Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Worst disaster in U.S. History

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 101112
Author
Donald Blake View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2011
Location: Family Farm
Status: Offline
Points: 161
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Donald Blake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 7:07pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Science is the study of natural things. Science is not meant to - and has no applicable mechanics to - explain the super natural.
 
 

I disagree.  Science is a method for organizing and understanding experiential data.  Anything that can be perceived can be studied by science.  All we need is input.  If ghosts can be seen, smelled, or detected with a trichorder, then they can be studied by science.  The same goes for holy ghosts.
 
Science doesn't care if something is designated as "super-natural," nor is science inherently materialistic, whatever that means.  If it can be observed it can be measured, and if it can be measured it can be studied. 
 
God, at least the Christian god, can be experienced by humans - that's kind of the whole point.  And because god can be experienced by humans, god can be studied by science.
 
Now, as a practical matter, many scientists disregard the "supernatural" - I agree with FE on that point - but they do so incorrectly.  "Supernatural," as far as I am concerned, is not a meaningful label, at least from a scientific point of view.  The issue is whether it can be observed.
Back to Top
Donald Blake View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2011
Location: Family Farm
Status: Offline
Points: 161
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Donald Blake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 7:16pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

The laws of science don't allow for things to just "poof" exist. Matter comes from matter, life from life.
 
No matter how many years you give matter, it won't just come to life on its own. Something has to happen to create life according to science.
 
These are not correct statements about the current scientific consensus.
 
  
Originally posted by FE FE wrote:

I think DNA will show us a ton of things we never considered. It already has shown us that all of humanity started with Eve... which matches with the Biblical account (except for the timing).
 
 
Yep - mitochondrial DNA is pretty cool stuff.  But, of course, there were many Eves.  Many, many Eves.  Eve's mother was also an "Eve," as was her mother, and her mother, and so forth.  All ancestors of a common ancestor are also common ancestors. 
 
And, of course of course, that mitochondrial DNA analysis that you appear to accept is the very selfsame mitochondrial DNA analysis that provides robust evidence for many other sub-tenets of evolutionary theory.  Like I said, mitochondrial DNA is pretty cool stuff.
 
Back to Top
Donald Blake View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2011
Location: Family Farm
Status: Offline
Points: 161
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Donald Blake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 7:24pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

I know of tons of people who have been healed, seen miraculous things, witnessed firsthand miracles that science could not describe, had NDE where they went to heaven. Just because people choose to ignore those many signs and examples doesn't mean they don't exist.
 
Dude.  Seriously. 
 
1.  Miracle healings "happen" all over the world, and are always claimed by the local religion.  Unless you are ready to go full Unitarian and claim that Shiva, Yahweh, and Odin are the same (and it therefore doesn't matter which god you pray to), you don't get to claim faith healing as proof for your arbitrarily chosen religion.
 
2.  People see the face of the Virgin Mary in grilled cheese sandwitches.  Science can't explain that miracle either, any more than they can explain why aliens have a bizarre fetish for the colons of trailer trash.
 
3.  Everything is a miracle until you can explain it.  Except for unexplainable things that are the work of Satan, that is.  How exactly you know whether an unexplainable thing is a miracle or the work of the devil (or just something we haven't figured out yet) is beyond me.
 
 
Back to Top
Donald Blake View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2011
Location: Family Farm
Status: Offline
Points: 161
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Donald Blake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 7:37pm
Last post for a while, I promise...  sorry about the multipasspost.
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

 
Of course if there is a God, then there is a devil, and the goal of the devil is to deceive.
 
Really? 
 
Premise:  God exists.
Conclusion 1: There is a devil.
Conclusion 2: The goal of the devil is to deceive.
 
I'm sorry, but that is not a valid argument.
 
 
Originally posted by FE FE wrote:

... using science (the STUDY of God) [the devil] has been able to manipulate many into beliefs that contradict the entire goal of the study of science (instead of focusing on God, many scientists now focus on man made ideas that eliminate God, hence most "science professors" are now athiests...
 
Ok.  There is clearly a fundamental misunderstanding of science here.  Let's try an example.  Assuming that the bible is fully correct, god exists, etc.
 
Question:  What makes a car go forward?
 
Sample religious answer:  God.
 
Sample scientific answer:  The engine.
 
Note - both answers are correct, and neither contradicts the other.  No religious person would be offended by the scientific answer.  Some scientists might roll their eyes at the religious answer, but mainly because it doesn't provide much useful information.
 
Then the follow-up:
 
Question: What makes the engine turn?
Sample religious answer: God.
Sample scientific answer: The pistons travel up and down inside the engine block, driving the crank shaft.
 
Again, both answers are correct and not contradictory.  We could of course keep going down this path ad infinitum.  "God did it" is ALWAYS a correct answer in a christian environment - it just isn't a very informative answer.
 
The problem here is that the two answers are actually answering two different questions that just sound the same.  The religious answer is actually the answer to "what is the ultimate cause of X?"  The scientific answer is the answer to "what is the immediate cause of X?"  The religious answer provides the "why" and the scientific answer provides the "how."
 
Scientists generally aren't out to get rid of god - god just isn't a very useful answer when you are trying to figure out "how." 
 
 
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 8:16pm
Originally posted by Donald Blake Donald Blake wrote:

Ok.  There is clearly a fundamental misunderstanding of science here.  Let's try an example.  Assuming that the bible is fully correct, god exists, etc.
 
Question:  What makes a car go forward?
 
Sample religious answer:  God.
 
Sample scientific answer:  The engine.
 
Note - both answers are correct, and neither contradicts the other.  No religious person would be offended by the scientific answer.  Some scientists might roll their eyes at the religious answer, but mainly because it doesn't provide much useful information.
 
And therein lies my biggest issue with combining religion and science.
 
While alot of the right may look at science as some mysterious evil master program, science is, in the end, funded by someone for a purpose.
 
So if we're studying the age of the earth in order to predict geological patterns, it does us absolutely zero to good to throw out there that God "created an earth that looked old but wasn't". These kind of answers are pointless, and if the answer to everything is God, then the questions are not worth the funding they receive.
 
Take creation for example. The Bible does not bother with the intricate details for Creation. To simply say that God created the world and that is enough denies the complexity of His creation. It's an insult to God. If a master creator took the time to create the intricate details of his creation, from the smallest molecule to the largest tree, I doubt it was his intention that we ignore those details. To pretend that the Bible is an accurate account of science is foolish because it never claims to be.
 
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 9:24pm
Originally posted by Donald Blake Donald Blake wrote:


I disagree.


A duel!

Quote Science is a method for organizing and understanding experiential data.  Anything that can be perceived can be studied by science.  All we need is input.


We are essentially saying the same thing using different terminology. Anything that can be perceived and measured is, by basis of naturalism, within the natural world. Therefore I don't believe what I said is incorrect.

Quote If ghosts can be seen, smelled, or detected with a trichorder, then they can be studied by science.


Yes, but once a ghost becomes measurable within the natural world, they are therefore a part of the natural world.

Nothing within the modern science world has pointed to the existence of measurable ghosts as of yet, however. That's why I didn't say such a thing will never be measured or have the ability for study, it just doesn't right now. It is not a part of the natural world.
 
Quote Science doesn't care if something is designated as "super-natural,"


I would venture this to be incorrect based on your own previous statement, but honestly we're crossing streams of definition. If something is "super-natural" then it is not able to be measured, observed, and studied.

The classification of "natural" is rather important here.

Quote If it can be observed it can be measured, and if it can be measured it can be studied.


And by definition the super-natural cannot be measured. And because it cannot be measured it cannot be observed. And because it cannot be observed, it cannot be studied.

If a ghost appears and is able to be studied, it's no longer super-natural. It is now a part of the natural world.
 
Quote God, at least the Christian god, can be experienced by humans - that's kind of the whole point.


Neurological impulses acting at the result of chemical reactors can be experienced. Nothing science has offered as of yet can point to that reaction as the experience of "God."

Quote And because god can be experienced by humans, god can be studied by science.


Above-stated reactions can be studied. Cultural implications of belief in God can be studied. Anthropological implications of belief in God can be studied. Psychological reactions to the belief in God can be studied.

God, though, cannot be studied.
 
Quote Now, as a practical matter, many scientists disregard the "supernatural" - I agree with FE on that point - but they do so incorrectly.


Citations?

I've seen many a study where the data is completely inconclusive, and such inconclusiveness is stated. I've seen many a discussion where nothing can be attributed to any causal effect. I've never seen a study where the super-natural - something that by nature cannot be observed or measured in any way - is disregarded, because disregarding requires regarding to start with.

"Nothing in this study or other studies can be attributed or controlled for to achieve X" is not the same as "We're not counting out the possibility that a ghost did X."

Quote "Supernatural," as far as I am concerned, is not a meaningful label, at least from a scientific point of view.  The issue is whether it can be observed.


I believe this is case in point of us speaking the same language in different dialects.


Edited by agentwhale007 - 14 July 2011 at 9:25pm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
Donald Blake View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2011
Location: Family Farm
Status: Offline
Points: 161
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Donald Blake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2011 at 1:36am
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

A duel!
Hmm...  for weapons, I choose ... ... ...


Originally posted by Whale Whale wrote:


We are essentially saying the same thing using different terminology. Anything that can be perceived and measured is, by basis of naturalism, within the natural world. Therefore I don't believe what I said is incorrect.

Indeed.  I was not really disagreeing with your definition of science so much as with your usage of "supernatural."  I think that is a silly term.  I also don't necessarily agree with your usage of "natural world" above, for that same reason - it reinforces/validates the idea of "supernatural," which is an inherently meaningless concept.
 
Basically, I think "supernatural" is a silly word that we should stop using.

[/duel] 

Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2011 at 9:00am
Originally posted by Donald Blake Donald Blake wrote:

 
Basically, I think "supernatural" is a silly word that we should stop using.

Is your issue with the word what it means, or the word itself? 

By that I mean, is your issue with the term "supernatural" in that it implies that there are no measurable outputs of something yet it should be considered a valid consideration? 


"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
Donald Blake View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2011
Location: Family Farm
Status: Offline
Points: 161
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Donald Blake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2011 at 12:13pm
My problem is with the concept - the distinction between natural and supernatural.  I can't figure out what it means.
 
Supernatural is typically used to describe things we can't explain, which also makes it circular.
 
Why can't we figure out ghosts?  Because they aren't subject to the normal laws of physics.
Why aren't they subject to the normal laws of physics?  Because they are supernatural.
How do we know they are supernatural?  Because we can't figure them out.
 
Supernatural has no substantive meaning.  Everything that exists is natural - or, to be more specific, everything that exists, exists.  Natural, unnatural, supernatural - doesn't matter what label you stick to it.  It is either there or it isn't.
 
... which leads to my problem with this: 
 
Originally posted by Whale Whale wrote:

... it implies that there are no measurable outputs of something yet it should be considered a valid consideration...
 
If there is something that has no measurable outputs, then it doesn't exist.


Edited by Donald Blake - 15 July 2011 at 12:15pm
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2011 at 1:08pm
Originally posted by Donald Blake Donald Blake wrote:

If there is something that has no measurable outputs, then it doesn't exist.


I follow now.

I agree with you, in a round-about way. If something is super-natural, it's simply not "real," in the sense of it being something that can be measured. I'd use the word "tangible" there but it's also probably too broad, considering work in string.

I can see where the term super-natural can be irksome, and to that extent I agree. I was more-or-less using the term because the argument was presented that science has a bias because it doesn't consider the super-natural, to which the answer is well, that's the point. There is nothing to consider.
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
procarbinefreak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Budget Medical Procedures Available

Joined: 12 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 12752
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote procarbinefreak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2011 at 1:27pm
only way to solve this is to go on a forum ghost hunt.
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 July 2011 at 1:43pm
Patrick's ghost would be fun to hang with.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 July 2011 at 11:45am
Further proof that Abortion is by far the worst disaster in US history.
 
 
 
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 July 2011 at 12:31pm
Tobacco kills more people.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 July 2011 at 12:46pm
Originally posted by High Voltage High Voltage wrote:

Tobacco kills more people.
 
wrong... Not even close.
 
440,000 (people die prematurely from tobacco use per year according to the cdc)
 
1,210,000 are aborted every year according to guttmacher.
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 July 2011 at 12:53pm
Hate to play semantics here, show me where I said per year?
Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 July 2011 at 1:45pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Originally posted by High Voltage High Voltage wrote:

Tobacco kills more people.


 

wrong... Not even close.

 

440,000 ( AMERICANSdie prematurely from tobacco use per year according to the cdc)

 

1,210,000 are aborted every year WORLDWIDEaccording to guttmacher.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 July 2011 at 1:51pm
Wrong again.
 
Both figures were US figures only...
 
 
and of course abortionists don't want all of the abortion figures to be out there, as it is clearly an epidemic based on sheer volume of death.
 
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 July 2011 at 2:10pm
in b4 not a person.
Back to Top
Donald Blake View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2011
Location: Family Farm
Status: Offline
Points: 161
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Donald Blake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 July 2011 at 2:58pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Wrong again.
 
Both figures were US figures only...
 
 
and of course abortionists don't want all of the abortion figures to be out there, as it is clearly an epidemic based on sheer volume of death.
 


Hmm...  I think you are missing the bigger picture here, FE.  If you think abortions are such a horrible disaster, then you must be absolutely beside yourself with grief for the far greater number of miscarriages that happen.  By some estimates, as many as 40% of all US pregnancies end in miscarriage.

Miscarriages are therefore a bigger disaster than abortion.  I think you are focusing your efforts on the wrong disaster here, FE. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 101112
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.