Bible study rules for public schools proposed

[Quantummist]

Yiago wrote:

<quoted text>
And I love it when Fundies use these facts to say "Science isn't 100% true, therefore GOD EXISTS!" as if that is even a remotely sound argument.
It is great fun to spot logical fallacies in these debates. I'm probably guilty of committing a few of them myself, but the Fundies are world-class champions in the art of getting arguments completely wrong.

I agree.. but that same mind set of "Science isn't 100% true, therefore GOD EXISTS!" is never taken when it's on the other foot... They tend to set aside those beliefs that can be by evidence shown just silly and rationalize their absolute correctness. But many in science do the exact same thing. Many in science become blinded to concepts that may poke holes in their conscience dogma, so much so that they not only will not consider a view but actively attempt to discredit those that propose such...

[Quantummist]

Dr Moonshine wrote:

<quoted text>
Star goes boom. Gravity shrivels star poop into a ball. Other poops from other stars bomboard the big poop. Random poop matter mash and react with one another until it randomly turns into other shit. The shit gets stirred and forms amino acids. Amino acids takes an acid trip and blah blah blah blah....

Nothing random about it... Due to em wave interaction matter, and the inverse tensor aspect of the quantum state, will always self assemble into ever more complex forms...

[Hu Wan]

Yiago wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with this almost entirely. But that last bit is not quite right.
Science cannot prove that a god does not exist. But the Biblical account of creation is pretty specific and every fact we know about the universe contradicts it.
That gives us a pretty high degree of confidence that the Bible story of creation is not fact, but fiction.
Compare it to the way we used to believe that there was a tangible substance called ether between objects in space. Our evidence was limited at the time and so belief in that theory was reasonable for a while. But now we know better. We have no evidence that things float around in ether.
How many people would be willing to argue that science cannot disprove the ethereal theory of space?
Other than that, your post is fair. I would say that an accepted scientific theory is much more robust than an educated guess, but on the whole I agree with you. Math is true because it is deductive, it relies only on the internal consistency of it's structure. Science is inductive, relying on various tools of reason to arrive at the most probable picture of reality based on the best available evidence related to that picture.

You have disagreed with nothing I wrote.

Hu Wan

[Hu Wan]

Quantummist wrote:

<quoted text>
Nothing random about it... Due to em wave interaction matter, and the inverse tensor aspect of the quantum state, will always self assemble into ever more complex forms...

In a parallel universe, you oppose teasing through confusing and patiently teach quantum physics and brane theory to enlighten.

Hu Wan

[Hell Sucks]

Quantummist wrote:

<quoted text>
Yea ..that's it...

I just love it when we agree!!

;o~

[Yiago]

Quantummist wrote:

<quoted text>I can see Suggestions of colonization in physical evidence but due to our present understanding of the physics it would require we first finding a Verifiable method of faster than c travel. I think I am on the right track to show how that can be done in the postulate I wrote but until someone finds a way to test it, It doesn't seem possible.

As for the philosophy of induction it just that IMHO... Philosophy,
Along the lines of believing. Many will see Believing as the same as Thinking they Know something. Induction in science is navel gazing for a base to hold close and give impetus to further study to validate a preconceived notion. I agree with Feynman on it and do not think that there should be any consideration of preconceptions when seeking Facts.. It has though been a major flaw in our quest as human kind for facts. It allows for a New idea to be set aside and pilloried if it goes afield of consciences...

A good example is tool marks on old stones and dating of stone works, or Man Made global warming... The concept of Induction allows the setting aside of ideas that do not fit existing dogma. And history is replete with dogma that is later to be found just plain wrong.

So my view is that only evidence should be the guide in science and that evidence should be considered even if it is totally outside the constraints of any particular field of study. Physics should consider any evidence that survives the scientific method from the metaphysical, Archeology should consider any evidence that survives the scientific method from Geology and vice versa... To paraphrase Feynman... Science needs induction like a frog needs a bicycle... The other side would say if the frog could use the bicycle it would absolutely need it..

Hmm, I admire Feynman greatly but it seems induction is how science IS done. Deduction is insulated from reality, induction is a way to make sense of it. Unless you have a direct line to god, that is.

[Yiago]

Quantummist wrote:

<quoted text>I agree.. but that same mind set of "Science isn't 100% true, therefore GOD EXISTS!" is never taken when it's on the other foot... They tend to set aside those beliefs that can be by evidence shown just silly and rationalize their absolute correctness. But many in science do the exact same thing. Many in science become blinded to concepts that may poke holes in their conscience dogma, so much so that they not only will not consider a view but actively attempt to discredit those that propose such...

Sure there are always turds in the punch bowl. Science is a human construct and prone to bias. But it also has the best filtering tools to remove bias, so we go with it.

[Yiago]

Hu Wan wrote:

<quoted text>You have disagreed with nothing I wrote.

Hu Wan

I took a slightly different tone to fill in the gray a bit.

[Quantummist]

Hu Wan wrote:

<quoted text>
In a parallel universe, you oppose teasing through confusing and patiently teach quantum physics and brane theory to enlighten.
Hu Wan

No Evidence of any of the above... So I fall back to the Mays's Axiom's...

1) There are no infinities... are but illusion that occurs when mathematical constructs fail due to scale...
2) There are no paradox's ... Are but a mental construct in the absence of all known rules....
3) All observed constants in nature are variable... but on such scales as to be undetectable as varing from the limited scale of observation of the observer...
4) Man knows far less than he knows he knows....
5) Physical Laws apply whether or not man has symbolically defined it.....
a) Mathematical symbolism is not the event its describes...
b) All physical aspects will occur in the universe whether we recognize it or model it... or even if we cease to exist...

Science has no idea of the Cause of Gravity so we are missing the mathematical rules to insert into our mathematical models so without those causation rules we have to Assume to make the models fit the observed.. Things like the Hubble or Plank constants are Assumed and inserted into the maths and in doing so the formulas become intrinsically flawed from the start. In order for a mental construct of the universe to fit there then must be added extra dimensions that are not evidenced.

Evidence shows only 4 dim's...3 physical and 1 ethereal... Only when all rules are not known do we navel gaze on that which their is no evidence....

[Hu Wan]

Quantummist wrote:

<quoted text>
No Evidence of any of the above... So I fall back to the Mays's Axiom's...
1) There are no infinities... are but illusion that occurs when mathematical constructs fail due to scale...
2) There are no paradox's ... Are but a mental construct in the absence of all known rules....
3) All observed constants in nature are variable... but on such scales as to be undetectable as varing from the limited scale of observation of the observer...
4) Man knows far less than he knows he knows....
5) Physical Laws apply whether or not man has symbolically defined it.....
a) Mathematical symbolism is not the event its describes...
b) All physical aspects will occur in the universe whether we recognize it or model it... or even if we cease to exist...
Science has no idea of the Cause of Gravity so we are missing the mathematical rules to insert into our mathematical models so without those causation rules we have to Assume to make the models fit the observed.. Things like the Hubble or Plank constants are Assumed and inserted into the maths and in doing so the formulas become intrinsically flawed from the start. In order for a mental construct of the universe to fit there then must be added extra dimensions that are not evidenced.
Evidence shows only 4 dim's...3 physical and 1 ethereal... Only when all rules are not known do we navel gaze on that which their is no evidence....

OK
Hu Wan

[Quantummist]

Yiago wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmm, I admire Feynman greatly but it seems induction is how science IS done. Deduction is insulated from reality, induction is a way to make sense of it. Unless you have a direct line to god, that is.

How Science Is done does not equate to how it Should be done...

Reality is perception of the observed and is not necessarily factual.. I contend that We are connected to that which we observe by the Quantum State. So we have an intrinsic bias that causes us to perceive as real that which is not physical... Like duality of a particle/wave... Depending on our method of observation we perceive a wave or a real touchy feely ball of stuff... The concept of induction allows for setting aside that which does not fit the perceived reality even if such reality is nebulous at best.

For an example the Einsteinian or Maxwellian concepts of an ether, I summit as flawed due to induction where it is based on the perception of a fluid type construct. This leads to attempts to test via drag and when drag is excluded then it is non real and ignored... Now ignore the inductive ideology and give those constructs a deductive only review and the ether becomes a connective inverse tensor field and Drag is taken off the table...

http://b.pcc3.fubar.com/16/96/1186961/3048103...

[Quantummist]

Yiago wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure there are always turds in the punch bowl. Science is a human construct and prone to bias. But it also has the best filtering tools to remove bias, so we go with it.

There is Bias and there is Intrinsic Bias... One you can build tools to filter one is included in every tool you build to filter...

[The truth sets you free]

By whose authority did the translators of the King James Version take the name of God JEHOVAH out of his own book over 7,000 times?

Second would you please list the translators of the King James Version so everyone can check their creditability!

Third Why is it called a 'Version' instead of a translation?

If you can truthfully answer those questions for this post it would be greately appreciated. Please don't side step with more deception!
THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE!

[Believer]

The Law wrote:

look folks. kids need to learn about evolution discovered by charles darwin which is a fact not an opinion and the big bang theory. they need learn science not superstition. religion can be taught in the aspect of history and how many wars were started due to religion and parts of the bible as literature. there are many differents types of religion. you have the bible in which constatine decided which gospels would be entered and they can also study the koran and theres catholics. and many others who have fought and died in the name of god. the students only need to study religion as a part of history. thats it.

“they need learn science not superstition”
You say scientists has all the answers, well they gave us Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons, enough to kill every person on the planet, so how great is science.

[Quantummist]

Believer wrote:

<quoted text>
“they need learn science not superstition”
You say scientists has all the answers, well they gave us Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons, enough to kill every person on the planet, so how great is science.

They gave us Nuclear that was used by Non Scientist to kill a few hundred thousand, but was used by Scientist to save Millions of lives...

They Gave us Biologicals that have been used by non scientists to kill but used by scientist to save lives every day...

Scientist gave us Chemical Weapons used by non scientist to kill but the same chemical compositions gave us fertilizers and compounds that allow for the expansion of human kind...

Scientist do not push the buttons, fly the weapons, pull the triggers... That's in general done by the Believers...

[The truth sets you free]

Quantummist wrote:

<quoted text>
They gave us Nuclear that was used by Non Scientist to kill a few hundred thousand, but was used by Scientist to save Millions of lives...
They Gave us Biologicals that have been used by non scientists to kill but used by scientist to save lives every day...
Scientist gave us Chemical Weapons used by non scientist to kill but the same chemical compositions gave us fertilizers and compounds that allow for the expansion of human kind...
Scientist do not push the buttons, fly the weapons, pull the triggers... That's in general done by the Believers...

So it is OK to kill millions as long as you can save a few?

[Believer]

The truth sets you free wrote:

<quoted text>
So it is OK to kill millions as long as you can save a few?

Well said.

[Quantummist]

The truth sets you free wrote:

<quoted text>
So it is OK to kill millions as long as you can save a few?

Are we having a reading is fundamental moment? I explained it Clearly in the reply.... If you cannot understand what I wrote the issue is yours not mine...

[Satanic Priest]

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&am...

This is why church people want to "teach" children. 17,000,000 results for a Google search "youth minister sex children" is more than a few isolated people and tells us what church people really want!

[Quantummist]

Believer wrote:

<quoted text>
Well said.

Really? It was ludicrous and is not even close to what I replied... And you think because he completely missed what I wrote and asked a ignorant question concerning what I wrote, he said it well... Really?