 http://www.universetoday.com/14315/is-there-life-on-pluto/

I'm honestly not trying to be obtuse here, SW. But I don't see anything in that article except some very brief speculation that the author makes clear is speculation. What is your objection?
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #35 on: July 12, 2013, 02:38:30 PM »
Thanks for the clarification of what you mean.

Pre-History has a definition already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory

What I was referring to is any unrepeatable event.  Pre-history is a convenient 
term because it rules out the oldest lab books that specify an investigative procedure.

How does it rule them out? The reasoning process we call the scientific method can be and is applied to past events with great success.

How do we reproduce the event?  That is the scientific method.

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1738
  • Darwins +72/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #36 on: July 12, 2013, 03:48:41 PM »
How do we reproduce the event?  That is the scientific method.

As nogodsforme pointed out, we can't and don't need to reproduce a past event exactly to get accurate models of reality. Initial models (theories) are often incomplete or outright wrong, but can be corrected as more information accumulates. Consider the decades-long investigation of Meteor Crater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater,_Arizona), near Flagstaff, Arizona.

The crater was first thought to be volcanic, ironically by the same geologist (Grove Gilbert) who later was among the first to propose Lunar craters were caused by impact and not volcanism. Some years later, mining engineer Daniel Barringer championed the impact theory, which wasn't well received at the time. Finally in 1960, Shoemaker was able to conclusively prove the crater was caused by a meteor impact.

It certainly wasn't necessary to exactly recreate the impact to do so. Rather, it was the accumulation of knowledge in geology and related fields that provided the evidence needed.

Again, could you explain why you consider the article you linked to...

People being fooled by the masses are:
Frasier Cane :  Is There Life on Pluto? - Universe Today
 http://www.universetoday.com/14315/is-there-life-on-pluto/


... is an example of "people being fooled"? All I see is a few paragraphs of self-admitted speculation by the author; at no point does he claim that there is life on Pluto.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #37 on: July 13, 2013, 08:54:32 AM »
How do we reproduce the event?  That is the scientific method.

As nogodsforme pointed out, we can't and don't need to reproduce a past event exactly to get accurate models of reality. Initial models (theories) are often incomplete or outright wrong, but can be corrected as more information accumulates. Consider the decades-long investigation of Meteor Crater

If you can create a citation to a peer reviewed resource reviewing the scientific method that says the event need not be reproduced, that would be fine.




(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater,_Arizona), near Flagstaff, Arizona.

The crater was first thought to be volcanic, ironically by the same geologist (Grove Gilbert) who later was among the first to propose Lunar craters were caused by impact and not volcanism. Some years later, mining engineer Daniel Barringer championed the impact theory, which wasn't well received at the time. Finally in 1960, Shoemaker was able to conclusively prove the crater was caused by a meteor impact.

It certainly wasn't necessary to exactly recreate the impact to do so. Rather, it was the accumulation of knowledge in geology and related fields that provided the evidence needed.

Again, could you explain why you consider the article you linked to...

People being fooled by the masses are:
Frasier Cane :  Is There Life on Pluto? - Universe Today
 http://www.universetoday.com/14315/is-there-life-on-pluto/

... is an example of "people being fooled"? All I see is a few paragraphs of self-admitted speculation by the author; at no point does he claim that there is life on Pluto.

Because such musings are expensive to humanity with little to no unique informational value to create any benefits for us.

- 2020 rover will look for signs of past life on Mars and store up samples
- Does Alien Life Thrive in Venus' Mysterious Clouds? : Discovery News
- Hubble telescope finds hints of 'building blocks of life' on Pluto
- The U.K. launches research network in search for E.T.
- Saturn's Potential Life-Bearing Moon - The Daily Galaxy
- Life on Mercury? Scientists claim discovery of water on 'the Swift
- Are Jupiter's moons our best chance to find alien life?
- Life on Venus? Scientists rethink the idea of 'habitable' planets

My point was that all benefits of space exploration can be done as earth
exploration and development much cheaper and with far more benefit.
Developing underwater cites would allow for "colonization" of food sources
and the technologies developed would directly benefit humans at
multiple levels.  Pollution control, resource management, aqua farming
environment studies, new species, new food sources, population
control, genetic studies, you name it. 
« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 08:57:00 AM by SkyWriting »

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1738
  • Darwins +72/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #38 on: July 13, 2013, 12:58:25 PM »
Thanks for the reply, SW.

If you can create a citation to a peer reviewed resource reviewing the scientific method that says the event need not be reproduced, that would be fine.


William and nogodsforme already addressed this in this thread:http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22962.msg562747.html#msg562747

Seriously, do you dispute that Meteor Crater was caused by meteor impact, just because the methods used to prove it didn't recreate the original event?

My point was that all benefits of space exploration can be done as earth
exploration and development much cheaper and with far more benefit.
Developing underwater cites would allow for "colonization" of food sources
and the technologies developed would directly benefit humans at
multiple levels.  Pollution control, resource management, aqua farming
environment studies, new species, new food sources, population
control, genetic studies, you name it. 

First, there are a number of benefits from space-related fields that could not have been achieved any other way. Our modern telecommunications system, for example. GPS. The use of satellites to identify and respond to weather events and climate change.

Here's my response to a similar claim by you on this thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,23188.msg560628.html#msg560628), which you apparently didn't read:

Quote
    As has been pointed out, space exploration and related research is a tiny fraction of the US budget, yet it has paid off time and again. From the article I linked to earlier in the thread (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_is_spent_on_space_exploration_each_year):

Quote
    All things relative -- even in the financial meltdown and economic retrenching of 2008-2009 -- the cost for space exploration in the United States is neither a significant tap on social programs, nor a drain on the overall $3.1 Trillion Federal Budget or $14 Trillion U.S. economy.

    Nevertheless, trying to estimate the economic value of the space program to the U.S. is surprisingly easy. A 1971 NASA study by the Midwest Research Institute concluded:

    "The 25 billion in 1958 dollars spent on civilian space R & D during the 1958-1969 period has returned $52 billion through 1971 and will continue to produce pay-off through 1987, at which time the total pay off will have been $181 billion. The discounted rate of return for this investment will have been 33 percent."

    This statement is plausible since those were the years when NASA's spending on the Apollo program was at its height, but NASA also invested in other programs and they are included in the mix, so the conclusion is not as definitive as one would like.

    Also, a 33 percent return on investment is not really big enough to make the normal venture capitalist go wild -- but for a government program, however, a 33% ROI is quite respectable.

Space research and exploration are not a panacea; no one responsible is claiming that. But your blanket accusation that it is wasteful, needlessly expensive and returns little benefit is pretty ignorant.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 01:30:17 PM by wright »
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #39 on: July 14, 2013, 01:35:13 PM »
Thanks for the reply, SW.

If you can create a citation to a peer reviewed resource reviewing the scientific method that says the event need not be reproduced, that would be fine.


William and nogodsforme already addressed this in th....<snip>

If you can create a citation to a peer reviewed resource reviewing the scientific method that says the event need not be reproduced, that would be fine.

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1738
  • Darwins +72/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #40 on: July 15, 2013, 09:02:34 PM »
If you can create a citation to a peer reviewed resource reviewing the scientific method that says the event need not be reproduced, that would be fine.

SkyWriting, if this rather odd contention of yours- that a past event must be reproduced in the present to be subjected to the scientific method- were actually true, then so much of science would be impossible. Geology, astronomy, the analysis of ice cores; the list goes on and on.

Yet specialists in those fields yield consistent results with their methodologies, as William and nogodsforme have pointed out in the other thread. I used the example of the investigation of Meteor Crater, myself. What do you think those investigators did and are doing, if (by your definition) it isn't science?
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6247
  • Darwins +787/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #41 on: July 16, 2013, 10:45:50 AM »
I don't get the "reproducible" part that SW keeps on about. Of course you can't exactly "reproduce" the evolution of primates or the formation of a star. But you can model them accurately enough nowadays, using like, computers and math and sh!t, so that you can get pretty close to what really happened. And you can test your model against reality to see how close or how far off you are.

In fact, you can create a computer simulation of just about anything that science addresses and run it to see what would have happened if the variables were tweaked slightly differently.

I am not sure what SW wants. A grand theory of everything as derived from a definition of the scientific method? An entire earth, 4 billion years old, life-sized, complete with life forms evolving before our eyes, created in a lab in real time? Why is it that religious people want science to meet such stringent and impossible criteria, when they give highly improbable supernatural stuff a total pass?

No criteria to meet at all, just crap like  "I prayed and it was answered five times, and I asked 10 people and they said it was god, so I believe it was god too-- case closed. God exists."  Like a late night infomercial on some bogus weight-loss pill-- we have five testimonials that it works. Who needs real science? &)

Where is the peer reviewed methodology? Where are the controlled studies? Can you imagine if any scientist or researcher tried to get away with that kind of sh!t? They'd be laughed out of whatever job they had.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12035
  • Darwins +623/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #42 on: July 16, 2013, 12:26:52 PM »
I am not sure what SW wants.

I think he wants every event studied to be reproduceable, not just the underlying principles that predict them.  For example, If you have a hole in your wall and a .38 cal slug lodged in your other wall, it is not enough for you to conclude some idiot across the street shot a bullet through your house.  No, no.  You must actually shoot another bullet at your house - or possibly many bullets to make it statistically significant - to show this is what happened.  Relying on Newtonian physics and materials science is not enough.  Understanding trajecotry and how lead deforms is not enough.  You must recreate the event perfectly. 

Similarly, it is not enough to observe fault movements during earthquakes to extrapoloate shifting tectonics.  You have to reproduce continents in your lab.  You cannot know enough about genetics, chemistry and DNA to understand how they reflect ancient history.  You must reproduce in a lab what took millions of years to do in nature. 

It is a hypocritical level of skepticism.  He's hyper critical when it comes to science, but he completely drops it when it comes to his stupid religious beliefs.  Not only that, he carves out an exception for them.  Scientific ideas do not apply to them.  They are spiritual truths. This also applies to stories in the bible.  Sure, Adam lived 900 years.  And SW needn't reproduce that in a lab.  You need to prove otherwise.

This is what makes him such a twat. 

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #43 on: July 16, 2013, 03:28:57 PM »
If you can create a citation to a peer reviewed resource reviewing the scientific method that says the event need not be reproduced, that would be fine.

SkyWriting, if this rather odd contention of yours- that a past event must be reproduced in the present to be subjected to the scientific method- were actually true, then so much of science would be impossible. Geology, astronomy, the analysis of ice cores; the list goes on and on.

Yet specialists in those fields yield consistent results with their methodologies, as William and nogodsforme have pointed out in the other thread. I used the example of the investigation of Meteor Crater, myself. What do you think those investigators did and are doing, if (by your definition) it isn't science?

If you can create a citation to a peer reviewed resource reviewing the scientific method that says the event need not be reproduced, that would be fine.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #44 on: July 16, 2013, 03:33:07 PM »
I think he wants every event studied to be reproduceable, not just the underlying principles that predict them.

I gave examples:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/sciencefairprojects/a/Scientific-Method-Steps.htm

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #45 on: July 16, 2013, 03:34:41 PM »
I don't get the "reproducible" part that SW keeps on about. Of course you can't exactly "reproduce" the evolution of primates or the formation of a star.

Then you can't use science as it is written.
http://misterguch.brinkster.net/scientificmethod.html

Offline John 3 16

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
  • Darwins +1/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Darwins +0/-1,000,000,000
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #46 on: July 16, 2013, 04:44:01 PM »
It is a hypocritical level of skepticism.  He's hyper critical when it comes to science, but he completely drops it when it comes to his stupid religious beliefs.
Hatheist!!  ;)

You would've been one of the people who insisted on "the flat earth theory" if you were born hundreds years ago.
Based on your observation, study and logic, you would probably say something like

"if a monkey stands on a sphere shaped object it's hard to balance. stupid!!"
"if the earth was sphere, what is on the bottom side of the earth stupid!!"
Are you a hatheist?  (hey-thee-ist)

A person who vocally hates on religious individuals, often criticizing such persons for being uneducated hillbillies.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6247
  • Darwins +787/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #47 on: July 16, 2013, 09:37:23 PM »
It is a hypocritical level of skepticism.  He's hyper critical when it comes to science, but he completely drops it when it comes to his stupid religious beliefs.
Hatheist!!  ;)

You would've been one of the people who insisted on "the flat earth theory" if you were born hundreds years ago.
Based on your observation, study and logic, you would probably say something like

"if a monkey stands on a sphere shaped object it's hard to balance. stupid!!"
"if the earth was sphere, what is on the bottom side of the earth stupid!!"

And he would have been perfectly correct, based on his casual observance of the evidence at hand. What counter-evidence would you have offered him? How would you have convinced him that the earth was a sphere?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1738
  • Darwins +72/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #48 on: July 17, 2013, 04:01:43 AM »
If you can create a citation to a peer reviewed resource reviewing the scientific method that says the event need not be reproduced, that would be fine.

I and others have given clear examples of how the scientific method can and is applied to past events, yielding accurate results, without needing to recreate said events. So I don't understand why you think such a thing is necessary.

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12035
  • Darwins +623/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #49 on: July 17, 2013, 09:21:44 AM »
I gave examples:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/sciencefairprojects/a/Scientific-Method-Steps.htm

Mmm.  About.com.  Very scientific-ish.  Is that the peer reviewed research you were demanding of others?  Or will ask.com suffice?
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12035
  • Darwins +623/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #50 on: July 17, 2013, 09:31:44 AM »
Hatheist!!  ;)

You would've been one of the people who insisted on "the flat earth theory" if you were born hundreds years ago.

Really?  How many hundreds?  And is that really supposed to make me look bad?  Believing what the prevailing culture believes?  Calling me a flat-earther when everyone was a flat earther, when no one knew any better?  Big deal. 

The problem is when you believe what the prevailing culture of several hundred years ago believed.   The hebrews fell into that category.  When they were telling their stories about the earth as a flat disc beneath a domed sky onto which stars were painted, and above which was a celestial ocean and the throne of one of their dieties, the Greeks, Egyptians and Indians had all figured out the earth was a sphere.  Some of them even calculated the diameter of the earth to a reasonably good accuracy for the day.  So the ancient jooz, in whom xians put all their stock, were hopelessly behind the times.  They were ass-backward by Iron Age standards.

You are similarly behind the times.  You want to adhere to the cultural teachings and morals of a 2600 year old culture.  Why?  We've learned so much since then.  I am morally superior to literally everyone who lived in the middle east circa 600 BCE. Why would you want to regress?


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
  • Darwins +49/-13
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #51 on: July 18, 2013, 07:51:38 AM »
I love Lewis Black. A brave Jewish atheist who does not suffer fools of any stripe.  :D


I like Lewis Black,  but if he is really like his stage persona I would kill him dead.  He has a wicked case of self appointed smartest guy in the room syndrome.

Offline El Guapo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #52 on: July 18, 2013, 07:59:38 AM »
Another funny comic . . .  Check out what happens when "you commit the sin of thinking".  HA!

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2013/07/14

« Last Edit: July 18, 2013, 08:01:49 AM by El Guapo »

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #53 on: July 20, 2013, 05:42:48 AM »
I gave examples:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/sciencefairprojects/a/Scientific-Method-Steps.htm

Mmm.  About.com.  Very scientific-ish.  Is that the peer reviewed research you were demanding of others?  Or will ask.com suffice?

Peer reviewed journals are pretty dry and usually end the thread with no further comments.
I can usually supply them on request.  I request peer reviewed support for claims because
that is the standard people request from me.  Though my response is God claims to be Spirit
in the scriptures.  Apologies to all Ghost hunters, but Spirit does not record on test equipment.

So here are your peer reviewed sources covering use of the scientific method:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3528095/

Teaching the Process of Science: Faculty Perceptions and an Effective Methodology
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995770/


In this article, it shows even the teaching method needs to be tested. People here seem to think that anything is OK.

The experimental process can be applied to teaching by testing hypotheses. This involves using state-of-the-art study design and methods to measure instructional outcomes. The measures may be quantitative or qualitative, but valid instruments should be used and accepted methods such as controls, randomization, and statistical analysis that maximize validity and minimize bias. Typically, when we test new teaching methods we set out to prove that our new idea is good, that it is an effective teaching strategy. This approach is biased and does not lead to scientific validity.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1847559/




« Last Edit: July 20, 2013, 05:54:42 AM by SkyWriting »

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12035
  • Darwins +623/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #54 on: July 20, 2013, 08:23:00 AM »
Apologies to all Ghost hunters, but Spirit does not record on test equipment.

So how do we even know about it?  If it is completely undetectable, it has no impact on matter or energy.  If that is the case, then it has no effects. Why do you even this this spirit stuff exists?

As an R&D guy you would not accept that as an answer.  If someone suggested plasma TVs work because angels are trapped between the glass (you just cannot detect them), you would consider that unacceptable. 

So why do you carve out an exception here?
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #55 on: July 20, 2013, 08:44:40 AM »
People here seem to think that anything is OK.

Examples please?
Git mit uns

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1738
  • Darwins +72/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #56 on: July 20, 2013, 11:38:16 AM »
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3528095/

Teaching the Process of Science: Faculty Perceptions and an Effective Methodology
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995770/


In this article, it shows even the teaching method needs to be tested.

Thanks for the links. I think few here would disagree that teaching scientific methodology needs to be improved and expanded.

People here seem to think that anything is OK.

A specific example of this would be helpful.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6247
  • Darwins +787/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Funny Comic
« Reply #57 on: July 20, 2013, 02:48:17 PM »
The impossible standard that SW proposes for "science" means that there is no such thing as science. Therefore, cars don't run on gasoline, medicine does not work against diseases and CSI might as well look at goat entrails to identify suspects. It is all really invisible spirits at work, making planes stay up in the sky by magic and putting tiny undetectable talking elves into cell phones so it seems like we are actually communicating.

What we think of as science is really random chance, kept in some organized fashion by human ability to persuade spirit beings to zip back and forth in time, changing reality around, making farmers clear fields for no current reason, so handicapped people who are prayed for can cross them later.

Every time someone in the world undergoes a course of treatment or surgery, it is due to correct prayers to gods that makes it all work out. If the person does not get better, it is because nobody prayed in the right frame of surrender to the correct gods. Even in China and Japan, where there are very few people praying to the right gods, the spillover prayers of devout people in other countries are sufficient to save most patients.

There is no such thing as geology or astronomy or archeology. Any claims to the contrary are the work of the devil and should be ridiculed. &)

This is a worldview like that described in A Canticle for Leibowitz, where all science and learning has been banned by after the world was destroyed in a nuclear catastrophe.....ironically in the story, the last remnants of science and technology (as well as shopping lists and assorted novels preserved in a bomb shelter) have been secretly hidden by Catholic monks.

Why do ignorant religious people keep making the rest of us scared for the future of our civilization? :o
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.