Don't dictate beliefs

Don't dictate beliefs

There are 11176 comments on the The Star Press story from Sep 5, 2012, titled Don't dictate beliefs. In it, The Star Press reports that:

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Star Press.

Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10513 Jan 7, 2013
More massive titspeak from dick4cm.
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Put the Bible down?
What should I read in place of it - science mythology about evolution?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10514 Jan 7, 2013
Why isn't science “self-correcting”?

Unfortunately, science has some major catastrophes.

Will science get better or worse?

The included link from Sage Journals explains.

http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/6/645.full

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10516 Jan 7, 2013
Just how “self-correcting” is science?

Oh, the rate is about 1% to 1.5%, lol.

So the remaining 98% or 99% is unreliable?

I'm afraid so......

http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2012/12/just-ho...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10517 Jan 7, 2013
The included link is more on the 1% of “self-correcting” science!

The author explains why outsiders are so important, since we can't rely of science to find the errors.

http://blog.sethroberts.net/2010/09/06/is-sci...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10518 Jan 7, 2013
The scientific method is self correcting.
derek4 wrote:
Why isn't science “self-correcting”?
Unfortunately, science has some major catastrophes.
Will science get better or worse?
The included link from Sage Journals explains.
http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/6/645.full
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10519 Jan 7, 2013
The scientific method is self correcting.
derek4 wrote:
Just how “self-correcting” is science?
Oh, the rate is about 1% to 1.5%, lol.
So the remaining 98% or 99% is unreliable?
I'm afraid so......
http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2012/12/just-ho...
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10521 Jan 7, 2013
The scientific method is self correcting.
derek4 wrote:
The included link is more on the 1% of “self-correcting” science!
The author explains why outsiders are so important, since we can't rely of science to find the errors.
http://blog.sethroberts.net/2010/09/06/is-sci...
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10522 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You should probably start with a simple middle-school science text book so that you can understand what science really is (and isn't). Without this foundation you will continue to appear rather foolish anytime to comment on things you so clearly don't yet understand.
One of these maybe?

http://amasci.com/miscon/miscon.html

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10523 Jan 7, 2013
Thinking wrote:
The scientific method is self correcting.
<quoted text>
Right, all 1% of it.

At a whopping 1%, science corrects more of their errors than you do, lol.

The included link is more on the 1% of “self-correcting” science!

The author explains why outsiders are so important, since we can't rely of science to find the errors.

http://blog.sethroberts.net/2010/09/06/is-sci...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10524 Jan 7, 2013
Thinking wrote:
The scientific method is self correcting.
<quoted text>
Here we go again:

Right, all 1% of it.

At a whopping 1%, science corrects more of their errors than you do, lol.

The included link is more on the 1% of “self-correcting” science!

The author explains why outsiders are so important, since we can't rely of science to find the errors.

http://blog.sethroberts.net/2010/09/06/is-sci...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10525 Jan 7, 2013
Thinking wrote:
The scientific method is self correcting.
<quoted text>
Keep trying to convince yourself. Fraudulent science is all you've got. But long as it makes you happy - go for it.

LMAO
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10526 Jan 7, 2013
The scientific method is self correcting.
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, all 1% of it.
At a whopping 1%, science corrects more of their errors than you do, lol.
The included link is more on the 1% of “self-correcting” science!
The author explains why outsiders are so important, since we can't rely of science to find the errors.
http://blog.sethroberts.net/2010/09/06/is-sci...
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10527 Jan 7, 2013
derek4 wrote:
Just how “self-correcting” is science?
Oh, the rate is about 1% to 1.5%, lol.
So the remaining 98% or 99% is unreliable?
I'm afraid so......
http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2012/12/just-ho...
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
Way to conflate things. Since most christians are not in jail, then that means all christians are evil, by your own logic here.
KJV

United States

#10528 Jan 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Already this shows an incredible lack of understanding of the Big Bang model. It does NOT describe an explosion where matter is thrown outward from some center. It never has. Instead, it portrays an expansion of space itself with the matter and energy being carried along by the expansion of space.

[QUOTE](3) For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original big bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is “clumpy,” i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the big bang theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case."
https://m.christiancourier.com/articles/133-t...
"

This is very badly out of date. The anisotropies predicted by the Big bang theory were found in 1992. Since that time, they have been extensively studied and have confirmed and elucidated the Big Bang theory. In particular, the details of these anisotropies are consistent with the Big bang theory with cosmic inflation, with the recent WMAP data allowing predictions of the higher peaks in the anisotropies which were confirmed by ground-based observations. In particular, the amounts of dark energy, dark matter, baryonic matter, and energy from light *all* affect the positions of the peaks in the anisotropies and form a collection of data that is very unlikely to be consistent with any theory, but *are* consistent with the Big Bang.

My recommendation is to get your information from someone who knows cosmology and is not using out of date information.
Ok so what you're saying is a singularity that held all the matter of the universe just one day start to expand in a very controlled type of expansion.
Is this correct?
KJV

United States

#10529 Jan 7, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>Or you're to stupid to give one.
Bat boy explanation have been given.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10530 Jan 7, 2013
Straw man.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so what you're saying is a singularity that held all the matter of the universe just one day start to expand in a very controlled type of expansion.
Is this correct?
KJV

United States

#10531 Jan 7, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for sharing those pearls of wisdom.

You know, it wouldn't surprise me if there is some scientific research somewhere showing that chickens evolved from coins.
LOL

So if there was this prechicken coin
Is that what you should use at KFC to pay the bill?
KJV

United States

#10532 Jan 7, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>You must be too stupid to understand
Proper punctuation.[sic]
Must be
KJV

United States

#10533 Jan 7, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Straw man.
Sorry Tinkles I am asking a real question. Just trying to grasp which Big Bang we are looking at this time.

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so what you're saying is a singularity that held all the matter of the universe just one day start to expand in a very controlled type of expansion.
Is this correct?

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#10534 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you back on Pi?
You must be too stupid to understand
A proper explanation.
Wrong, longears - sorry, KJV.

Sorry, my mistake, you sound just like longears.

Truth be told, I'm laughing at your hypocrisy.

You have no problem accepting what the Bible says when it gives a period of six days for creation.

However you refuse to accept what the Bible says when it gives the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter as three.

Come on, wetpants, you can admit it...

There's no shame in admitting that you don't believe everything the Bible says.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 1 min John 577
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 3 min Eagle 12 396
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 min superwilly 258,466
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 41 min Science 69,768
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 55 min Subduction Zone 30,046
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 6 hr yehoshooah adam 3,768
News Atheism and cowardice (Nov '11) Mon Eagle 12 12,668
More from around the web