Comments
360,381 - 360,400 of 730,239 Comments Last updated 8 min ago

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372452
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Abscence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
Good to see you around, Buck.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372453
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Abscence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
A wise man once said that.
I think it was me, but not sure.
Speaking of things absent...the only one.
http://news.google.com/newspapers...
And evidence of absence is just that.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372454
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The testament of Solomon, And the book of Enoch.
Lend credence to the Babylonian creation myth.
And the possibility of intellect out there surpassing human.

But its so far past the written history, we just have guess. If There is it chooses to hide itself, to never be seen. But we keep looking trying to find the answers and missing pieces to the puzzle.

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372455
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LEICA LOOK wrote:
<quoted text>
"nothing can be proven true in science" this one. Coincidentally, one of my profs said just the opposite only this afternoon. That is why I am asking.
To say something is proven true is to say that it is an absolute truth and beyond question. There may always be information we do not currently have access to that will disprove or at the very least change our theories, so nothing in science can be an absolute truth, and therefore cannot be proven true.
In other words, there could always be other variables that we are not accounting for in our models because we have not discovered them yet.

The issue regarding quasi-crystals is a good example.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
Another is how the largely accepted "plum pudding" model of atoms was dis-proven.

I wish I could find it, but berkley university has an excellent article on the matter. This one doesn't seem to be too bad, but I haven't read the whole thing.
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/~korpela/astro...

I wouldn't go bucking your professor on the matter, though. Regardless of whether he is right or wrong, he controls your grade.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372456
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not a fact. I suggest you look up the definition of what is a "scientific fact."
Evolution certainly fits the definition of "scientific fact".

Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

That is scientific fact.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372457
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
All personal experiences are reproducible, huh? That's an interesting statement.
I work as a chemical analyst. Even in the lab, we occasionally run into an instance where something happens, we get an unusual result, and it isn't reproducible (largely because we cannot track down what caused them). It happens. Sometimes, things simply aren't reproducible.
In ones personal life, particularly in certain matters, many experiences are not reproducible. It is left up to ones interpretation and personal conclusion. However, the argument here is that my conclusion must be wrong because my experiences aren't reproducible. All I have argued is that this is illogical.
You are assuming that I start with an answer.
Anything you can attribute to a god, science can find the real cause of. If it's an attainable goal, science will eventually figure it out. If we can't find the answers, after looking for a long time, we don't just say goddidit. This is illogical. It is far better to be ignorant than wrong.

What are your religious beliefs? Did you divulge that information already?

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372458
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
All personal experiences are reproducible, huh? That's an interesting statement.
I work as a chemical analyst. Even in the lab, we occasionally run into an instance where something happens, we get an unusual result, and it isn't reproducible (largely because we cannot track down what caused them). It happens. Sometimes, things simply aren't reproducible.
In ones personal life, particularly in certain matters, many experiences are not reproducible. It is left up to ones interpretation and personal conclusion. However, the argument here is that my conclusion must be wrong because my experiences aren't reproducible. All I have argued is that this is illogical.
You are assuming that I start with an answer.
At my school a few years back 2 professors claimed they produced cold fusion in a jar of water. That has never been reproduced. What do you think happened?
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/...

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372459
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Atomic_G wrote:
Dig dig dig, can you see China yet!
Dude, you reading far more into my posts than what I said.
Atomic_G wrote:
No it's not. Go back and read what you said, you seem to already have forgotten. That is my opinion, that the supernatural does not exist. You are still telling me my opinion is less worthy cause it does not agree with yours.
No, I have not once said your opinion was less worthy because it disagreed, I have said repeatedly that a hollow opinion (ie. a flat statement with nothing backing it) has no merit.
Atomic_G wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one that is obsessive, now you are projecting.
Where have I said anything about religion to you.
In every post.
Atomic_G wrote:
I posted all our comments to recent, it will make it easier for you to show me.
<quoted text>
Projecting, I was over conversation before it started. I never said any of that. All I know is that you believe in the supernatural, from this statement "Science doesn't deal in the supernatural". That is defending a belied system you have.
<quoted text>
I post all the post for you to read.
Stating that "science does not deal in the supernatural" doesn't mean that I must believe in the supernatural.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372460
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LEICA LOOK wrote:
<quoted text>Are you saying all personal experiences? Are you trying to say we can all be born again?')
Where did you get that?

I was assuming he was talking about the experiences that some believers attribute to spirituality. These experiences have been credited to a god, but they are a result of human physiology. When you can attribute things to a god out of ignorance, you can build a false inventory of evidence, and that's just insane. That's like saying, "I have presents under the Christmas tree, so Santa must have left them." It is far more likely, despite the lies, that the presents were not from Santa Claus. Parents lie to their children about Santa, and then about God, what are kids to think? Why must we deal with this insanity?

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372461
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Atomic_G wrote:
<quoted text>
I have misspoken and I am forgiving person. I was just hostile at you for continually repetitiveness of an error and also the fact that you continually tell me my opinion is meaningless and worth hear.
Sorry I came across that way, it isn't what I meant.
I thought your original statement was in response to something else I had said. I work swing shift and am currently trying to swing myself to nights for work tomorrow night, so sorry that I'm having problems keeping up with the conversation.
Atomic_G wrote:
Why is your opinion there is a supernatural more valid then mine that that there is not?
I didn't say it was, nor did I say my opinion was that there was a supernatural. My issue, and I run into this in conversations alot, is that some one will try to refute something with a hollow statement. That was all I was addressing.
Atomic_G wrote:
You are going have explain why my opinion is less valid when you also have nothing to support it except personal experience, where my person experience supports me in my opinion.
And all I can do is keep explaining that I haven't said that your opinion is less valid. All I meant was that a hollow, unbacked opinion is meaningless. I have never once said that there is a supernatural. I haven't submitted my beliefs at all, nor have I claimed that anything does or doesn't exist. All I have addressed is the demand for evidence.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372462
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
To say something is proven true is to say that it is an absolute truth and beyond question. There may always be information we do not currently have access to that will disprove or at the very least change our theories, so nothing in science can be an absolute truth, and therefore cannot be proven true.
In other words, there could always be other variables that we are not accounting for in our models because we have not discovered them yet.
The issue regarding quasi-crystals is a good example.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
Another is how the largely accepted "plum pudding" model of atoms was dis-proven.
I wish I could find it, but berkley university has an excellent article on the matter. This one doesn't seem to be too bad, but I haven't read the whole thing.
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/~korpela/astro...
I wouldn't go bucking your professor on the matter, though. Regardless of whether he is right or wrong, he controls your grade.
Thank you for the links and info and I won't buck him but I just printed out your response and I'm going to see what he says. I need to get some winks. Early class tomorrow. Thanks again.

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372463
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution certainly fits the definition of "scientific fact".
Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
That is scientific fact.
Being precisely defined does not make something fact.

“Faith means not wanting to ”

Since: Nov 10

know what is true.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372464
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, you reading far more into my posts than what I said.
No, your projection is showing.
The Bald Guy wrote:
No, I have not once said your opinion was less worthy because it disagreed, I have said repeatedly that a hollow opinion (ie. a flat statement with nothing backing it) has no merit.
You are saying it is hollow, that is pretty much saying it is hollow.
The Bald Guy wrote:
In every post.
Now who is reading to much into posts and it is just your "hollow" opinion.

Give me an example, should be easy for you to do. I don't accept you claim.
The Bald Guy wrote:
Stating that "science does not deal in the supernatural" doesn't mean that I must believe in the supernatural.
I can only go off what you post and you have not lead me to believe otherwise. So you don't believe that the supernatural exist?

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372465
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you get that?
I was assuming he was talking about the experiences that some believers attribute to spirituality. These experiences have been credited to a god, but they are a result of human physiology. When you can attribute things to a god out of ignorance, you can build a false inventory of evidence, and that's just insane. That's like saying, "I have presents under the Christmas tree, so Santa must have left them." It is far more likely, despite the lies, that the presents were not from Santa Claus. Parents lie to their children about Santa, and then about God, what are kids to think? Why must we deal with this insanity?
I was only making a small joke and that is why I put the wink emoticon ') there. So sorry I offended you. It seemed nice to see this forum with interesting discussion for a change and without all the arguing and endless talk about points and I promise you I meant no offense. I hate fighting. Bye=)

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372466
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Being precisely defined does not make something fact.
Correct, evolution being a fact is what gave rise to the precise definition.

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372467
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Anything you can attribute to a god, science can find the real cause of.
Maybe. Maybe not. The fact that we are still trying to advance scientific knowledge shows that there are still things we do not know or understand. To suggest that we are capable of comprehending anything and everything (and that is what science is: the Humans ability to comprehend) is really more of an opinion than a statement of fact.
Tide with Beach wrote:
If it's an attainable goal, science will eventually figure it out.
If you are suggesting that science can figure out anything, how could there be a distinction between attainable and unattainable goals?
Tide with Beach wrote:
If we can't find the answers, after looking for a long time, we don't just say goddidit.
I didn't suggest science did or should.
Tide with Beach wrote:
This is illogical. It is far better to be ignorant than wrong.
So we should stop trying to advance scientific knowledge for fear that we may get it wrong? Better to remain ignorant?
Tide with Beach wrote:
What are your religious beliefs? Did you divulge that information already?
No, I haven't and don't intend to. It's far too interesting to hear everyone trying to attribute religious beliefs to me to discredit me in the conversation rather than addressing what I actually say.

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372468
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution certainly fits the definition of "scientific fact".
Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
That is scientific fact.
I should also point out you are referring now to micro evolution rather than macro-evolution

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372469
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, evolution being a fact is what gave rise to the precise definition.
No, evolution being defined is what gave it a precise definition. Whether or not it is considered fact is another matter.

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372470
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LEICA LOOK wrote:
<quoted text>
At my school a few years back 2 professors claimed they produced cold fusion in a jar of water. That has never been reproduced. What do you think happened?
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/...
I'm not a physicist and really am not a chemist, though I work as a chemical analyst. I couldn't begin to guess what could have happened, assuming their claims were true.

“Faith means not wanting to ”

Since: Nov 10

know what is true.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372471
Oct 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry I came across that way, it isn't what I meant.
I thought your original statement was in response to something else I had said. I work swing shift and am currently trying to swing myself to nights for work tomorrow night, so sorry that I'm having problems keeping up with the conversation.
No worries, all friends in the end.
The Bald Guy wrote:
I didn't say it was, nor did I say my opinion was that there was a supernatural. My issue, and I run into this in conversations alot, is that some one will try to refute something with a hollow statement. That was all I was addressing.
Again it is not hollow, it is from my personal experience and science agree., which theist seem to use their experience all the time. I don't seem you going after any theist putting forward their opinion.
The Bald Guy wrote:
And all I can do is keep explaining that I haven't said that your opinion is less valid. All I meant was that a hollow, unbacked opinion is meaningless.
It is backed by my experience and there is nothing prove it otherwise.
The Bald Guy wrote:
I have never once said that there is a supernatural.
What else am I meant to believe, you have given me anything else to on
The Bald Guy wrote:
I haven't submitted my beliefs at all
I know, you are ambiguous. You obviously know my stance, what is yours?
The Bald Guy wrote:
nor have I claimed that anything does or doesn't exist. All I have addressed is the demand for evidence.
I have not demanded evidence. Go back over the original conversation, he asked us to 'prove there's not a god', we asked him to 'prove there's no leprechauns' and then he compared god to tv "No. I can't see TV waves in the air but I see the result on TV so I believe in them", followed by you interjecting. So I actually was not demanding anything, from them, you or anyone else. I was making a point and it had nothing to do with you.

So whatever it is, is directed at the wrong person.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min marge 537,109
Dubai massage Body To Body full service 0559... (Feb '14) 13 min Dubai Massage 055... 92
Female Doctor + Male Patient = Erection (Apr '12) 15 min mahipal 95
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 18 min andet1987 4,253
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 20 min -Web 259,308
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 20 min UidiotRaceMAkeWor... 172,949
Last Word + 2 25 min andet1987 418
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 3 hr Tim Osman 117,803
Have any girls on here had sex with a dog??? (Feb '12) 9 hr andet1987 76

Search the Top Stories Forum:
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••