"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 51927 comments on the Examiner.com story from Jan 22, 2012, titled "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think". In it, Examiner.com reports that:

It is fascinating to note that atheists boast that most scientists are atheists.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#1670 Apr 10, 2012
Chimney one wrote:
The only problem is that evolutionary scientists are measuring the distance we are away from other planets. All that proves is that other planets are moving away from us, while at the same time, scientists have claimed that galaxies have collided, which would mean that the universe is contracting, according to what science infers about red shift.
Nope. That's incorrect.

Two things which are moving away from you can also collide with one another.

Stand on the highway. Cars pass you. They are moving away from you. One of them drifts into another lane of sideswipes a car. They have collided.

If the Universe were contracting EVERYTHING would be getting CLOSER to us. That's not happening. The opposite is happening.
So how many morons believe red shift proves that space is expanding?
Speak up morons.
You don't even know what red shift is.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#1671 Apr 10, 2012
Chimney one wrote:
I treat those of you like morons, because of how you treated me. Had you been civil, I would have made my point without the moron part.
I'm sure things like this will keep coming up.
Actually, douchebag. You started it.

Case in point: Your name.

But, like every Christian Creationist, you blame all your flaws on others. Pretty typical.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#1672 Apr 10, 2012
Chimney one wrote:
It also proves Hubble and Einstein were idiots at times, just as all the evolutionary scientists and you evolutionary morons here.
This statement doesn't make any sense.

I'd bother to explain, but honestly, I don't think you have the education necessary to grasp even the simplest concepts.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1673 Apr 10, 2012
Chimney one AKA The Pet Monkey wrote:
This will become common knowledge and science will be challenged onanistic fronts, until science takes down that claim. It only needs one person to pass on to the next and the next and so on.
Everybody wants to be seen as stumping their teachers and especially, supposed great scientists.
Some mothers and dads here will coach their kids in this, for the attention and hopefully a scholarship.
Time tells all.
Onanism is your favourite pastime.
Mugwump

London, UK

#1674 Apr 10, 2012
Now that polymath has spent far more patience educating Jimbo (and others including me) on the red shift shenanigans

And virtually everyone has explained how colliding galaxies are not mutually exclusive with spatial expansion...

Jimbo should have enough info (or at least some relevant questions) to back up his point
Chimney one wrote:
I'd rather they argue it here and if i am wrong, they will get to prove it. Of course they will not answer, because what is claimed is seriously flawed.
.
Specifically - how what polymath (patience of a saint) and others have explained is seriously flawed

I can see 4 responses

1) ask meaningful questions - odds 1000-1
2) admit he was wrong - odds 300-1
3) state the same thing over again , ignoring everything thus said - odds 25-1
4) ignore the fact that he has been whupped and change subject - 10-1

As always I am running a book - accept all donations (sorry wagers), dollars and sterling accepted - no euros

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

#1675 Apr 10, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
Now that polymath has spent far more patience educating Jimbo (and others including me) on the red shift shenanigans
And virtually everyone has explained how colliding galaxies are not mutually exclusive with spatial expansion...
Jimbo should have enough info (or at least some relevant questions) to back up his point
<quoted text>
Specifically - how what polymath (patience of a saint) and others have explained is seriously flawed
I can see 4 responses
1) ask meaningful questions - odds 1000-1
2) admit he was wrong - odds 300-1
3) state the same thing over again , ignoring everything thus said - odds 25-1
4) ignore the fact that he has been whupped and change subject - 10-1
As always I am running a book - accept all donations (sorry wagers), dollars and sterling accepted - no euros
Pin him one particular question, and he will quickly change subject. That is a 100% probability

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1676 Apr 10, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
Now that polymath has spent far more patience educating Jimbo (and others including me) on the red shift shenanigans
And virtually everyone has explained how colliding galaxies are not mutually exclusive with spatial expansion...
Jimbo should have enough info (or at least some relevant questions) to back up his point
<quoted text>
Specifically - how what polymath (patience of a saint) and others have explained is seriously flawed
I can see 4 responses
1) ask meaningful questions - odds 1000-1
2) admit he was wrong - odds 300-1
3) state the same thing over again , ignoring everything thus said - odds 25-1
4) ignore the fact that he has been whupped and change subject - 10-1
As always I am running a book - accept all donations (sorry wagers), dollars and sterling accepted - no euros
I have written countless patient and even polite posts to Jimbo Carpet Moron over the last two years. I even went back to being polite countless times after his numerous defecations all over this forum.

I have no more time for him. Abuse is all he deserves.
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#1677 Apr 10, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
You don't even know what red shift is.
It's when Knight Rider puts the gearbox to super-duper fast, right?
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#1678 Apr 10, 2012
rpk58 wrote:
<quoted text>
Pin him one particular question, and he will quickly change subject. That is a 100% probability
I think you missed a couple'o zeroes.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1679 Apr 10, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Andromeda isn't the only galaxy blue shifted there are over thirty in the local group and about 100 that have zero velocity or orbit galaxy's
in it. But when compared to the millions red shifted the number is infinitely small for objects in a similar trajectory. I'm sure you knew this though.
I was limiting to other large galaxies. There are several smaller galaxies in orbit, but even in the local group most are moving away from us.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1680 Apr 10, 2012
CTEd wrote:
<quoted text>
We do. Thet was a good explanation of red shift and differences. It's "Dark energy" that is responsible for the fact that galaxies that are father apart are moving away from each other at a faster rate rather than at a decreasing rate, correct?
There is some ambiguity in the question.

First, as we move farther away, the galaxies are moving faster away from us. That is NOT due to dark energy, but is simply an aspect of the overall expansion being the same everywhere.

HOWEVER, there is also a change in the rate of expansion over time. if you take a galaxy that is now 100 million light years away and moving at 2000 kilometers per second, you can ask how fast it was moving away from us 2 billion years ago. In other words, we wan to know the acceleration, not just the speed. Gravity alone would tend to slow things down because it is an attractive force. But it turns out that the expansion rate is actually accelerating over time. THAT is due to dark energy.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#1681 Apr 10, 2012
Chimney one wrote:
I treat those of you like morons, because of how you treated me. Had you been civil, I would have made my point without the moron part.
I'm sure things like this will keep coming up.
Posing as another poster is your definition of 'civil'?

----------
TVtropes shirt "For Science" now available for pre-order:
http://discordmerch.com/index.php...

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#1682 Apr 10, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was limiting to other large galaxies. There are several smaller galaxies in orbit, but even in the local group most are moving away from us.
The local group appears to be part of a super cluster , or a atom if you will.
Chimney one

United States

#1683 Apr 10, 2012
The children here still won't learn, but hey, not a problem.

They don't seem to realize that if we are taking pics of planets and pronounce that space is expanding, when they cannot prove that space is not infinite, not can they prove that space is infinite, they have no proof what so ever. It's all BS.
They make the red shift claim on behalf of the big bang and evolution .
Mugwump

London, UK

#1684 Apr 10, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have written countless patient and even polite posts to Jimbo Carpet Moron over the last two years. I even went back to being polite countless times after his numerous defecations all over this forum.
I have no more time for him. Abuse is all he deserves.
Yeah - suspect I am going the same way - I genuinely tried to engage him politely initially but he descends into abusive lunacy sooooooo quickly
It's a shame as he has a habit of destroying threads for a while until he gets bored - and we can all learn new stuff

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#1685 Apr 10, 2012
Chimney one wrote:
They don't seem to realize that if we are taking pics of planets and pronounce that space is expanding
Taking pictures of planets has nothing to do with whether or not the Universe is expanding.
Mugwump

London, UK

#1686 Apr 10, 2012
Chimney one wrote:
The children here still won't learn, but hey, not a problem.
They don't seem to realize that if we are taking pics of planets and pronounce that space is expanding, when they cannot prove that space is not infinite, not can they prove that space is infinite, they have no proof what so ever. It's all BS.
They make the red shift claim on behalf of the big bang and evolution .
So point out why anything poly said is wrong
Or why the explainations of why galaxies can collide in an expanding universe is wrong

In other words back up YOUR claim That the above is 'seriously flawed'
Chimney one wrote:
I'd rather they argue it here and if i am wrong, they will get to prove it. Of course they will not answer, because what is claimed is seriously flawed.
.
If you ar'nt able to do this why don't you (in the words of the Bard)...

P&@s off you pointless, abusive , mentally challenged, childish douchbag
Chimney one

United States

#1687 Apr 10, 2012
Tired. Looking thru telescope with special filters to see different colors of light.

“The King of R&R”

Level 1

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#1688 Apr 10, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Most obviously size and coloration.
We have cockroaches in amber. They are clearly cockroaches, but aren't members of any current species.
Science is also able to modify fruit flies in but a few generations by adding luminous jellyfish genes; the resultant fruit flies glow in the dark. Amazing. No question they could make the human animal glow also... But we already have that don't we!!!!! LOL!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#1689 Apr 10, 2012
Chimney one wrote:
The children here still won't learn, but hey, not a problem.
They don't seem to realize that if we are taking pics of planets and pronounce that space is expanding, when they cannot prove that space is not infinite, not can they prove that space is infinite, they have no proof what so ever. It's all BS.
They make the red shift claim on behalf of the big bang and evolution .
Like you understand any of it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 min scientia potentia... 157,548
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 min scientia potentia... 24,758
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min scientia potentia... 218,787
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 22 hr scientia potentia... 98
News Darwin's Doubt: Giving a Case for Intelligent D... 22 hr scientia potentia... 1
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) Thu Dogen 1,137
The Fossil Record Does Not Support The Theory O... Wed scientia potentia... 48
More from around the web