Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
Chatter / Re: Increasing secularisation - going full circle
« Last post by Jag on Today at 10:30:24 AM »
I said explicitly that if you feel the need to correct my science then you are missing the point.
We tend to feel quite strongly that if you are using science to make your point, the science needs to be correct or your point is speculative, at best.

Quote
Yet Most of the objections were about how I don’t get science.
Actually, a lot of the objections about you and science are that you are using terms that have explicit definitions incorrectly, making assumptions about things you admit you don't understand, and resisting all efforts to clarify your errors related to science. To support that, I submit your own words:

Quote
Granted I simply and am maybe a bit loose with some definitions and descriptions – I DID claim poetic license –
Poetic license and science do no belong in the same discussion without very clear and explicit distinctions between "science" and "poetic license". I would actually advise against this approach - it hasn't worked very well so far, as you are making clear with this post.

Quote
but the point is rather:

* Even science has to rely on logic and reason to build frameworks and theories. It is therefore a part of the truth seeking process.
* But when you insist that I give ‘evidence’ of the natural kind then I must simply point out that it is what science is for.

Ah yes, the ever-present problem with evidence and theism.

Lacking evidence (as in evidence, not testimonial, not apologetics, not feelings, not opinions, evidence) you have very few tools at your disposal (identified parenthetically in the preceding clause) , and none of them are likely to convince a non-theist of anything.

It's been pointed out to you that you presuppose the existence of a god in your defense of your beliefs. Are you familiar with The Outsider Test for Faith? Briefly[1], it's presented like so:
 Since the presumption of faith we start out with is something we accept by "accidents of history" (i.e., where and when we are born), how likely is it that a believer will ever truly evaluate his or her faith? How is it possible to rationally evaluate the believers faith when they can only do so from within the presuppositions of that faith in the first place--presuppositions which he or she basically accepted by the "accidents of history." If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you would almost certainly be a Muslim - and trying to deny that is ridiculous.

Test your beliefs as if you were an outsider to the faith you are evaluating - look at your own christian faith with the same critical thinking you would bring to bear on examining Islam, or Buddhism, or Mormonism, or any other faith tradition not your own. If your faith stands up under critical, thoughtful evaluation, then you can have your faith. If not, abandon it, for any God who requires you to believe correctly when humans have an extremely strong tendency to believe what we were born into, surely should make the correct faith pass the outsider test. If your faith cannot do this, then the God of your faith is not worthy of being worshipped.
******
In the 1980's , Ronald Reagan told the world that Americans are God's Favorite. I think that's pretty funny, considering God couldn't get across the Atlantic Ocean without hitching a ride with the incoming Europeans.
 1. I did a little editing and trimming for clarity
12
Chatter / Re: Worlds most expensive fish
« Last post by lotanddaughters on Today at 09:56:35 AM »
I haven't caught a fish and ate it myself since I was 14. The last time I went fishing I caught a snapping turtle that almost snapped off my hand.

-Nam

Yeah, I would say from ages 10-14 was when I did most of the fishing in my life.
13
Chatter / Re: Worlds most expensive fish
« Last post by Nam on Today at 09:53:44 AM »
I haven't caught a fish and ate it myself since I was 14. The last time I went fishing I caught a snapping turtle that almost snapped off my hand.

-Nam
14
Chatter / Re: Worlds most expensive fish
« Last post by lotanddaughters on Today at 09:52:53 AM »
The last day of our beach holiday, and I decided to hire a boat for three hours, fully expecting to bring home enough fish to make the hire charge worthwhile. Below is my optimistic selfie after dropping anchor in a nearby estuary, followed by the very depressing (and too small to keep) single fish that joined me in the boat.

But it was a beautiful morning and several dugong were frolicking nearby, a pleasant spectacle.





Thanks for sharing.

It reminds me about how I need to get out and enjoy life more often.
15
Only 48% of Americans are Creationists (YEC). The rest, including some Protestants believe in either Evolution or Evolution Creationism.

-Nam
16
Chatter / Re: Worlds most expensive fish
« Last post by lotanddaughters on Today at 09:49:31 AM »
It's been a long time since I caught a fish and ate it. It's probably been 7 or 8 years. As a child, my friends and I would do it all the time. My one friend was really good at cleaning and cooking them. Delicious.


I've heard claims about eating fish from certain waters can be bad for you. I've never actually looked any of that up on the internet. If any of it is true, that's a bummer. It seems that a lot of things we used to take for granted are getting ruined.
17
^^^As near as I've been able to determine, at least some creationists do not deny evolution entirely, they're just convinced that HUMANS didn't evolve. Everything else did though.

Yeah, it's exactly as stupid as it sounds. It seems to be rooted in the belief that everything in the entire freaking universe was created by God, but humans are the point. The universe exists FOR us, not that we are PART OF it.

lol - I have tried in vain to get some Christian friends to at least consider the possibility that we are part of the universe, not the other way around. No luck so far...
18
^^^Advent before Christmas, Lent before Easter.
19
Chatter / Re: Worlds most expensive fish
« Last post by Add Homonym on Today at 09:30:22 AM »
You've lost me. My point is, every K over most definitely not a killer, and not every fisherman poses a danger to the reefs etc

My random mutilated quote was not necessarily related to you, unless you feel guilty.

Have you had any thoughts on why you weren't able to catch any fish?
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/gutted-pros-dish-it-out-to-greedy-amateur-anglers-20100510-uoqu.html

Not sure I would be game to eat anything that came out of a river these days. If you saw dugong, that tends to indicate that the river isn't sedimented enough to kill off seagrass.

Larger fish stocks are under threat, because of their slow reproductions rates, high catch value, and destruction of breeding areas, due to dragging nets on the bottom and nitrogen suffocating everything.

Maybe you should start something in your own swimming pool.
20
Science / Re: Schrodingers cat???
« Last post by shnozzola on Today at 09:25:16 AM »
^^ Even more - it gets into the double slit experiment, which is explained well for a layman like myself here:

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10