The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Lethargic Aptitude · Jul 24, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

JP Cusick said:
=============================================

Nothing like that was done in this thread, unless you view dishonest sarcasm as being "applied logic" which it is not.

I agree that the childish kind of creationism of a literal 6 days and 6,000 years is foolish, but the Bible is far more pertinent then are those who claim to represent the Bible.

As said before - the "Big Bang" is direct scientific PROOF of a real creation day and that really is applied logic included.

My point wasnt this thread. The applied logic was actually in the Onion spoof. Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a god. There are variances in the details but, thats the main theme. To believers of creationism their bias blinds them to the absurdity of that claim. The spoof brought that absurdity to light using the logic that the concept is absurd. When you apply the same logic to creationism its just as absurd.

The Big Bang theory doesnt prove creationism at all (or that there was a creation day considering that there wasnt any such thing as a day then).

I have often wondered though why creationists turn their noses up at the Big Bang Theory, and came to the conclusion that it is because you cant quantify faith. And claiming that the big bang is proof of their gods creation would mean that they are attempting to quantify their faith. ANd if on top of that they are Christian then they are going against the New testament if they need proof to have faith.

Baralis · Jul 24, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

zgoldsmith23 said:
No, it doesn't. If I want to do that experiment, the data *should* match up. And, just like my experiments, vice versa if someone wants to do them. It takes no faith for me. I know EXACTLY what they went through to get that data published, to get that theory established, to refute the counter claim. Reading the literature is nothing more than reading the experiment. The data are presented. To re-conduct that experiment would simply be an exercise in redundancy - that's why you usually see the 'n = x' noted in the papers.

This is a weak attempt at equivocation. 'Scientific belief' (is that even a real thing?) vs. 'religious belief' is still not the same. The two, when compared, are absurd. Evidence is presented that backs up the science. The Bible is the claim and then is used as the evidence in a fallacious manner.

Why can't beliefs be ridiculed? That reminds me of a great quote from Patton Oswalt: "'You’ve gotta respect everyone’s beliefs.' No, you don’t. That’s what gets us in trouble. Look, you have to acknowledge everyone’s beliefs, and then you have to reserve the right to go: 'That is ******* stupid. Are you kidding me?' I acknowledge that you believe that, that’s great, but I’m not going to respect it. I have an uncle that believes he saw Sasquatch. We do not believe him, nor do we respect him!" I acknowledge that you believe that - I just choose to openly mock it.

Again I believe I am being misunderstood.

Of the hundreds of millions of people that believe in lets say evolution, how many of those people have first hand testing of theory vs those that simply read about it or hear about it? Now all those persons that have never tested the theory themselves are basing what they believe to be true on second hand information. They assume that the information is correct and base their belief on that information. Same thing applies to religion, people hear second hand information and chose what to believe without ever demanding personal analysis. So yes I would say their is such a thing as "scientific belief" in those that take things at face value and assume that it is true. It takes a little "faith" in that what is being presented is true and accurate.

Look I am not a religious person as I believe persons in this thread have mistakingly assumed but I do believe that while science tries to find the answer to everything I feel that it is very likely that we are as much wrong about many things as we have right. Humans are just to limited in our intellectual capacity. I imagine that if an alien species that were a thousand times more intelligent were to observe us they would probably just shake their heads at our ignorance. We can only accomplish what we can within our limitations. I am glad that we try and I fully support scientific study but I feel that a certain percentage of people treat science as gospel and portray it, at least in my eyes, as absolute fact in some very arguable fields. They can be as close minded to other possibilities as their religious counterparts.

I will give you an example of this. Twenty five or so years ago I was reading a magazine and the article was about life on other planets and galaxies. The general consensus among scientists was that it all relied on the availability of some form of water. I thought to myself why are they basing the possibility on life almost exclusively on the availability of water? It only made sense to me that environments where water never existed would evolve life that relied on something else, something readily available to the process. However it seemed most of the scientific community were stuck on the notion that "life" had to be very similar only to what they have observed here. Other possibilities just seemed to be to outlandish to them. They were in my opinion to close minded. As you probably know the scientific community has opened up in recent decades to the idea that perhaps water isn't the "break all" for potential extraterrestrial life forms.

Look, I chose to respect everyones point of view even if I think they are wrong. That does not mean we should not question their views, only respect them. I am sad to see that you chose not to. I am sure that not everything you believe is correct, just as with the rest of us, so by your own point of view you should not be respected? That does not seem to be a very constructive way to look at things. :shrug:

Paxaeon · Jul 24, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

`

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true.

`
`
Consider if you will, this page taken out of a science text book (below) for those being home schooled. Then ask yourself why do you waste your time arguing with such people?
`
`

mbig · Jul 24, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

Baralis said:
Again I believe I am being misunderstood.

Of the hundreds of millions of people that believe in lets say evolution, how many of those people have first hand testing of theory vs those that simply read about it or hear about it? Now all those persons that have never tested the theory themselves are basing what they believe to be true on second hand information. They assume that the information is correct and base their belief on that information. Same thing applies to religion, people hear second hand information and chose what to believe without ever demanding personal analysis. So yes I would say their is such a thing as "scientific belief" in those that take things at face value and assume that it is true. It takes a little "faith" in that what is being presented is true and accurate.

Look I am not a religious person as I believe persons in this thread have mistakingly assumed but I do believe that while science tries to find the answer to everything I feel that it is very likely that we are as much wrong about many things as we have right. Humans are just to limited in our intellectual capacity. I imagine that if an alien species that were a thousand times more intelligent were to observe us they would probably just shake their heads at our ignorance. We can only accomplish what we can within our limitations. I am glad that we try and I fully support scientific study but I feel that a certain percentage of people treat science as gospel and portray it, at least in my eyes, as absolute fact in some very arguable fields. They can be as close minded to other possibilities as their religious counterparts.

I will give you an example of this. Twenty five or so years ago I was reading a magazine and the article was about life on other planets and galaxies. ...

And it remains one of the most OBTUSE arguments I've ever seen.

According to you, since there are, say, No more Veterans of the Civil War, (and even the Majority who were alive at the time didn't participate) it's just a theory it happened and you/they are just as entitled to "believe in it" as not.
How many people have seen the outer planets? Are they gullible for "believing in them" without personally checking up on Neptune?
And So much other human Knowledge...

Similarly for evolution, we have Fossils, Millions of them that can be assembled by age/strata/geology/Isotopic dating, DNA Regression, etc. Thousands/Tens of thousands of Scientists have participated in verifying the Theory and Fact of evolution.

To expect Every person, or most people, to be experienced in all pursuits before they believe something, is Ridiculous and a barrier UNIQUELY put up for THIS science by Creationist Clowns or people IGNORANT-beyond-Belief.
Take your pick.

From my last: UNanswered s well;

...They also FALLACIOUSLY suggest that since we all Personally haven't dug up Fossils, Tested DNA, Done Isotopic Dating, etc, that somehow all these sciences/scientists are just part of a vast conspiracy, great Coincidence, and ergo dubious.
Dishonest/Obtuse BS attempt.

Is Cusick's Evidence for Christ's Resurrection (and so much other MYTH), better or worse than that for Evolution?
The observable/tangible evidence for His belief is NON-existant, unlike that of scienceS for evolution. (and unlike evolution, NT Divinity is NOT verified by any credible independent source)
He also Dishonestly and Transparently tries to Twist science into a 'religion', but of course Only that Part of science that contradicts His BaseLess indoctrinated beliefs.
Evolution has been re-enforced by every New science that's emerged for 150 years when any One of them could have refuted it

Baralis · Jul 24, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

mbig said:
And it remains one of the most OBTUSE arguments I've ever seen.

According to you, since there are, say, No more Veterans of the Civil War, it's just a theory it happened and you are just as entitled to "believe in it" as not.
How many people have seen the outer planets? Are they gullible for "believing in them" without personally checking up on Neptune?
And So much other human Knowledge...

Similarly for evolution, we have Fossils, Millions of them that can be assembled by age/strata/geology/Isotopic dating, DNA Regression, etc.

To expect Every person, or most people, to be experienced in all pursuits before they believe something is Ridiculous and a barrier UNIQUELY put up for THIS science by Creationist Clowns or people IGNORANT-beyond-Belief.
Take your pick.

From my last: UNanswered s well;

No conspiracy here, we do our best with what we are given. However I am open to the possibility that we are more wrong than right and take all scientific theory with a grain of salt. I feel to many treat science (particularly theories) as proof when no absolute proof is evident. Some in the scientific community treat them as a infallible ideas. I consider these people narrow minded and feel they need to broaden their minds to other possibilities and at least consider that it is possible that we are wrong about some things. Believing that something is likely is very different then being absolutely convinced their are no other possibilities.

csbrown28 · Jul 24, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

Baralis said:
No conspiracy here, we do our best with what we are given. However I am open to the possibility that we are more wrong than right and take all scientific theory with a grain of salt. I feel to many treat science (particularly theories) as proof when no absolute proof is evident. Some in the scientific community treat them as a infallible ideas. I consider these people narrow minded and feel they need to broaden their minds to other possibilities and at least consider that it is possible that we are wrong about some things. Believing that something is likely is very different then being absolutely convinced their are no other possibilities.

First, it's already been pointed out to you that theory has a different meaning in science than the way you are used to using it. So be honest and stop lying for Jesus.

Second, there is no such thing as "absolute proof". Though I find it so incredibly ironic that you would hold science to the standard of absolute proof, and god to a standard much, much, much, much, much,much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, lower.

Most of us that reject your claims are open to other possibilities. You and people that share your view are welcome to falsify the claims made in science.

Let me explain something...If I do an experiment and offer evidence that something is "true". It's not actually technically true, all I've done is uphold a result that hasn't yet been proven false. Thus everything that we know that we consider "true" can be more correctly be described as "provisionally true", that is, as I said true only until someone shows that it's false.

For example, you may know the story of the black swan, for hundreds of years in Europe, no one had ever seen a black swan, thus to say that "all swans are white" was a true statement, but it was only provisionally true, because while no one had seen another color swan, it didn't mean that they didn't exist. However saying that black swans exist without evidence presents the problem of falsification. Unless someone offered evidence that could in fact be reasonably be refuted (like offering up a black feather and making the claim that it came from a black swan), then the claim would simply be neutral. This does not mean that all claims that don't have evidence must be discarded; it simply means that they should be reformulated in terms of valid evidentiary groundings. If that's not possible, the claims carry zero weight, though we understand that at some point in the future that could change.

So....

The idea that god does anything isn't true and it isn't false. It is neither and until you can come up with a test that can could be done to show that god is true, the claim is epistemologically neutral. It has no value and get's set off to the side until it can be shown to be provisionally true, or false.

Moving on....

When I get on a plane I obviously have faith that it will get me to my location safely, right? Is faith in the plane the same as faith that god created me?

No. Because there is clear evidence for the plane and it's ability to get me to where I'm going safely. There are millions of flights each year, and only a tiny fraction crash.

There are examples all over the world that science works. The CPU in the computer you're typing on. Billions of transistors crammed into a space smaller than your smallest fingernail. I could go on, and on about all the advances that science has empirically produced.

Evolutionary theory has lead to advances in medicine, and unless you think it's just a series of lucky guesses, you have to admit that there is evidence if you don't shield your eyes or dilute yourself intellectually.

No, I don't have to do the experiments myself, I can look all around me and see, first hand that science works.

JP Cusick · Jul 24, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

csbrown28 said:
Quoting AE in regards to his religious beliefs is like quoting Better Crocker about her ideas about Quantum physics....

My point about the quote from ~ Albert Einstein ~ "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." has nothing to do with Albert Einstein being a person to be respected as I just give him as the author of his own quote and not that AE is the governing authority.

That saying is true and accurate NOT because Einstein said it - no - it is accurate and true regardless of whoever says it.

If you were truly paying attention to this thread then that point is made by the person "Baralis" in posting #10, see it here =

csbrown28 said:
The Moment the universe began with a physics that we recognize (i.e. the Big bang") is nothing more than the moment that a specific set of circumstances aligned at the correct moment to produce the result. Just like lightning, volcano's and super nova.

That is what I said = the "Big Bang" is real scientific proof of the Creation Day.

Or call it as Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

The semantics really does not matter when one wants the truth, in that it can be called "the Big Expansion" or the time when the entire universe began, a birth date, because the point remains the same that there was a BEGINNING.

csbrown28 said:
Enough to do what?

Schools teach evolution as a theory to explain how creatures change and adapt over time. As kids get older, they are taught how evidence is gathered and examined.

Having an understanding of evolution is not enough to understand what is really going on.

I concede though that to just understand evolution is certainly ENOUGH to be brainwashed into the scientific religion of a meaningless life.

csbrown28 · Jul 24, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

JP Cusick said:
My point about the quote from ~ Albert Einstein ~ "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." has nothing to do with Albert Einstein being a person to be respected as I just give him as the author of his own quote and not that AE is the governing authority.

That saying is true and accurate NOT because Einstein said it - no - it is accurate and true regardless of whoever says it.

Fair enough...

JP Cusick said:
That is what I said = the "Big Bang" is real scientific proof of the Creation Day.

I disagree. The universe existed prior to the day of expansion, it just existed in another form. No one says there was absolutely nothing and BAM! Universe. Science speculates that there was a singularity where all time space and matter would ultimately come from.

JP Cusick said:
Or call it as Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Creating a story that fits the facts, does not make the story true.

JP Cusick said:
The semantics really does not matter when one wants the truth, in that it can be called "the Big Expansion" or the time when the entire universe began, a birth date, because the point remains the same that there was a BEGINNING.

There was a point at which there was a state change and the only thing that changed was the laws that govern the the new state of the universe, changed.

JP Cusick said:
Having an understanding of evolution is not enough to understand what is really going on.

Agreed, understanding evolution tells me nothing about economics, physics, morality, thermodynamics....This statement is so obvious as to be meaningless.

JP Cusick said:
I concede though that to just understand evolution is certainly ENOUGH to be brainwashed into the scientific religion of a meaningless life.

Please define religion in the context of this sentence.

Please tell me why my life can't have meaning if, I presume, I don't share your belief about god.

-Cheers

Zinthaniel · Jul 24, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

csbrown28 said:
For example, you may know the story of the black swan, for hundreds of years in Europe, no one had ever seen a black swan, thus to say that "all swans are white" was a true statement, but it was only provisionally true, because while no one had seen another color swan, it didn't mean that they didn't exist. However saying that black swans exist without evidence presents the problem of falsification. Unless someone offered evidence that could in fact be reasonably be refuted (like offering up a black feather and making the claim that it came from a black swan), then the claim would simply be neutral. This does not mean that all claims that don't have evidence must be discarded; it simply means that they should be reformulated in terms of valid evidentiary groundings. If that's not possible, the claims carry zero weight, though we understand that at some point in the future that could change.

Off topic but I want to know. Wouldn't a reasonable refutation to the claim that all swans are white be that since we can observe color variation in all other creatures, that it is more plausible that swans must have some form of color variation as well.

JP Cusick · Jul 24, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

csbrown28 said:
Fair enough...

Wow - being magnanimous - it surprised me.

You have my compliment here.

csbrown28 said:
I disagree. The universe existed prior to the day of expansion, it just existed in another form. No one says there was absolutely nothing and BAM! Universe. Science speculates that there was a singularity where all time space and matter would ultimately come from.

I know the science very well as it fascinates me, and a "SINGULARITY" is really just another name for a God.

Just like "NATURE" is another name for the God.

As science declares that "singularity" was so powerful and yet so small that it existed without existing because in that singularity there was no space no time no walls no boundaries and yet it suddenly became everything.

csbrown28 said:
Creating a story that fits the facts, does not make the story true.

That is just not the way that it happened.

First came the story THEN later came the facts.

First came the story = Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." then later came the fact of the "Big Bang".

Those "facts" give credibility to the story, and so the "Big Bang" is scientific proof of a Creation Day.

csbrown28 said:
Please define religion in the context of this sentence.

The context of a "scientific religion" means science acting like or replacing the known perception of a God.

In that science shall either create or endorse their own doctrines of right from wrong (morality and ethics) based on their scientific reasoning, and by creating its own scientific alters (Cape Canaveral, Tranquility base, etc) and rituals (empirical evidence, a PhD, etc) and even their own scientific Saints (as like Newton, Hubble, etc).

Science might deny the same words (the semantics) but the meaning and the reality is just the same thing in a new package.

csbrown28 said:
Please tell me why my life can't have meaning if, I presume, I don't share your belief about god.

I hate to use semantics but it depends on the meaning of the words - "to have meaning", so a drunken bum laying in a gutter has meaning to their life, and every person has some meaning to every life, so clearly we are here referring to some far greater meaning to life then our brute existence.

From that point my answer goes like this = Knowing (not belief but knowing) about God is simply a gigantic reality with fantastic applications which is by far the most challenging and indeed the most fun thing that exist in this puny life time.

Of course some people will call that as my opinion or my restricted perspective or even as my dilution, and so they all miss out on the most real thing in this world and beyond.

What is the meaning of knowing the "Big Bang" - answer is that we want to know, and why study a Singularity - because we want to know, so the God gives us the answers to even bigger mysteries which we really want to know, as like why is humanity here? what really happened before the beginning? what is to happen in the future? and lots of other questions which science really wants to answer but comes up lacking.

Long ago I figured out this thing = If an alien space ship came to earth then the very first thing that every person on the planet earth would ask of the aliens would be this = Did you guy put Adam and Eve here? because in that one question all of our science would be thrown out.

csbrown28 said:
-Cheers

:2wave:

csbrown28 · Jul 24, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

Zinthaniel said:
Off topic but I want to know. Wouldn't a reasonable refutation to the claim that all swans are white be that since we can observe color variation in all other creatures, that it is more plausible that swans must have some form of color variation as well.

Dammit, I wrote three responses and erased them all....

I would say no....It is a refutation, but reasonable? Is it plausible that blue swans exist?

If a child asked you the question; is there a specie of blue swans? How would you answer? Would you say it's probable based on the fact that there is variation in the colors of birds that include blue? Is that really the best answer we could give a child? What if the child says, "Ok, but do you believe that blue swans exist?" How would you answer?

Now given the consequences of any answer you give (being virtually nil) it really doesn't matter how you answer the question. But, if an Genie appeared and he said if you get the following question right I will grant you one wish; "are there blue swans?", how would you answer now?

The point is, that the consequences have changed, given what we know about swans in the modern world, I suspect that you'd answer no, even though you may believe that it's possible given the evidence you've seen.

When judging claims made by religion there is what we know you can be (agnostic and gnostic) and what we believe (theist and atheist). You can mix either of the former with either of the latter....

I hope this is a satisfactory answer to your question.

beefheart · Jul 24, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

Teach the controversy!

LOL

csbrown28 · Jul 24, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

JP Cusick said:
Wow - being magnanimous - it surprised me.

You have my compliment here.

Thank you. I think you will find that I am a rare breed of person who doesn't frame his answer in terms that automatically agree with my opinions in order to sidestep answers that disagree with my current position.

JP Cusick said:
I know the science very well as it fascinates me, and a "SINGULARITY" is really just another name for a God.

Just like "NATURE" is another name for the God.

As science declares that "singularity" was so powerful and yet so small that it existed without existing because in that singularity there was no space no time no walls no boundaries and yet it suddenly became everything.

Honestly, there is nothing that you just said that I think is outside the boundaries of what is possible, so I would say that I am agnostic to these claims, but I suspect that your not talking about god in the deistic sense, but in a theistic sense and more specifically Christian theism. It's Christianity that I take issue with...

JP Cusick said:
That is just not the way that it happened.

First came the story THEN later came the facts.

First came the story = Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." then later came the fact of the "Big Bang".

Those "facts" give credibility to the story, and so the "Big Bang" is scientific proof of a Creation Day.

Let's just agree to disagree, hmmm?

JP Cusick said:
The context of a "scientific religion" means science acting like or replacing the known perception of a God.

So then the sun really revolves around the earth, is that where this is going?

JP Cusick said:
In that science shall either create or endorse their own doctrines of right from wrong (morality and ethics) based on their scientific reasoning, and by creating its own scientific alters (Cape Canaveral, Tranquility base, etc) and rituals (empirical evidence, a PhD, etc) and even their own scientific Saints (as like Newton, Hubble, etc).

Science might deny the same words (the semantics) but the meaning and the reality is just the same thing in a new package.

/stunned silence. (I want you to picture my jaw going slack and my mouth sliding slowly open as I read...

I can't touch that. There is just nothing I can say.

JP Cusick said:
I hate to use semantics but it depends on the meaning of the words - "to have meaning", so a drunken bum laying in a gutter has meaning to their life, and every person has some meaning to every life, so clearly we are here referring to some far greater meaning to life then our brute existence.

There is nothing brutish about my existence and my life has plenty of meaning. I'd argue that given my belief that this is it, all there will ever be, this life has much greater meaning to me, than it does to you. I mean how can you value you your existence if it's eternal and never ending. You're just waiting for this existence to end and another eternal existence to begin. Please don't lecture me about valuing ones existence.

JP Cusick said:
What is the meaning of knowing the "Big Bang" - answer is that we want to know, and why study a Singularity - because we want to know, so the God gives us the answers to even bigger mysteries which we really want to know, as like why is humanity here? what really happened before the beginning? what is to happen in the future? and lots of other questions which science really wants to answer but comes up lacking.

Classic god of the gaps. The problem is that your god will continue to shrink into ever smaller and smaller gaps in our knowledge.

JP Cusick said:
Long ago I figured out this thing = If an alien space ship came to earth then the very first thing that every person on the planet earth would ask of the aliens would be this = Did you guy put Adam and Eve here? because in that one question all of our science would be thrown out.:2wave:

Not me, I would ask them where they came from, how they got here, what their world was like. How they solved the problem of light based travel...Matter of fact, pretty sure that Adam and Eve wouldn't even be on my list of questions.....

JP, it's been fun, but the truth is we're both going to view each others positions as untenable. The claims your making are so far from what I consider reality I see little point in moving forward with this conversation. If you need to reply, knock yourself out, but don't be surprised if from their I agree to disagree....

-Cheers

Nilly · Jul 24, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

Baralis said:
No conspiracy here, we do our best with what we are given. However I am open to the possibility that we are more wrong than right and take all scientific theory with a grain of salt. I feel to many treat science (particularly theories) as proof when no absolute proof is evident. Some in the scientific community treat them as a infallible ideas. I consider these people narrow minded and feel they need to broaden their minds to other possibilities and at least consider that it is possible that we are wrong about some things. Believing that something is likely is very different then being absolutely convinced their are no other possibilities.

I'm curious, what exactly constitutes proof for you? Do you have to absolutely see it with your own eyes?

Scientific 'faith' as you so call it is based on evidence. If you turn the ignition of your car, you have faith it will turn on because that's what happened the last million times. If you step on solid ground, you have faith you won't fall through as you've stepped on ground so many times before. The difference between 'faith' with evidence and faith without it are like night and day. The 'faith' that we place in scientists is based on evidence. I am a physicist and have tested first hand for things like gravity or subatomic particles, however I don't have the time to develop expertise in other disciplines such as biochemistry so I take their findings 'on faith' as they adhere to the scientific method, something I also adhere to. That method has proven correct over and over and over again. That's what makes my faith different (and frankly, superior) to yours.

Gringo allstar · Jul 24, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

Paxaeon said:
`

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Christian Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

Give it a rest would ya, we all know you hate Christianity you don't have to prove it every single day! Try every other day it might have more effectiveness.
:lamo:screwy:yawn:

mbig · Jul 24, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

mbig said:
And it remains one of the most OBTUSE arguments I've ever seen.

According to you, since there are, say, No more Veterans of the Civil War, (and even the Majority who were alive at the time didn't participate) it's just a theory it happened and you/they are just as entitled to "believe in it" as not.

How many people have seen the outer planets? Are they gullible for "believing in them" without personally checking up on Neptune?
And So much other human Knowledge...

Similarly for evolution, we have Fossils, Millions of them that can be assembled by age/strata/geology/Isotopic dating, DNA Regression, etc. Thousands/Tens of thousands of Scientists have participated in verifying the Theory and Fact of evolution.

To expect Every person, or most people, to be experienced in all pursuits before they believe something, is Ridiculous and a barrier UNIQUELY put up for THIS science by Creationist Clowns or people IGNORANT-beyond-Belief.
Take your pick.

From my last: UNanswered s well;

Barailis said:
No conspiracy here, we do our best with what we are given. However I am open to the possibility that we are more wrong than right and take all scientific theory with a grain of salt. I feel to many treat science (particularly theories) as proof when no absolute proof is evident. Some in the scientific community treat them as a infallible ideas. I consider these people narrow minded and feel they need to broaden their minds to other possibilities and at least consider that it is possible that we are wrong about some things. Believing that something is likely is very different then being absolutely convinced their are no other possibilities.

Nilly said:
I'm curious, what exactly constitutes proof for you? Do you have to absolutely see it with your own eyes?

Scientific 'faith' as you so call it is based on evidence. If you turn the ignition of your car, you have faith it will turn on because that's what happened the last million times. If you step on solid ground, you have faith you won't fall through as you've stepped on ground so many times before. The difference between 'faith' with evidence and faith without it are like night and day. The 'faith' that we place in scientists is based on evidence. I am a physicist and have tested first hand for things like gravity or subatomic particles, however I don't have the time to develop expertise in other disciplines such as biochemistry so I take their findings 'on faith' as they adhere to the scientific method, something I also adhere to. That method has proven correct over and over and over again. That's what makes my faith different (and frankly, superior) to yours.

He didn't answer me, he's waiting for Softballs/less 100% destructions of his position.

Using his Logic one could, again, not only deny the Civil War took place, but the Vietnam war! as few have independently investigated/proved they happened.
Or, as also I mentioned, he could take Neptune's existence as dubious.

His posts, again, are the most OBTUSE and Disingenuous GARBAGE imaginable.
Nonsense speak.
Which is why he didn't/Couldn't answer me except to say "no conspiracy here" which is NO answer.

mbig · Jul 24, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

JP Cusick said:
My point about the quote from ~ Albert Einstein ~ "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." has nothing to do with Albert Einstein being a person to be respected as I just give him as the author of his own quote and not that AE is the governing authority.

That saying is true and accurate NOT because Einstein said it - no - it is accurate and true regardless of whoever says it.

csbrown28 said:
Fair enough...

Not really. You're kinda conceding a lie.
Like most Ideologue Creationists, he's Quote-Mining NON-representative positions of scientists.
Einstein did NOT believe in God, he thought it was a silly Juvenile concept, along with it's Bible.

Cusick goes on to Disingenuously compare/Quote-mine Genesis 1:1 to the Big Bang, but of course the rest of Clunky Genesis 1, Blows that little coincidence to smithereens..
and so it goes.

I may devote/start a separate string on Einstein's ACTUAL beliefs, as I did for Stephen Jay Gould
after Alert2ego Wildly MISrepresented his position by Quote-Mining him.
A quote that sounded like he didn't believe in evolution, when he 100% did.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...phen-jay-gould-evolution-fact-and-theory.html

Lying for Jesus remains the rule among the Devout here.

Which reminds me...
SOMEONE ALTERED My TITLE of This string and PREFACED it with "The Onion:" .. when that was NOT IN my Original post/Title line.
This was done Surreptitiously and Inquiries have NOT Yielded the CULPRIT.
Though I believe I know who it is.

csbrown28 · Jul 24, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

mbig said:
Not really. You're kinda conceding a lie.
Like most Ideologue Creationists, he's Quote-Mining NON-representative positions of scientists.
Einstein did NOT believe in God, he thought it was a silly Juvenile concept, along with it's Bible.

Cusick goes on to Disingenuously compare/Quote-mine Genesis 1:1 to the Big Bang, but of course the rest of Clunky Genesis 1, Blows that little coincidence to smitheereens..
and so it goes.

I may devote/start a separate string on Einstein's ACTUAL beliefs, as I did for Stephen Jay Gould
after Alert2ego Wildly MISrepresented his position by Quote-Mining him.
A quote that sounded like he didn't believe in evolution, when he 100% did.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...phen-jay-gould-evolution-fact-and-theory.html

Lying for Jesus remains the rule among the Devout here.

Which reminds me...
SOMEONE ALTERED My TITLE of This string and PREFACED it with "The Onion:" .. when that was NOT IN my Original post/Title line.
This was done Surreptitiously and Inquiries have NOT Yielded the CULPRIT.
Though I believe I know who it is.

It was a case of picking your battles...There are better skirmishes to be had. In the end he went down a path I'm just not willing to follow. His brand of belief is rejected by most Christians and once I realized his position, I realized he isn't the one I need to be worried about. He discredits himself. It's the mainstream Christians, the ones that believe in evolution and the big bang but don't know how to reconcile all of that with Noah's ark and Adam and Eve, those are the people I want to engage.

Paxaeon · Jul 25, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

Gringo allstar said:
Give it a rest would ya, we all know you hate Christianity you don't have to prove it every single day! Try every other day it might have more effectiveness.
:lamo:screwy:yawn:

`
The question is.......

`

Logicman · Jul 25, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

mbig said:
Lying for Jesus remains the rule among the Devout here.

If you knew the truth you wouldn't be a Christ-denier.

CLAX1911 · Jul 25, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

Paxaeon said:
`

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true.
`
`
Consider if you will, this page taken out of a science text book (below) for those being home schooled. Then ask yourself why do you waste your time arguing with such people?
`
`

wow, I can't believe they put such little thought into text books. True the exact properties of electricity are theoretical but extremely well tested.

It comes from the sun?! What? Who says that nonsense?

Perhaps it comes from a unicorn's ass.

rhinefire · Jul 25, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

Most of my falling down has seldom been attributed to intelligence.

JP Cusick · Jul 25, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

csbrown28 said:
Thank you. I think you will find that I am a rare breed of person who doesn't frame his answer in terms that automatically agree with my opinions in order to sidestep answers that disagree with my current position.

Again you get my compliment.

A better kind of rare breed.

csbrown28 said:
I suspect that your not talking about god in the deistic sense, but in a theistic sense and more specifically Christian theism. It's Christianity that I take issue with...

I too take issue with Christians and of Christianity as they are usually pigheaded stubborn, along with being outrageously and even ridiculously wrong and unrealistic.

But the same is not true about Jesus Christ or about the Gospel or the Bible as Christianity is so far away from the teachings of the scriptures that it is stunning that such perverted pack of lies can go on and on.

I too am a rare breed in that I only take what is true and accurate from the Bible and I disclaim all of the superstition and the fairy tales and the lies.

As is said - "Do not throw out the baby with the bath water" - so too do not throw out Jesus just because Christianity is a fraud.

csbrown28 said:
Let's just agree to disagree, hmmm?

That always troubles me when anyone says that line, because it takes two (2) to agree even if it is to disagree and I do not agree to disagree.

The real truth is that I do NOT agree to disagree as I declare that you are mistaken and your position is wrong so mine is a challenge to your claims and THAT is not agreeing to disagree.

FYI.

eace

csbrown28 said:
/stunned silence. (I want you to picture my jaw going slack and my mouth sliding slowly open as I read...

I can't touch that. There is just nothing I can say.

You asked me a question to explain my words of a "scientific religion" and that is the only reason that I responded that way as giving my answer to the question.

Not your fault - but to ask then thou shall receive.

csbrown28 said:
There is nothing brutish about my existence and my life has plenty of meaning. I'd argue that given my belief that this is it, all there will ever be, this life has much greater meaning to me, than it does to you. I mean how can you value you your existence if it's eternal and never ending. You're just waiting for this existence to end and another eternal existence to begin. Please don't lecture me about valuing ones existence.

It is fine if you are pleased with the meaning to your own life - but for me I want so much more.

In truth I find that my wanting more and my being unsatisfied is what gives me the biggest meaning to my life.

My objection with you is that you are including me in the group with the orthodox Christianity and I am far away from that breed or brood.

I am NOT waiting for this existence to end, and people going to Heaven or Hell is just nonsense, and my own faith is that we (or I) must actively work for justice and truth and righteousness in this world of here and now.

That - IMO - gives life more meaning and better meaning, and yet it can not be satisfied.

csbrown28 said:
Classic god of the gaps. The problem is that your god will continue to shrink into ever smaller and smaller gaps in our knowledge.

I find that to be true too, and yet you say it as if it is a degradation while I see it as a climax.

Humanity is slowly growing up so that eventually God becomes closer and less threatening until the reality merges us all together.

God shrinking smaller is a sign of humanity growing up, and eventually we will become face-to-face with our Maker.

csbrown28 said:
Not me, I would ask them where they came from, how they got here, what their world was like. How they solved the problem of light based travel...Matter of fact, pretty sure that Adam and Eve wouldn't even be on my list of questions.....

Again I think you took that too literally - semantic wise.

The question does not need to use the words "Adam and Eve" as if an alien spacecraft comes to earth then we would ask if they had planted life here millions of years ago? see HERE.

Crazy or not the Bible says some interesting stuff, as like Jesus said that He did not come from the earth, see John 8:23, and THAT is a strange thing to be said especially in the 1st century AD, and in the older part of the Bible it tells of a flaming chariot that flew like a whirlwind into the sky (the heavens) which sounds a lot like a rocket ship, see 2 Kings 2:11

csbrown28 said:
It was a case of picking your battles...There are better skirmishes to be had. In the end he went down a path I'm just not willing to follow. His brand of belief is rejected by most Christians and once I realized his position, I realized he isn't the one I need to be worried about. He discredits himself. It's the mainstream Christians, the ones that believe in evolution and the big bang but don't know how to reconcile all of that with Noah's ark and Adam and Eve, those are the people I want to engage.

I do not see why any quest for truth or accuracy would matter if most Christians would reject what I declare, as I see that as a badge of honor to myself.

In my view the reason for you or anyone to want to do battle with the mainstream Christians is because they are an easy target, as sure you can beat down a brainwashed nit-wit anytime, but there is no honor nor valor in doing that.

The Baron · Jul 25, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

mbig said:
"Intelligent Falling"... "Evangelical Physics".
No more far fetched than "ID" and other fertilizer regularly posted here by 7-Eleven Adventists and other literal 'believers'.

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
ISSUE 41•33
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

I know you posted this as a "shot" to Christians but the story is hilarious. I love The Onion!

JP Cusick · Jul 25, 2014

Re: The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Th

mbig said:
Einstein did NOT believe in God, he thought it was a silly Juvenile concept, along with it's Bible.

I may devote/start a separate string on Einstein's ACTUAL beliefs, as I did for Stephen Jay Gould

A quote that sounded like he didn't believe in evolution, when he 100% did.

What happened with Einstein is that when he spoke about God then Christianity jumped all over it as if Einstein was endorsing the Christian version of God and Einstein had to separate himself from any religion including his own Judaism.

What Einstein believed and described was a God based on the science and not on any religion, and that is the confusion.

There is no conflict in viewing evolution as the work of God (of a God) just as the "Big Bang" being a proof of the Creation Day, and Einstein saw that, but the scientific proof of God is NOT any proof or endorsement of any religion, and THAT is what Einstein could not separate.

Albert Einstein ~ "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

mbig said:
"The Onion:"

Calling it as "The Onion" inserted some truth into a deceptive and dishonest claim.

The Onion:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Lethargic Aptitude

Political Parties = Corruption

Baralis

Paxaeon

mbig

onomatopoeic

Baralis

csbrown28

JP Cusick

The Expert

csbrown28

Zinthaniel

JP Cusick

The Expert

csbrown28

beefheart

Ice Cream for Crow?

csbrown28

Nilly

stb

Gringo allstar

mbig

onomatopoeic

mbig

onomatopoeic

csbrown28

Paxaeon

Logicman

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all

rhinefire

JP Cusick

The Expert

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor

JP Cusick

The Expert