Support NeoGAF

[Freeza Under The Shower]

I think most of those weird religions in the US are basically cults and sects, right?

Christianity started as a cult as well, so there is no "then it's okay" following a confirmation of small scale.

There is no reason why any particular metaphysical viewpoint should or would win out over others in the future. Scientific findings and theories are also not guaranteed to survive our uncertain future.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I believe God can create the earth in 6 days, but did he? This is where faith comes in. I must add that my salvation or anyone elses does not depend on this subject.

I'm not sure if god existed it would even take him six days. Couldn't he do this shit like instantly if he wanted?

The myth/story is pretty clearly based around the babylonian/jewish week.

 

[StalkerUKCG]

Lets say your GF's potential life span is 100 years, that means she think that the world has had only 60 generations of human life. 60!

 

[Sanky Panky]

Data is not dismissed but amassed are part of what makes up the evidence for or against a specific thing. Dating from 1968 that had some deviation in what we've come to understand as the standard numbers do not disprove the standard numbers because there is a mountain of evidence saying that these numbers are correct.

"Mountain of evidence" has to be the most used diatribe to qualify something in science. Not only can you pick apart this "mountain of evidence", but there is also a "mountain of evidence" that says that these methods are not reliable UNLESS you assume a priori that the rock is millions of years old. If we didn't know the date of eruption of these volcanoes, and they assumed a priori that the formations were millions of years old, these findings would have been heralded in peer reviewed studies confirming their old age. Sadly, we know the ages of eruption.

You're cherry picking and showing as much willful ignorance as the OPs wife, which is not surprising considering your religious position.

I'd love to know what my religious position is according to this thread.

 

[marrec]

"Mountain of evidence" has to be the most used diatribe to qualify something in science. Not only can you pick apart this "mountain of evidence", but there is also a "mountain of evidence" that says that these methods are not reliable UNLESS you assume a priori that the rock is millions of years old. If we didn't know the date of eruption of these volcanoes, and they assumed a priori that the formations were millions of years old, these findings would have been heralded in peer reviewed studies confirming their old age. Sadly, we know the ages of eruption.

Now you are just making stuff up. What do you mean you can pick apart the evidence? Go ahead then. Pick it apart. There is no amount of evidence that says these methods are not reliable, that is a falsehood.

I'd love to know what my religious position is according to this thread.

You're citing the Institute for Creation Research as something that anyone should take seriously, which makes me assume that you trust Creation Science, therefore are a Creationist. Also you did and have not addressed the accusation that you are Cherry Picking data to suit your position.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Lets say your GF's potential life span is 100 years, that means she think that the world has had only 60 generations of human life. 60!

That's a pretty weak argument considering the average lifespan even today isn't 100 years and at the dawn of time (4000 BC ) average lifespan was what like 20 years?

 

[Orayn]

I'd love to know what my religious position is according to this thread.

You're quoting from the Institute of Creation Research and claiming that there's no religious involvement in your arguments? Okay, guy.

 

[Klyka]

Christianity started as a cult as well, so there is no "then it's okay" following a confirmation of small scale.

There is no reason why any particular metaphysical viewpoint should or would win out over others in the future. Scientific findings and theories are also not guaranteed to survive our uncertain future.

I didn't mean my question to imply that the religions are "wrong" or "bad" because they are cults & sects, I was just asking if they are. I honestly don't have any kind of knowledge regarding the amount and size of all the different churches/religions/cults/sects in the US.

 

[Ultimadrago]

To be honest, even though she sticks by her faith, she doesn't really let it show outwardly or change how she lives her life much. Some people might consider her a hypocrite for that, but I think she just knows how limiting her church's lifestyle really is and has decided to live her life her own way. But many facets of her church are still strong in her. She has picked and chosen what to hold onto and what to let go of. In any case I don't look down on her for that, I do respect her for so many reasons so I can respect her beliefs too, even if I don't agree with them. People are individuals, it's what makes us all interesting IMHO.

You did not just make this the payoff/conclusion of the thread after reading all the prior posts...

 

[levious]

young earth, hollow earth, flat earth... all the same, best to ignore.

 

[Klyka]

"Mountain of evidence" has to be the most used diatribe to qualify something in science. Not only can you pick apart this "mountain of evidence", but there is also a "mountain of evidence" that says that these methods are not reliable UNLESS you assume a priori that the rock is millions of years old. If we didn't know the date of eruption of these volcanoes, and they assumed a priori that the formations were millions of years old, these findings would have been heralded in peer reviewed studies confirming their old age. Sadly, we know the ages of eruption.



I'd love to know what my religious position is according to this thread.

Your religious position is "my religion is right".

 

[marrec]

That's a pretty weak argument considering the average lifespan even today isn't 100 years and at the dawn of time (4000 BC ) average lifespan was what like 20 years?

More likely around 40, that is an assumption though and I don't know any solid numbers. Infant Mortality must of be harsh though.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Now you are just making stuff up. What do you mean you can pick apart the evidence? Go ahead then. Pick it apart. There is no amount of evidence that says these methods are not reliable, that is a falsehood.

You can unroot your not so big mountain by showing the discrepancies and inaccuracy of the assumptions of the methods. If your assumptions are not correct, the method is wrong from the start.

You're citing the Institute for Creation Research as something that anyone should take seriously, which makes me assume that you trust Creation Science, therefore are a Creationist. Also you did and have not addressed the accusation that you are Cherry Picking data to suit your position.

I'm citing all the research papers quoted by the ICR as something anyone can take seriously. The data is there. Whether you disagree with the conclusions of the ICR, then you are free to do so. To quench your baseless assumption (your side is good at those) I don't believe in a 6000 yr old earth, nor the Genesis story.

On the cherry picking, I cited factual instances where the methods prove to be unreliable. I'm doing the opposite of cherry picking. I don't dismiss data as unreliable because it doesn't conform to my views.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

"Mountain of evidence" has to be the most used diatribe to qualify something in science. Not only can you pick apart this "mountain of evidence", but there is also a "mountain of evidence" that says that these methods are not reliable UNLESS you assume a priori that the rock is millions of years old. If we didn't know the date of eruption of these volcanoes, and they assumed a priori that the formations were millions of years old, these findings would have been heralded in peer reviewed studies confirming their old age. Sadly, we know the ages of eruption.

Your point might be fair enough, but you previously said it was when dating young lava. Meaning that the reliability of the method is only dubious for young lava, not each and every case.

So the method may be valid, but it may be unreliable for certain categories. That does not mean that the method itself is wrong or even unscientific.


as far as modelling goes:

We also use Newtonian physics to model non-relativistic speeds and use Bohr's model of matter to describe exchanges between electrons and fotons, even though that model does not accurately describe our current understanding and measurements on quantum mechanics.
Using the model is unproblematic however, since they are using as stepping stones for proper academic education, in which these models would be replaced by far more complex and recent ones. A professional academic could provide a full explanation using models that do take relativity into account, which they do when it matters. When talking to a layman like you or me, they would use Newtonian physics because the difference between observation and modeled (expected) results is an acceptable margin of error for non-relativistic questions.

 

[StalkerUKCG]

That's a pretty weak argument considering the average lifespan even today isn't 100 years and at the dawn of time (4000 BC ) average lifespan was what like 20 years?

Its not that weak, the bible often features men well in excess of 20 years, She has definitive proof now that people live to around 80 years old, and the bible talks of older people

Then the lord said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." [Genesis 6:3]

"The length of our days is seventy years - or eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span is but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away." [Psalm 90:10]

Now she believes these words, meaning her assumption would still be that the earth is only around 60 generations old

 

[Orayn]

You can unroot your not so big mountain by showing the discrepancies and inaccuracy of the assumptions of the methods. If your assumptions are not correct, the method is wrong from the start.

You're not exactly off to a great start, but by all means, keep trying. Would you care to challenge the assumption that the speed of light is constant to dismantle the idea that starlight that reaches the Earth is millions of years old as well? Are you going to disassemble evolution because it takes place on a timescale that is unacceptably long? If you're trying to support an Earth that's significantly younger than the scientific consensus, you've got a way to go.

On the cherry picking, I cited factual instances where the methods prove to be unreliable. I'm doing the opposite of cherry picking. I don't dismiss data as unreliable because it doesn't conform to my views.

A method is not unreliable because it is capable of generating erroneous results when used improperly.

Do you think this image casts doubt on the reliability of algebra?

 

[Zoe]

To be honest, even though she sticks by her faith, she doesn't really let it show outwardly or change how she lives her life much. Some people might consider her a hypocrite for that, but I think she just knows how limiting her church's lifestyle really is and has decided to live her life her own way. But many facets of her church are still strong in her. She has picked and chosen what to hold onto and what to let go of. In any case I don't look down on her for that, I do respect her for so many reasons so I can respect her beliefs too, even if I don't agree with them. People are individuals, it's what makes us all interesting IMHO.

I might have missed it, but did you ever say if you see a future and a family with her?

 

[marrec]

You can unroot your not so big mountain by showing the discrepancies and inaccuracy of the assumptions of the methods. If your assumptions are not correct, the method is wrong from the start.



I'm citing all the research papers quoted by the ICR as something anyone can take seriously. The data is there. Whether you disagree with the conclusions of the ICR, then you are free to do so. To quench your baseless assumption (your side is good at those) I don't believe in a 6000 yr old earth, nor the Genesis story.

On the cherry picking, I cited factual instances where the methods prove to be unreliable. I'm doing the opposite of cherry picking. I don't dismiss data as unreliable because it doesn't conform to my views.

:lol

I think we're done here folks. Apparently this guy doesn't believe in Creation Science, but is citing a Creation Scientist as proof that the earth isn't as old as we think.

Sanky, the dating used in your examples is not the only evidence that we have for how old the earth is. You citing of a poorly written article from ICR does not overturn hundreds of years of both Geological and Cosmological science. Sorry, but that is the definition of Cherry Picking.

 

[Orayn]

Sanky, the dating used in your examples is not the only evidence that we have for how old the earth is. You citing a poorly written article from ICR does not overturn hundreds of years of both Geological and Cosmological science. Sorry, but that is the definition of Cherry Picking.

Psh, those methods must be cherry-picking in the same way. The fact that dozens of independent sources of data converge on a very old universe doesn't mean jack.

 

[Kinitari]

Sorta. It's crazy to think that science is in danger from one belief of OP's girlfriend. We don't know anything else about her, but I imagine she's harmless. In fact, her whole religion is harmless. This lady's foundation was never laid. So what's going to happen to the planet/science because she has a faulty foundation? Nothing. Zilch. She will continue to believe what she does, her boyfriend will continue to mock her (Since he clearly likes it), and she will continue living life as something other than an Earth scientist. There's no reason to make the issue more widespread.

With no hyperbole whatsoever, I can say that there is no danger whatsoever that science is being reversed just because some don't accept some aspect of it. It's a made up issue and needs it's own Teach the Controversy T-Shirt.

Let's not forget that there are several on the board who would not accept anything this side of rejection of God before the "danger" ends anyway. So who determines where the proper foundation lies to avoid being "anti-science"?

You're missing the point entirely.

First - look at the amount of anti-science rhetoric that gets spread around in US politics - look at how much legislation and finagling is being done to discredit things like evolution in textbooks, or to raise creationism to the same standard. Those are harmful things.

Now - you don't wait until you have an audience of 10,000 people who all think evolution is a crock before you start speaking up and attempting to educate, you work with what you have when you have it. If it's one person, that is one more person you have convinced - and maybe they are passionate about it and go convince another 5 in their life time - and so on.

And I'm not talking about any extremes here, so I don't know why they need to be brought up - the only reason to bring them up actually.

The sort of anti-science intolerance literally taught by some branches of religions are harmful - you see the harm in your political sphere and sociological sphere today. Don't white wash it, and don't diminish the effect of people working as a society to better educate those who do not understand, and to challenge those who employ poor reasoning.

Waiting UNTIL those people are politicians or scientists or whatever, is a bad idea.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Its not that weak, the bible often features men well in excess of 20 years, She has definitive proof now that people live to around 80 years old, and the bible talks of older people

Then the lord said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." [Genesis 6:3]

"The length of our days is seventy years - or eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span is but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away." [Psalm 90:10]

Now she believes these words, meaning her assumption would still be that the earth is only around 60 generations old

Only Jews live til 120, any Bible study class teaches you that.

 

[Tawpgun]

It's a shame that one fundamentalist got banned here. He was in the Atheist Theism OT and was dead serious about proving creationism and young earth theory.

 

[jaxword]

:lol

I think we're done here folks. Apparently this guy doesn't believe in Creation Science, but is citing a Creation Scientist as proof that the earth isn't as old as we think.

Sanky, the dating used in your examples is not the only evidence that we have for how old the earth is. You citing of a poorly written article from ICR does not overturn hundreds of years of both Geological and Cosmological science. Sorry, but that is the definition of Cherry Picking.

Actually, it's more like trying to APPEAR not religious (to grain credibility in a scientific debate) while trying to use religious sources.

Remember earlier he used the "ugh you guys are SO predictable that you dismiss creation scientific data". As if he's familiar with being dismissed due to using religious sources, like a small degree of persecution complex.

 

[Mengy]

You did not just make this the payoff/conclusion of the thread after reading all the prior posts...

Nah, this thread has taken on a life of it's own! It sure makes for an interesting read.


But in all honesty I wouldn't be able to keep dating her if I didn't feel that way. The part of me that respects her needs to also respect her beliefs too, even if I disagree with them. I've already opened her eyes to things she never considered before due to her church and family shielding her, so progress has been made. She does find my beliefs and spirituality fascinating and intriguing. I just think she has been living in ignorance about much of the world her whole life. And I'm not saying ignorance as a bad thing, just a result of her environment, a state of mind.

 

[marrec]

Nah, this thread has taken on a life of it's own! It sure makes for an interesting read.


But in all honesty I wouldn't be able to keep dating her if I didn't feel that way. The part of me that respects her needs to also respect her beliefs too, even if I disagree with them. I've already opened her eyes to things she never considered before due to her church and family shielding her, so progress has been made. She does find my beliefs and spirituality fascinating and intriguing. I just think she has been living in ignorance about much of the world her whole life. And I'm not saying ignorance as a bad thing, just a result of her environment, a state of mind.

Sexy things?

*/Zapp Brannagan*

 

[JGS]

You're missing the point entirely.

First - look at the amount of anti-science rhetoric that gets spread around in US politics - look at how much legislation and finagling is being done to discredit things like evolution in textbooks, or to raise creationism to the same standard. Those are harmful things.

That's just what it is- rhetoric. There hasn't been a policy change that has impacted science. It wouldn't even if Santorum is elected which he won't be.

The closest issue has been stem cell research and that was a moral dilemna instead of a scientific one and it was never in danger to begin with. Of course this has nothing to do with the one issue being discussed in the thread (All due respect, that is the entire point).

Now - you don't wait until you have an audience of 10,000 people who all think evolution is a crock before you start speaking up and attempting to educate, you work with what you have when you have it. If it's one person, that is one more person you have convinced - and maybe they are passionate about it and go convince another 5 in their life time - and so on.

No one is saying you shouldn't speak up. There is a big difference between speaking up and educating and equating that with extinguishing a danger that is non-existent. So go ahead and try to convince people of your POV. There's just no reason to then add "If they can't be convinced than the world is doomed" which often seems to be the view of some very paranoid people on Gaf. That's a major exageration.

The sort of anti-science intolerance literally taught by some branches of religions are harmful - you see the harm in your political sphere and sociological sphere today. Don't white wash it, and don't diminish the effect of people working as a society to better educate those who do not understand, and to challenge those who employ poor reasoning.

Waiting UNTIL those people are politicians or scientists or whatever, is a bad idea.

It started out white washed. It can't help it. Again, & I ask this in just about every thread this topic comes up, what are you being denied of outside of intelligent conversation with all just because someone is a YEC, a Bible believer, a Koran follower, a non atheist? It's only a controversy because you want it to be.

The majority of Americans at least have figured out a way to believe in God and tolerate their science exams that are God free. If you can't accept that compromise, then you go to far in your demands.

 

[Sanky Panky]

You're not exactly off to a great start, but by all means, keep trying. Would you care to challenge the assumption that the speed of light is constant to dismantle the idea that starlight that reaches the Earth is millions of years old as well? Are you going to disassemble evolution because it takes place on a timescale that is unacceptably long? If you're trying to support an Earth that's significantly younger than the scientific consensus, you've got a way to go.

Nah I don't care to prove anything to you guys about the ages of stars, as that has never been a point I've tried to make. I haven't related any of this to evolution, nor am I claiming what age the Earth should be. My argument has always been people here accuse others of ignorance, while they are ignorant themselves of the short-comming of their won beliefs... hence your next point.

A method is not unreliable because it is capable of generating erroneous results when used improperly.

How do they know it is being used improperly with other samples? That's right... they assume from the start that the samples are old enough to give accurate results. Circular reasoning.

Do you think this image casts doubt on the reliability of algebra?

Now you are really grasping. What does algebra have to do with innacurate a priori assumptions for calculating rock ages?

I think we're done here folks. Apparently this guy doesn't believe in Creation Science, but is citing a Creation Scientist as proof that the earth isn't as old as we think.

Indeed, you guys ARE predictable, and no it's not a persecution complex. It's a logical fallacy to dismiss data gathered from scientific non-creation reports, because it was cited by a creationist website. I didn't cite their conclusions. I cited the data that they cited. You guys dismissed it entirely. Hey... whatever makes you sleep better at night.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

I didn't mean my question to imply that the religions are "wrong" or "bad" because they are cults & sects, I was just asking if they are. I honestly don't have any kind of knowledge regarding the amount and size of all the different churches/religions/cults/sects in the US.

Oh. The best I can find at short notice when looking for US census data:

http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/US_2000.asp
(the association of religious data archives, this is the latest data available on their site)

an overview from adherents.com (not sure how reliable this is)
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html

And an ARDA geografical map for 2007, with the option to select per congregation:
http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/maps/Ardamap.asp?GRP=1&map1=621


from that arda 2000 report:

Seventh-day Adventist Church Evangelical Protestant 4,507 923,046

So that's 4,507 congregations and 923,046 adherents at that time (2000).

Totals:

Totals (Unadjusted)*: 268,240 141,364,420
Total (Adjusted)**: 176,477,348

The population of the United States in 1990 was 248,709,766; in 2000 it was 281,421,839. The total population changed 13.2%. The unadjusted adherent totals of the religious groups listed above (141,364,420) include 50.2% of the total population in 2000. The adjusted total adherents (176,477,348) include 62.7% of the population.

So basically SDA is 0,3% of the total population.

However, if we put it against Catholic adherents, it's 1/60 of the total number of Catholics, which is 62,035,042. Catholics may be a better point of reference since they are not registered as splintered into various churches.



I think it's safe to say it's not a small cult, but a rather sizable church when compared to all possible churches in the US. It still is one the smaller ones when compared to the bigger churches however.

And muslims as a group are only slighty bigger than SDA in 2000 (1,5 million versus ~1 million), which might give something a bit less abstract to imagine.

 

[Mengy]

I might have missed it, but did you ever say if you see a future and a family with her?

I never said, but yeah I see her and I together for the long haul. We disagree on things but we are open about it and discuss them like adults, so it hasn't bothered me as much as I thought it would (before her).

We've talked about the possibility of kids too. I know a lot of people in this thread have stated that kids are a good reason to break up with her. I disagree. Her and I have decided that if we ever do have kids we will teach them both of our beliefs, that mommy and daddy do not believe the same things, and that many people in the world have many different ways of looking at things. Her and I have also agreed that we would let our kids make their own choices as to what they want to believe and respect them no matter what they choose to think.

Don't know how well that would work out in reality, but I do like the sound of it.

 

[marrec]

Indeed, you guys ARE predictable, and no it's not a persecution complex. It's a logical fallacy to dismiss data gathered from scientific non-creation reports, because it was cited by a creationist website. I didn't cite their conclusions. I cited the data that they cited. You guys dismissed it entirely. Hey... whatever makes you sleep better at night.

You have no idea what a logical fallacy is do you?

Besides, I didn't dismiss it outright, I dismissed it because I could not source it. I also dismissed it because it was older data collected by a process that has since improved. You can't just throw out data and expect us to accept the data as usable for a basis of changing our stance on the processes of dating the earth. My stance is based on hundreds of years of scientific data that is proven time and again to be as accurate as our technology allows.

Your stance is based on an Argument from Ignorance.

Besides, Science tells me I win, so why would I dismiss science?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Don't know how well that would work out in reality, but I do like the sound of it.

It could work. It could blow up in your face. Who knows? For what it's worth, I certainly don't think it's impossible for this kind of thing to work. I think it's entirely likely that the grand experiment won't go as smoothly as you think, but then again I personally think that if disagreement about religion is the biggest source of friction in your relationship, you're probably doing just fine.

 

[Tawpgun]

Out of curiousity, what is the best evidence for a young earth?

I kind of want to know why they believe carbon dating is a sham.

 

[VanWinkle]

The issue is less to do with a specific dispute over the age of the Earth and more to do with the fact that a partner being able to hold a completely irrational view despite everything pointing to the contrary doesn't bode well for other situations that may arise.

Okay, so these same people also won't date somebody who believes in ghosts or places being haunted, right? Because about a third of Americans do, and I don't really ever hear anything about that. (Of course, I'm not saying that as a supposed trap but rather an actual inquiry.)

 

[WrikaWrek]

Out of curiousity, what is the best evidence for a young earth?

I kind of want to know why they believe carbon dating is a sham.

The Bible. Written by men (little caveat), BUT (this is the whole sell) they were inspired directly by God.

Unfortunately it seems, God stopped inspiring men around the time we invented psychology and stuff.

 

[Sanky Panky]

You have no idea what a logical fallacy is do you?

I know perfectly well what an ad hominem fallacy is.

Besides, I didn't dismiss it outright, I dismissed it because I could not source it. I also dismissed it because it was older data collected by a process that has since improved. You can't just throw out data and expect us to accept the data as usable for a basis of changing our stance on the processes of dating the earth. My stance is based on hundreds of years of scientific data that is proven time and again to be as accurate as our technology allows.

So are you ready to dismiss all previous findings that used the same process and same tools because they "have since improved"? Talk about cherry picking. I'm not trying change your stance or your beliefs. I would think it would be helpful if people stop erroneously believing that any data has "proven" ANYTHING, and that science is sooooo accurate on their assumptions (they are not).

Moreover, someone should check up on their definitions. I'm not citing a lack of evidence to support anything. I'm making sure that we include ALL evidence to re-check our assumptions.

 

[Orayn]

Okay, so these same people also won't date somebody who believes in ghosts or places being haunted, right? Because about a third of Americans do, and I don't really ever hear anything about that. (Of course, I'm not saying that as a supposed trap but rather an actual inquiry.)

I wouldn't. It says so on my OKCupid page.

 

[Gustav]

Okay, so these same people also won't date somebody who believes in ghosts or places being haunted, right? Because about a third of Americans do, and I don't really ever hear anything about that. (Of course, I'm not saying that as a supposed trap but rather an actual inquiry.)

No, I wouldn't. Same goes for people who believe in homeopathy or astrology.

 

[marrec]

I know perfectly well what an ad hominem fallacy is.

You have practiced said fallacy enough in this thread.

So are you ready to dismiss all previous findings that used the same process and same tools because they "have since improved"? Talk about cherry picking. I'm not trying change your stance or your beliefs. I would think it would be helpful if people stop erroneously believing that any data has "proven" ANYTHING, and that science is sooooo accurate on their assumptions (they are not).

Moreover, someone should check up on their definitions. I'm not citing a lack of evidence to support anything. I'm making sure that we include ALL evidence to re-check our assumptions.

Can we get down to the root of your argument. I want to understand exactly what you're asking. Are you asking us to call into question hundreds of years of scientific study because a handful of unsourced articles have a bit of a discrepancy in their math? Or are you citing the Creation Scientists to say that 'You can't trust Science blindly MAN!'

As it is, I never said I'd dismiss all previous findings. Just ones that are clearly out of calibration with our current methods. Scientists can be wrong. It's happened in the past. You seem to think that posting one set of possibly erroneous studies proves that all of science is wrong.

 

[crazy monkey]

A method is not unreliable because it is capable of generating erroneous results when used improperly.

Do you think this image casts doubt on the reliability of algebra?

A-B= 0 so in forth line it will be 0=0 which is correct.

After that line everything is wrong.

 

[Orayn]

A-B= 0 so in forth line it will be 0=0 which is correct.

After that line everything is wrong.

That's the point. The end result is faulty because the process includes a mistake, just like the supposedly controversial findings that Sanky won't shut up about. Although, according to him, I only have issues with the above graph because I have blind faith in 1=1 and am displaying ignorance for disregarding the conclusion of 1=2.

 

[Kinitari]

That's just what it is- rhetoric. There hasn't been a policy change that has impacted science. It wouldn't even if Santorum is elected which he won't be.

The closest issue has been stem cell research and that was a moral dilemna instead of a scientific one and it was never in danger to begin with. Of course this has nothing to do with the one issue being discussed in the thread (All due respect, that is the entire point).

Nothing on a federal level - but there was a recent policy change to add a little sticker to the front of a bunch of science books in some southern district that says "Evolution is just a theory, and should be taken as such". And that ignores the effects of having political figures like presidential candidates spew anti-science rhetoric - these men do not live separate from society without having any impact on them. When a political leader speaks up in that way, it legitimises the thought process. There is issue, and that's enough reason to give pause for those who want critical thought and scientific enquiry to be at the forefront of a societies growth.

No one is saying you shouldn't speak up. There is a big difference between speaking up and educating and equating that with extinguishing a danger that is non-existent. So go ahead and try to convince people of your POV. There's just no reason to then add "If they can't be convinced than the world is doomed" which often seems to be the view of some very paranoid people on Gaf. That's a major exageration. It started out white washed. It can't help it. Again, & I ask this in just about every thread this topic comes up, what are you being denied of outside of intelligent conversation with all just because someone is a YEC, a Bible believer, a Koran follower, a non atheist? It's only a controversy because you want it to be.

I'm sure some people are super duper paranoid about the possible consequences, but that's neither here nor there - what's important is that they feel that there needs to be that challenge, that pursuit of critical thought. And like I said before, being a YEC is simply a symptom of a much larger problem - someone who outright has the capability to deny a fact that has a very real impact on society as a whole (evolutionary biology is extremely useful for society) - you don't wait until the masses feel the same way and one day eventually decide that passing state or federal legislation that diminishes it's position to be worried - you start worrying when there are enough people who spread the rhetoric to begin with.

It's dangerous, and it's something that people are actively fighting against - that sticker I mentioned earlier is being removed from tons of textbooks - and that's specifically because plenty of people are suddenly also aware of the danger.

The majority of Americans at least have figured out a way to believe in God and tolerate their science exams that are God free. If you can't accept that compromise, then you go to far in your demands.

What do you think my demands are? I don't really have any - my goal isn't to get the majority to toe the line and then leave it as it is - my goal is to challenge those who misunderstand things like evolution theory, to debate against those who are stubborn in their dismissiveness, to highlight the problems with dismissing these theories (gene therapy people) - and to foster a more positive attitude toward science. I don't care if the world is functional the way it is, it's not the world I want and not the one I would pursue.

 

[JGS]

Don't know how well that would work out in reality, but I do like the sound of it.

It rarely matters once you can no longer force them to do things. in reality, they accept a belief based on what they want to do or what's most important to them and they will have both sides of the coin.

With that said, I personally think it's a bad idea for a faithful person and a non-faithful person to marry and have kids since the beliefs will be enhanced once all of that romantic stuff drops down in the rankings. This includes two religious people of completely different faiths. If the believing spouse isn't all that religious, then it doesn't matter at all. however, there is always the possibility of re-getting religious.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

That's just what it is- rhetoric. There hasn't been a policy change that has impacted science. It wouldn't even if Santorum is elected which he won't be.

The closest issue has been stem cell research and that was a moral dilemna instead of a scientific one and it was never in danger to begin with. Of course this has nothing to do with the one issue being discussed in the thread (All due respect, that is the entire point).

Actually, the worst possible decisions governments take related to science are those when they just make a decision without looking at the evidence or allowing lobby groups to dominate.

Certain changes in the law on lobbying would of course make it all a lot worse and effectively boot science from politics altogether. So there really is a whole lot of damage that any president (and other public managers) can do without seeming to be or do things anti-scientific.

Bush Jr. was really quite awful in this regard.

The majority of Americans at least have figured out a way to believe in God and tolerate their science exams that are God free. If you can't accept that compromise, then you go to far in your demands.

Agreed, but you should also take into account that the particular type of god and other categories factor in to when and how certain findings will clash with facts and theories provided by science. It may just be my impression, but it seems to me that Americans think a lot more in somatic terms. Meaning that they think in discrete, physical existing entities: god, devil, angels, and so on. Those some entities are taken as symbolic in Western Europe (I wanted to say Europe as a whole, but I can't speak for orthodox Catholics in Eastern Europe).

 

[twobear]

That's the point. The end result is faulty because the process includes a mistake, just like the supposedly controversial findings that Sanky won't shut up about. Although, according to him, I only have issues with the above graph because I have blind faith in 1=1 and am displaying ignorance for disregarding the conclusion of 1=2.

it's not really the same thing, though, because the truths of mathematical statements aren't ascertained by the collection of large amounts of evidence

 

[Sargel]

How does she feel about The Man from Earth?

 

[marrec]

How does she feel about The Man from Earth?

I think the better question is if she thinks Encino Man is blasphemy.

I mean, for religious reasons.

 

[Kinitari]

JGS, to specifically say that there is no effect of these ideologies on society - or legislation is to ignore this entire wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education_in_the_United_States

I think the better question is if she thinks Encino Man is blasphemy.

I mean, for religious reasons.

I used to have a book when I was like 7 or 8 that talked about evolution, even the evolution of man. My mom got it for me, and I used to love reading it - I remember on the page that showed primitive hominids, there were these ape-people with boobies showing and I giggled every time I saw them. Unfortunately that's mostly what I remember, I would kill to find that book again.

 

[CornBurrito]

I wouldn't. It says so on my OKCupid page.

Not related to the thread, but you have an OKCupid page?

 

[KillGore]

OP, I've never read such a long post, but I read all of it, that's how well it's written and how interesting it is to me.

Anyways, I somewhat know what you're going through as I was placed in a 7th day Adventist school, for 13 years. Everything you've mentioned, I saw it too, in teachers, principal and students. They would "brainwash" us every semester, giving us a "praying week" where religious leaders would come and show us how everything is evil, showing us how if you listen to the pokemon song backwards, it would have a message from Satan. They would show us what some cartoons were "representing" in a certain scene, usually related to the devil. They would bring "young" and "hip" religious leaders and speakers so we could identify ourselves. They told us that if we fainted it meant that the devil was trying to grab control of us, so you can imagine the hell that would break loose if a student fainted. They would teach us their own version of science, skipping chapters, adding religious stuff into it. They would take us to "field" trips to their churches and religious retreats. Once I graduated, they offered me $5,000 to study in college, but would only be usable in the Adventist College. They only oriented us about their college and wouldn't allow us to go to other Universities to see how it was, at least not part of a school trip. I obviously declined the $5,000 and went to the state university. My eyes were open by that time and now I look back and I feel sadness and anger for that place, for being there for 13 years....

Tell her Jesus appeared before you and urged ya'll to try anal.

I lol'ed. Thank you for that

 

[Joni]

The difference is that the scientists' work is peer-reviewed by other scientists and then further scrutinized by the readers of the journal it is published in. Since you can't be an expert in all subjects, it is reasonable to have trust in the majority of scientists. This is not the same as having blind faith.

Trusting scientists and trusting them without critical thought is not the same. You read them, you look at the things that seem strange and you investigate. Then you can trust them. And in the end, it has happened before. Scienticific journals have published things that turned out to be bullshit. And at one time a lot of scientists had facts the Earth was flat. We're lucky one of those people read it and said 'mmm, that doesn't sound right'. Should he have said 'No, a lot of scientists say otherwise, so I'm probably wrong?'

So while you should be critical of scientific facts and not accept them totally blindly, you should probably accept the scientific version if you are not knowledgeable on the field. After all, it has been reviewed time and again by lots of very smart and educated people. If you come up with opposing ideas, read up on it. It is very likely that it has already been covered somewhere.
t.

The last thing is the smart thing to do. At least is what each of my physics professors told me.