Richard Nixon's speech writer makes a stupid movie...

[Lauri]

freedumb said...

"And FWIIW, smoking does promote thinness by supressing appetite.  It kills you but you die thin."


that may be one of the dumber things ive seen today..  not everyone that dies of lung cancer is thin. are you really a scientist? cause so far, you dont seem to be convincing anyone of it..

and yes, lump me in with those people who think doctors are less 'scientists' today than drug retailers who care less about keeping people well, than making more money from the insurance companies. maybe years ago they did, but by and large they cant afford to keep us healthy or their profits dry up.

as for the rest of your sighing and being irritated that i didnt read all of your words on 10+ pages of this thread... sorry. i didnt find much in the first four pages that was all that compelling.

[Lauri]

not even 50 years ago, 'scientists' told doctors ,who told the rest of us, that smoking was an ideal way to keep our waistes slim. now how exactly did that turn out again?

Scientific misconceptions about smoking were cleared up by guess what... science. We don't give up on science just because it doesn't serve us well all the time.

science is wrong so often that most thinking people dont give it much credence any longer.

we know about 'theories' and the 'best educated guesses' but by and large, science causes more problems than it solves.

for instance, and this is one i know you will hate TNO, when science discovers that gay gene, guess what will happen?

Who is this "most" that your talking about?  Are they avoiding hospitals?  Are they not shopping and using simple math?  Are they not driving their cars anywhere?  Are they not watching their TV's?  Are they not being protected day and night by the most SCIENTIFICALLY advanced military force on this planet?

wow.. you wandered pretty far away on that one.

but alas, my husband just got home from a meeting so.. maybe someone new will come in and be dazzled by ya.. 

[Chris_]

freedumb said...

"And FWIIW, smoking does promote thinness by supressing appetite.  It kills you but you die thin."


that may be one of the dumber things ive seen today..  :whatever: not everyone that dies of lung cancer is thin. are you really a scientist? cause so far, you dont seem to be convincing anyone of it..

and yes, lump me in with those people who think doctors are less 'scientists' today than drug retailers who care less about keeping people well, than making more money from the insurance companies. maybe years ago they did, but by and large they cant afford to keep us healthy or their profits dry up.

as for the rest of your sighing and being irritated that i didnt read all of your words on 10+ pages of this thread... sorry. i didnt find much in the first four pages that was all that compelling.

Jeeze, you can't take a joke.  I can certainly recap if you would like a synopsis:

1) A Scientific Theory is not a "guess writ large." It describes a large body of interrelated data and is subject to peer review by a LOT of scientists.
2) TToE is over 150 years old and has millions of scientists who understand it and billions of artifacts to support it.
3) Evolution is a stochastic process, which is why we have apes today as well as humans -- both are descended from a common ancestor but took different paths.
4) ID (and Creationism) are inapplicable to science, since they create no new knowledge and cannot meet any scientific criteria.
5) Although some scientists are certainly subject to bribery, that can't explain the millions of scientists who understand TToE, including drug manufacturers and MDs.

I hope this saves you lots of reading.  It isn't all that complicated.

[rich_t]

in fact, the I tend to think that people in general view modern day scientists as a nuisance who find answers to our problems only for the right amount of money..

Bingo.

[Chris_]

in fact, the I tend to think that people in general view modern day scientists as a nuisance who find answers to our problems only for the right amount of money..

Bingo.

Well, I hope you enjoy your next visit to a Voodoo Queen, since MDs are scientists.  And, as I noted, most of the modern day wonder drugs that sustain and improve our lives are these same "nuisances."

[rich_t]

in fact, the I tend to think that people in general view modern day scientists as a nuisance who find answers to our problems only for the right amount of money..

Bingo.

Well, I hope you enjoy your next visit to a Voodoo Queen, since MDs are scientists.  And, as I noted, most of the modern day wonder drugs that sustain and improve our lives are these same "nuisances."

Hell yeah I will.  She let's me pay her with chicken bones, frog legs and rattle snake venom.

[djones520]

not even 50 years ago, 'scientists' told doctors ,who told the rest of us, that smoking was an ideal way to keep our waistes slim. now how exactly did that turn out again?

Scientific misconceptions about smoking were cleared up by guess what... science. We don't give up on science just because it doesn't serve us well all the time.

science is wrong so often that most thinking people dont give it much credence any longer.

we know about 'theories' and the 'best educated guesses' but by and large, science causes more problems than it solves.

for instance, and this is one i know you will hate TNO, when science discovers that gay gene, guess what will happen?

Who is this "most" that your talking about?  Are they avoiding hospitals?  Are they not shopping and using simple math?  Are they not driving their cars anywhere?  Are they not watching their TV's?  Are they not being protected day and night by the most SCIENTIFICALLY advanced military force on this planet?

wow.. you wandered pretty far away on that one.

but alas, my husband just got home from a meeting so.. maybe someone new will come in and be dazzled by ya.. 

I must have misunderstood what you where trying to say then, because my interpretation is that your saying most people don't "trust" science anymore.

[Chris_]

I must have misunderstood what you where trying to say then, because my interpretation is that your saying most people don't "trust" science anymore.

That is what I got out of it, too.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Nonsense it is materially verifiable.

For example:

  + =

The means we use to prove theorems have no bearing on the fact that numbers and mathematics exist only as constructs.

I'm sure if I asked how the Big Bang could evolve the formation of stars, solar systems, planest, microbes, plants, animals and on to men you could do so.

Now please show how this same process regurgitates Justice, Mercy et al. Show me the phyllogenic tree, if you will.

[The Night Owl]

I'm sure if I asked how the Big Bang could evolve the formation of stars, solar systems, planest, microbes, plants, animals and on to men you could do so.

Now please show how this same process regurgitates Justice, Mercy et al. Show me the phyllogenic tree, if you will.

You are the one who claims to know how the Universe and everything got started, not me. You are convinced that it was designed and created by an omniscient and omnipotent being. You have no doubts about that. You think that scientific attempts to explain how the Universe and life on Earth came to be are futile and that scientists should just throw up their hands and assume that God did it all. No thanks.

[DixieBelle]

I don't think anyone is impugning science or scientists as a group. Let's not conflate here. Take the Gorons/Global Warming Cultists, the U.N., James Hansen (funded by Soros) and any other Scientific group put together with a specific purpose and you will find science trotted out with an underlying agenda. Is it any wonder why average folks are weary? And yes, I mean "weary" and not "wary". No one is afraid of science but we are damn tired of the agenda underneath. Not to mention the crushing of dissent and the closeminded school of thought that says, "it's settled, we have a consensus". I'm specifically speaking about climate change but you cannot deny the damage they have caused in the world of science.

And to tell such a person, "well don't take these lifesaving medicines, or don't go see an oncologist, etc..." is really condesending and off point. You're kind of insinuating that people skeptical of TToE are cave dwelling luddites. Not true.

[Chris_]

I don't think anyone is impugning science or scientists as a group. Let's not conflate here. Take the Gorons/Global Warming Cultists, the U.N., James Hansen (funded by Soros) and any other Scientific group put together with a specific purpose and you will find science trotted out with an underlying agenda. Is it any wonder why average folks are weary? And yes, I mean "weary" and not "wary". No one is afraid of science but we are damn tired of the agenda underneath. Not to mention the crushing of dissent and the closeminded school of thought that says, "it's settled, we have a consensus". I'm specifically speaking about climate change but you cannot deny the damage they have caused in the world of science.

And to tell such a person, "well don't take these lifesaving medicines, or don't go see an oncologist, etc..." is really condesending and off point. You're kind of insinuating that people skeptical of TToE are cave dwelling luddites. Not true.

There are several differences between the AGW and TTOE. 

The AGW debate (and there is one) is in reading a very small amount of data to predict the future.  It is clearly being influenced by governments and liberals because they see it as a lever to control people and money.  But it is completely within the physical world.  There are competing hypotheses, all of which at least meet the minimum scientific standards.

TToE "skeptics" don't propose an alternate theory.  They suggest a supernatural alternative which has no applicability to science at all.

My point about taking drugs is that, more than almost any other endeavor, creating drugs is based almost completely on understanding TToE.  If TToE was wrong, the drugs would not be able to be created.  It is a response to "TToE can't be proven in a lab."

As I have said over and over again, I am amazed at the number of people who offer an opinion while holding little or no knowledge of the subject matter.  It isn't condescending to suggest that people have a basic understanding of what they are discussing.  I don't mean you, I mean in general. So please don't take my examples as being "condescending."  I am trying to explain something to people who don't have the knowledge tools to understand.

[DixieBelle]

^But it is condesending to some people. You're 100% confident and it can come across as belittling. Especially when you say, "....to people who don't have the knowledge tools to understand." Not only do you negate their faith, you are calling them ignorant. How is that helpful? I'm not upset or calling you out, I'm just trying to illustrate why there is a visceral response from the faithful.

Like you said before, it's faith we're talking about here. Best to just respect it and leave it be. And those who strongly hold on to the faith need to leave it be as well. There is never going to be a middleground in this debate. I'm not talking here, I'm talking in general.

[Chris_]

^But it is condesending to some people. You're 100% confident and it can come across as belittling. Especially when you say, "....to people who don't have the knowledge tools to understand." Not only do you negate their faith, you are calling them ignorant. How is that helpful? I'm not upset or calling you out, I'm just trying to illustrate why there is a visceral response from the faithful.

Like you said before, it's faith we're talking about here. Best to just respect it and leave it be. And those who strongly hold on to the faith need to leave it be as well. There is never going to be a middleground in this debate. I'm not talking here, I'm talking in general.

If there is another way to put it, I am happy for the recommendation.

I am not belittling anyone's faith -- I merely ask they not try to replace science with it.  If I am assembling a vehicle and you don't know what a fuel injector is or what rings and pistons are, I don't know how else to put it.

[Doc]

I have followed this thread, and noted learned discussions (with the possible exception of our resident teenager) on both sides of the somewhat splintered discussion. 

As both a former scientist, and as a Christian, I think that these problems nearly always arise from the "faith" side of the issue.  For all of the years that I studied practiced, and taught physics, I never had an occasion where my faith, and my "science" were in conflict.  With every new theory that was advanced over the decades to explain one phenomena or another, I just viewed each as man's advance toward the futile, but ultimate desire to understand the mechanics of the "Creation".  Specifically, I disciplined myself, as a scientist to NEVER allow faith (subjectivity) to enter the scientific thought process.  The two must eternally remain separate, in order for true science to exist, and man continue to expand his understanding.  People of faith must understand that injecting their theology/morality into the scientific process effectively shuts down the discussion, and makes it impossible to further advance the quest for new knowledge.

At the risk of oversimplifying........

Faith says:  "God did it....discussion over....."

Science says:    "the discussion is never over......"

I think that people of faith would do themselves, and the body politic in general, a great service if they remained neutral and aloof on most scientific issues, as the science community will always view injection of faith into the debate as repression and closed-mindedness.  And if one views the debate through the lens of history, scientists have good reason to think this way.

Reciprocally, people of science should bear in mind that "science" should never be used as a political tool to create a wedge between believers, and their faith.

The two should always be divergent, but essentially seeking the same goal........truth......

doc

[Chris_]

I have followed this thread, and noted learned discussions (with the possible exception of our resident teenager) on both sides of the somewhat splintered discussion. 

As both a former scientist, and as a Christian, I think that these problems nearly always arise from the "faith" side of the issue.  For all of the years that I studied practiced, and taught physics, I never had an occasion where my faith, and my "science" were in conflict.  With every new theory that was advanced over the decades to explain one phenomena or another, I just viewed each as man's advance toward the futile, but ultimate desire to understand the mechanics of the "Creation".  Specifically, I disciplined myself, as a scientist to NEVER allow faith (subjectivity) to enter the scientific thought process.  The two must eternally remain separate, in order for true science to exist, and man continue to expand his understanding.  People of faith must understand that injecting their theology/morality into the scientific process effectively shuts down the discussion, and makes it impossible to further advance the quest for new knowledge.

At the risk of oversimplifying........

Faith says:  "God did it....discussion over....."

Science says:    "the discussion is never over......"

I think that people of faith would do themselves, and the body politic in general, a great service if they remained neutral and aloof on most scientific issues, as the science community will always view injection of faith into the debate as repression and closed-mindedness.  And if one views the debate through the lens of history, scientists have good reason to think this way.

Reciprocally, people of science should bear in mind that "science" should never be used as a political tool to create a wedge between believers, and their faith.

The two should always be divergent, but essentially seeking the same goal........truth......

doc

Which was Einstein's point in the famous quotes about his spirituality.

You say it gentler than me (there's a surprise), but you summarize my thoughts exactly.  The problem arises when movies like Expelled are created and suggest that science needs to replace part of itself with faith.  And conversely if someone were to say that "science says there is no God AND all churches should be abolished (or other anti-faith steps taken)" I would fight just as hard to keep science out of faith.

[djones520]

I have followed this thread, and noted learned discussions (with the possible exception of our resident teenager) on both sides of the somewhat splintered discussion. 

As both a former scientist, and as a Christian, I think that these problems nearly always arise from the "faith" side of the issue.  For all of the years that I studied practiced, and taught physics, I never had an occasion where my faith, and my "science" were in conflict.  With every new theory that was advanced over the decades to explain one phenomena or another, I just viewed each as man's advance toward the futile, but ultimate desire to understand the mechanics of the "Creation".  Specifically, I disciplined myself, as a scientist to NEVER allow faith (subjectivity) to enter the scientific thought process.  The two must eternally remain separate, in order for true science to exist, and man continue to expand his understanding.  People of faith must understand that injecting their theology/morality into the scientific process effectively shuts down the discussion, and makes it impossible to further advance the quest for new knowledge.

At the risk of oversimplifying........

Faith says:  "God did it....discussion over....."

Science says:    "the discussion is never over......"

I think that people of faith would do themselves, and the body politic in general, a great service if they remained neutral and aloof on most scientific issues, as the science community will always view injection of faith into the debate as repression and closed-mindedness.  And if one views the debate through the lens of history, scientists have good reason to think this way.

Reciprocally, people of science should bear in mind that "science" should never be used as a political tool to create a wedge between believers, and their faith.

The two should always be divergent, but essentially seeking the same goal........truth......

doc

Another H5.  Some great posts coming out of this thread.

[rich_t]

The problem arises when movies like Expelled are created and suggest that science needs to replace part of itself with faith.

I have not seen the movie yet and I probably won't, but are yuu certain that is what the movie is attempting to suggest?

Have you seen the movie?

[Chris_]

The problem arises when movies like Expelled are created and suggest that science needs to replace part of itself with faith.

I have not seen the movie yet and I probably won't, but are yuu certain that is what the movie is attempting to suggest?

Have you seen the movie?

No, and I don't intend to. I didn't need to see F911 to know it was all lies and deception.  The very premise of Expelled is flawed.  It suggests that because science has rigorous standards that exclude the supernatural that somehow that is "wrong."

It is in the trailers and it is in the synopsis.

[BEG]

I have followed this thread, and noted learned discussions (with the possible exception of our resident teenager) on both sides of the somewhat splintered discussion. 

As both a former scientist, and as a Christian, I think that these problems nearly always arise from the "faith" side of the issue.  For all of the years that I studied practiced, and taught physics, I never had an occasion where my faith, and my "science" were in conflict.  With every new theory that was advanced over the decades to explain one phenomena or another, I just viewed each as man's advance toward the futile, but ultimate desire to understand the mechanics of the "Creation".  Specifically, I disciplined myself, as a scientist to NEVER allow faith (subjectivity) to enter the scientific thought process.  The two must eternally remain separate, in order for true science to exist, and man continue to expand his understanding.  People of faith must understand that injecting their theology/morality into the scientific process effectively shuts down the discussion, and makes it impossible to further advance the quest for new knowledge.

At the risk of oversimplifying........

Faith says:  "God did it....discussion over....."

Science says:    "the discussion is never over......"

I think that people of faith would do themselves, and the body politic in general, a great service if they remained neutral and aloof on most scientific issues, as the science community will always view injection of faith into the debate as repression and closed-mindedness.  And if one views the debate through the lens of history, scientists have good reason to think this way.

Reciprocally, people of science should bear in mind that "science" should never be used as a political tool to create a wedge between believers, and their faith.

The two should always be divergent, but essentially seeking the same goal........truth......

doc

Seems to me that the "science" people here are saying that the discussion IS over.

[rich_t]

The problem arises when movies like Expelled are created and suggest that science needs to replace part of itself with faith.

I have not seen the movie yet and I probably won't, but are yuu certain that is what the movie is attempting to suggest?

Have you seen the movie?

No, and I don't intend to. I didn't need to see F911 to know it was all lies and deception.  The very premise of Expelled is flawed.  It suggests that because science has rigorous standards that exclude the supernatural that somehow that is "wrong."

It is in the trailers and it is in the synopsis.

Ok.  I haven't seen the trailers or synopsis either.  But I did for F911 so I think I understand your point about seeing the movie.

On the other hand I have seen some very good articles tearing down F911 by folks that actually saw it.  I suspect it is rather difficult to do a point by point disagreement with a movie one hasn't seen.

[Chris_]

Seems to me that the "science" people here are saying that the discussion IS over.

It depends on which discussion.  Can religion be part and parcel of science and incorporated into the scientific method?  No and never will be.  Does science say there is no God?  Again no and it never will.  Does faith provide a proper philosophical framework within which science should operate?  Absolutely yes.

[DixieBelle]

The problem arises when movies like Expelled are created and suggest that science needs to replace part of itself with faith.

I have not seen the movie yet and I probably won't, but are yuu certain that is what the movie is attempting to suggest?

Have you seen the movie?

No, and I don't intend to. I didn't need to see F911 to know it was all lies and deception.  The very premise of Expelled is flawed.  It suggests that because science has rigorous standards that exclude the supernatural that somehow that is "wrong."

It is in the trailers and it is in the synopsis.

Ok.  I haven't seen the trailers or synopsis either.  But I did for F911 so I think I understand your point about seeing the movie.

On the other hand I have seen some very good articles tearing down F911 by folks that actually saw it.  I suspect it is rather difficult to do a point by point disagreement with a movie one hasn't seen.

I posted the review and synopsis upthread. I haven't seen it either but there are things online. I am under the impression that it focused on some scientists who were blackballed and run out of their jobs for debating the subject and questioning evolution. I think the film also attempts to instruct on the matter and evolution folks are taking issue with the facts presented. Fair enough. I still want to see it before I make up my mind.

[RedTail]

I saw Expelled tonight.

And it was not that bad. And it is NOT what you think.

Like Marc Antony, it neither comes to bury or praise the theory of Evolution, only to ask some questions of it. . .What happens between the bang and that first cell? How complicated is a cell, anyway, and how does it replicate all the information that may lie within it?

The film doesn't quite start there. It starts with shots of the Berlin Wall (I really wish he'd of stuck with that theme all the way through, because it was alot more logically effective than the later theme) and works down to an evolutionary biologist that got booted for merely mentioning Intelligent Design. He moves at a comfortable pace, from D.C, to Seattle/Redmond, to even as exotic a locales as Paris, Germany, and finally London.


He does speak to both sides, giving you a look at a world that discouraged me at first, but now leaves me pissed: Academia. Don't take that as a desire to remain ignorant, but a vocalization of an irritation of the entrenched politics within academia. Expelled, while it is about the theory of evolution is about a wider truth - - true, we can talk about the ignorance and the lack of curiosity that plagues todays students. But isn't it time we discuss and pull the curtain back on the lack of inquiry, debate and willful ignorance of their teachers?

He missteps on the Darwinism=Hitler Link, but it is as not as grand as you think. Others make those links for him, but cover themselves by placing Hitler against the preceding scientific thoughts about eugenics and natural selection. It's not a deal-breaker. . .and if he had explored eugenics more than Hitler, I think his case (Re:Abuse of the ToE) would have been that much stronger.

As a friend of mine said, it IS worth the 7 of 9 dollars I paid for it. Especially towards the end when he catches up with Richard Dawkins. I REALLY expected more of Mr. Dawkins. Not that I like the guy, but I expected more. I'd of loved to have seen the unedited video of that interview.

(This will be reposted)


*Red*

[Lauri]

I have followed this thread, and noted learned discussions (with the possible exception of our resident teenager) on both sides of the somewhat splintered discussion. 

As both a former scientist, and as a Christian, I think that these problems nearly always arise from the "faith" side of the issue.  For all of the years that I studied practiced, and taught physics, I never had an occasion where my faith, and my "science" were in conflict.  With every new theory that was advanced over the decades to explain one phenomena or another, I just viewed each as man's advance toward the futile, but ultimate desire to understand the mechanics of the "Creation".  Specifically, I disciplined myself, as a scientist to NEVER allow faith (subjectivity) to enter the scientific thought process.  The two must eternally remain separate, in order for true science to exist, and man continue to expand his understanding.  People of faith must understand that injecting their theology/morality into the scientific process effectively shuts down the discussion, and makes it impossible to further advance the quest for new knowledge.

At the risk of oversimplifying........

Faith says:  "God did it....discussion over....."

Science says:    "the discussion is never over......"

I think that people of faith would do themselves, and the body politic in general, a great service if they remained neutral and aloof on most scientific issues, as the science community will always view injection of faith into the debate as repression and closed-mindedness.  And if one views the debate through the lens of history, scientists have good reason to think this way.

Reciprocally, people of science should bear in mind that "science" should never be used as a political tool to create a wedge between believers, and their faith.

The two should always be divergent, but essentially seeking the same goal........truth......

doc

Seems to me that the "science" people here are saying that the discussion IS over.

ok cool.. i thought it was just me seeing it that way.